Does ANYONE believe Iran?

[LuvDuke]

From the Jimmy Carter Library...


The Hostage Crisis in Iran
On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act triggered the most profound crisis of the Carter presidency and began a personal ordeal for Jimmy Carter and the American people that lasted 444 days.

President Carter committed himself to the safe return of the hostages while protecting America's interests and prestige. He pursued a policy of restraint that put a higher value on the lives of the hostages than on American retaliatory power or protecting his own political future.

The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages with America's honor preserved.

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, began his reign in 1941, succeeding his father, Reza Khan, to the throne. In a 1953 power struggle with his prime minister, the Shah gained American support to prevent nationalization of Iran's oil industry. In return for assuring the U.S. a steady supply of oil, the Shah received economic and military aid from eight American presidents.

Early in the 1960s, the Shah announced social and economic reforms but refused to grant broad political freedom. Iranian nationalists condemned his U.S. supported regime and his "westernizing" of Iran. During rioting in 1963, the Shah cracked down, suppressing his opposition. Among those arrested and exiled was a popular religious nationalist and bitter foe of the United States, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Between 1963 and 1979, the Shah spent billions of oil dollars on military weapons. The real price of military strength was the loss of popular support. Unable to sustain economic progress and unwilling to expand democratic freedoms, the Shah's regime collapsed in revolution. On January 16, 1979, the Shah fled Iran, never to return.

The exiled Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran in February 1979 and whipped popular discontent into rabid anti-Americanism. When the Shah came to America for cancer treatment in October, the Ayatollah incited Iranian militants to attack the U.S. On November 4, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and its employees taken captive. The hostage crisis had begun.

Perfect timing for Jimmy. They were released the day Reagan took office.

I'm going to answer 2 posts here.

Waiting 444 days bought Jimmy Carter the lives of the hostages. Here's the difference between then and now. In 1979 the Revolutionary Guard was the government. That's isn't the case in 2007. Jimmy Carter didn't have as much wiggle room as the British government does now. Jimmy Carter was also faced with a group of people unlike any other entity.

Anyway, because of Jimmy Carter, the hostages came home safely. So we can thank Carter for that. However, Ronald Reagan also missed a golden opportunity. Once those hostages were home safe, there was nothing to stop Reagan from responding to the Iranians. As a matter of fact, Ronald Reagan probably had an easier political situation in the Middle East than we do today. He Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Anyway, IMO, Ronald Reagan should've lobbed a few missiles at the embassy in the heart of Tehran. The embassy was American territory and we should've destroyed it. But, the opportunity was lost.

 

[LuvDuke]

Oh, puhleeze! President Carter had every opportunity to get those people released...he didn't do it. He was a nice man, but he didn't have the stomach for the tough stuff.

Just the THREAT of President Reagan got those people out.

The result of weakness is hostages, bloodshed and death. The result of being strong is release of innocents, no fear of attack, no bloodshed.

IMO, President Bush needs to pick a side and stick with it. Either be tough and be done with all this or give up and let those guys do whatever they want. The in-between sucks.

Stop rewriting history. Jimmy Carter had no opportunities to get the hostages released. The only opportunity he had was to respond militarily and end up with dead hostages. He chose not to do it.

And before you start praising Ronald Reagan as being so tough on the Iranians, it was Ronald Reagan who sold Iran arms for the Iranians intecession with the hostage takers in Beirut. It was called "ARMS FOR HOSTAGES". Ronald Reagan also armed Saddam Hussein. Talk about picking a side and sticking with it. Ronald Reagan worked both sides of the street.

Do a little reading and base your opinions on what really happened rather than on what you think happened.

 

[LuvDuke]

President Reagan would have bombed the hell out of them and they knew it. They knew he meant business. That's why they released those people. There was NO DEAL for them to back out of. He DID NOT negotiate.

He most certainly did negotiate with the Iranians and sold them arms in return for their influence in Beirut.

Just because you believe otherwise doesn't make it so.

 

[LuvDuke]

They went to Iraq to help us and died there. That's enough for me.

And the hell we can't call Iran and tell them to let those people go NOW or we're coming for them. We have to go in there anyway at some point. Might as well be sooner than later.

I think England probably would thank us if we got their people released. But it doesn't matter who thanks us and who doesn't. Iran has been and continues to be a problem for us and we need to end it. Now is as good a time as any.

Those guys are so lucky I'm not the President.

So are we.

 

[What the Heck]

Stop rewriting history. Jimmy Carter had no opportunities to get the hostages released. The only opportunity he had was to respond militarily and end up with dead hostages. He chose not to do it.

And before you start praising Ronald Reagan as being so tough on the Iranians, it was Ronald Reagan who sold Iran arms for the Iranians intecession with the hostage takers in Beirut. It was called "ARMS FOR HOSTAGES". Ronald Reagan also armed Saddam Hussein. Talk about picking a side and sticking with it. Ronald Reagan worked both sides of the street.

Do a little reading and base your opinions on what really happened rather than on what you think happened.

Sorry LuvDuke, but your first paragraph is a rewrite. He did try to do it militarily, but he did it in a very inept way. Remember the helicopters going down in the desert?

What Carter tried to do was to have every military force present in the rescue. He could have called on Delta Force to do it, they were fully trained for just such a situation, he could have called on a Navy Seal unit to do it, they would have been ready by the time he gave the word go, or, as a fall back, he could have called on a Marine Recon unit to do it. Jimmy Carter didn't negotiate because it was a grand strategy, he negotiated because he didn't have any other choice, because, as a military commander, he couldn't defeat a paper bag.

 

[What the Heck]

Diplomacy does not kill.

Really? World War II could have been stopped, except a certain Neville Chamberlain was too busy using diplomacy. Besides the deaths of millions on the battlefield, his diplomacy handed over hundreds of thousands Czech Jews for death camps - but as long as we had peace in their time.

Diplomacy with Iraq would have meant hundreds of thousands would still have died, except instead of them being "innocent" terrorists, they would have been guilty people - guilty of never reaching their 14th birthday. At least according to the UN.

 

[LakeAriel]

Diplomacy with Iraq would have meant hundreds of thousands would still have died, except instead of them being "innocent" terrorists, they would have been guilty people - guilty of never reaching their 14th birthday. At least according to the UN.

I guess you mean the children who were dying as a result of our sanctions? We had a no fly zone and inspectors crawling all over the country. Who are you kidding?

 

[eclectics]

Really? World War II could have been stopped, except a certain Neville Chamberlain was too busy using diplomacy. Besides the deaths of millions on the battlefield, his diplomacy handed over hundreds of thousands Czech Jews for death camps - but as long as we had peace in their time.

Diplomacy with Iraq would have meant hundreds of thousands would still have died, except instead of them being "innocent" terrorists, they would have been guilty people - guilty of never reaching their 14th birthday. At least according to the UN.

Diplomacy is only as good as the person offering it. Chamberlain was a dolt and Hitler exploited that to his benefit, plus the fact that there was plenty of pro Nazi sympathies in Great Britain before the two countries declared war.

 

[LuvDuke]

Sorry LuvDuke, but your first paragraph is a rewrite. He did try to do it militarily, but he did it in a very inept way. Remember the helicopters going down in the desert?

What Carter tried to do was to have every military force present in the rescue. He could have called on Delta Force to do it, they were fully trained for just such a situation, he could have called on a Navy Seal unit to do it, they would have been ready by the time he gave the word go, or, as a fall back, he could have called on a Marine Recon unit to do it. Jimmy Carter didn't negotiate because it was a grand strategy, he negotiated because he didn't have any other choice, because, as a military commander, he couldn't defeat a paper bag.

I remember those helicopters very well. They were nowhere near Tehran or were a threat to the hostage takers. You've got a lot of "if's", but the facts are, the hostages came home safely because of Carter's tenacity. And Reagan sold the Iranians arms. Those are the facts.

 

[Charade]

I guess you mean the children who were dying as a result of our sanctions? We had a no fly zone and inspectors crawling all over the country. Who are you kidding?

SH had been given the "oil for food" program to help feed his country. He didn't. He helped his "friends", lined his pockets and built palaces. So STOP blaming the sanctions for his denying the people of Iraq basic needs such as food and medicine. *HE* starved his people.

 

[LakeAriel]

SH had been given the "oil for food" program to help feed his country. He didn't. He helped his "friends", lined his pockets and built palaces. So STOP blaming the sanctions for his denying the people of Iraq basic needs such as food and medicine. *HE* starved his people.

Do you mean the same palaces we have set up camp in? While we build the largest embassy ever in "occupied" Iraq? While the people of Iraq do without security, many without electricity and clean water? Those palaces?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article712424.ece


Just the first source I came up with, choose whichever you wish.
Yes, the sanctions killed tens of thousands of children. The money we gave in "oil for food" could not rebuild the infrastructure we had destroyed in 1991. Perhaps you forgot we bombed them back to Armageddon? Nor could it replace the hospitals, and necessary medicine required for illnesses never seen in Iraq because there was no sanitation after that bombardment..Oh, and the leukemia from the uranium enriched bombs we used. Can't treat cancer without hospitals and medicine, surely can't.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article712424.ece

 

[Charade]

*Still* she makes more excuses for SH actions. Unbelievable.

 

[LuvDuke]

SH had been given the "oil for food" program to help feed his country. He didn't. He helped his "friends", lined his pockets and built palaces. So STOP blaming the sanctions for his denying the people of Iraq basic needs such as food and medicine. *HE* starved his people.

And Ronald Reagan sold arms to the Iranians in exchange for their influence with the hostage takers in Beirut. I'm sure that didn't have any influence on the Iranian ego.

 

[Charade]

And Ronald Reagan sold arms to the Iranians in exchange for their influence with the hostage takers in Beirut. I'm sure that didn't have any influence on the Iranian ego.

Would that be considered "diplomacy"?

 

[LuvDuke]

Would that be considered "diplomacy"?

Is that what Republicans call "appeasement" when Ronald Reagan does it?

 

[What the Heck]

I remember those helicopters very well. They were nowhere near Tehran or were a threat to the hostage takers. You've got a lot of "if's", but the facts are, the hostages came home safely because of Carter's tenacity. And Reagan sold the Iranians arms. Those are the facts.

Oh please. They were no where near Tehran, only because they were hit by a sandstorm before they could complete the next step of the rescue mission. It was a rescue attempt. They were going to Tehran. They were going to blow the heck out of the captors and bring home the hostages, at least that was the plan. Of course the plan was conceived by a non military person who wanted to look good because it was his blunder that helped create this fiasco, instead of letting the professionals plan it, so there were quite a few holes in it anyway. But they were on their way to Tehran.

 

[LakeAriel]

*Still* she makes more excuses for SH actions. Unbelievable.

Saddam Hussein is dead.

*Still* you make excuses for the Bushs' actions. Unbelieveable.

Our President! not a dictator in Iraq, but our very commander- in- chief...and you are making excuses for him..

 

[LuvDuke]

Oh please. They were no where near Tehran, only because they were hit by a sandstorm before they could complete the next step of the rescue mission. It was a rescue attempt. They were going to Tehran. They were going to blow the heck out of the captors and bring home the hostages, at least that was the plan. Of course the plan was conceived by a non military person who wanted to look good because it was his blunder that helped create this fiasco, instead of letting the professionals plan it, so there were quite a few holes in it anyway. But they were on their way to Tehran.

Oh for crying out loud, we're sitting here discussing an event of 28 years ago.

Why stop with Carter? Why not go on to Reagan who could've launched a retaliatory raid when there was no chance of the hostages being harmed because they were already home?

Why not continue through the Reagan years and discuss why Ronald Reagan:

1) gave arms to Saddam Hussein (and possible chemical/biological weapons)

2) turned around and sold arms to the Iranians in exchange for their influence with the Beirut hostage takers?

3) and then money-laundered the Iranian profits to the Contras?

Or, which is more likely the case for you, only Democrats made mistakes and "appeased"? Puhleeze.

 

[LuvDuke]

Saddam Hussein is dead.

*Still* you make excuses for the Bushs' actions. Unbelieveable.

Our President! not a dictator in Iraq, but our very commander- in- chief...and you are making excuses for him..

A moment, please: Bush is NOT the commander-in-chief over the American people. He is the commander-in-chief over the military and only military.

Carry on.

 

[DawnCt1]

As an update, there will (supposedly) be no more video confessions aired from Iran on the hostages. What is an interesting development is a question of who is in charge. Apparently, one general of the Republican Guard wants the Brits released because it "has gone too far". Another wants to continue holding them. If it has gone to the highest levels of government it will be worse for the Brits. If the general who wants them released has the power to do, it will be a positive sign. What is clear is that there are divisions within the Iranian government as well as the people themselves. There is a democratic movement brewing in Iran that of course, the Ayatollas stifle at every opportunity.