I disagree with almost everything you say but you make good points.

 

I would rather we take a hard line approach to Iran then to sit at the table and negotiate with them. IMVHO negotiation did nothing when Peanuthead Carter was President. Had we taken care of Iran then I firmly believe that a lot of the greif we have gotten from the middle east would have been avoided. I think what we have seen develop in the Middle East in the aftermath of Carter's atrocious handling of the hostage situation speaks for itself.

 

And yes, the fact the the Iranian puppet feels optimism based on the results of this election does bother me and I think should be a part of everyones decision making process regarding who to vote for.

 

 

In what way would we have "taken care of Iran?" We could have declared war. Of course everyone of the hostages would have likely died.

 

We could have seized all Iranian assets. Wait, we did that.

 

What else? Could we have secretly given them arms under the table? No wait, that's what Reagan did.

 

I'm no Carter defender but to say that is the only event that allowed all the rest to happen conveniently forgets Iran-Contra and has no clear idea of what our options were in 1979, four years removed from the fall of Saigon.

In what way would we have "taken care of Iran?" We could have declared war. Of course everyone of the hostages would have likely died.

 

We could have seized all Iranian assets. Wait, we did that.

 

What else? Could we have secretly given them arms under the table? No wait, that's what Reagan did.

 

I'm no Carter defender but to say that is the only event that allowed all the rest to happen conveniently forgets Iran-Contra and has no clear idea of what our options were in 1979, four years removed from the fall of Saigon.

According to legend (greatly exaggerated, IMO) JFK stood firm with the lives of more than 180 million Americans on the line and the Soviets blinked.

 

Jimmy Carter blinked for 444 days with 52 American lives at stake. An ultimatum would have been appropriate. Jimmy Carter is the Father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or at least its crazy uncle.

The chief beneficiary of our war with Iraq has been Iran. We have made the tin pot dictator of Iran stronger. The longer we continue with our current policy toward Iran and Iraq, the stronger he gets.

 

True. True.

Jimmy Carter blinked for 444 days with 52 American lives at stake. An ultimatum would have been appropriate. Jimmy Carter is the Father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or at least its crazy uncle.

 

Just curious, but what ultimatum would have been appropriate for Jimmy Carter to issue to Iran?

According to legend (greatly exaggerated, IMO) JFK stood firm with the lives of more than 180 million Americans on the line and the Soviets blinked.

 

Jimmy Carter blinked for 444 days with 52 American lives at stake. An ultimatum would have been appropriate. Jimmy Carter is the Father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or at least its crazy uncle.

 

 

How convenient of you to not give an example of what should have been done differently and then the long range effects of that policy.

 

By your reasoning does that mean that Reagan blinked with Iran in the 80's and gave them arms for money and influece to release hostages in Lebanon?

 

I respect your opinions and your discussion but you ignored more than half of my post to make a comparison to the Cuban Missle Crisis (where there was a satellite state in Cuba being told what to do by a parent state in Moscow)

 

You could have pointed out Libya and the bombing to make a point for Reagan but didn't. (Even though it was easier to bomb a Libya who was nowhere near the inluential partner of terror that Iran was/is)

By your reasoning does that mean that Reagan blinked with Iran in the 80's and gave them arms for money and influece to release hostages in Lebanon?

 

 

Excellent point. Maybe the ultimatum Carter should have given Iran was, "Release our hostages, or else we won't sell you these 2,500 TOW Anti-tank missiles."

 

Kind of ironic that Carter is scorned for attempting a (failed) military operation to rescue hostages by force, while Reagan, whose administration engineered the sale of high tech U.S. weapons to a terrorism-sponsoring state in exchange for hostages, is revered.

Just curious, but what ultimatum would have been appropriate for Jimmy Carter to issue to Iran?

 

Let them go by..., or we come in and get them. If they are harmed your country pays a price.

 

By siezing American citizens in an embassy they in effect declared war on the United States. Carter in effect told them that we were afraid to agressively protect the interests of the United States. After the failed rescue mission and the way the bodies of our soldiers were desecrated we should have very agressively shown how unacceptable that was.

 

I'm sorry but everything that came after Jimmy Carter cowered to them for over a year is because Jimmy Carter cowered to them for over a year.

How convenient of you to not give an example of what should have been done differently and then the long range effects of that policy.

 

By your reasoning does that mean that Reagan blinked with Iran in the 80's and gave them arms for money and influece to release hostages in Lebanon?

 

I respect your opinions and your discussion but you ignored more than half of my post to make a comparison to the Cuban Missle Crisis (where there was a satellite state in Cuba being told what to do by a parent state in Moscow)

 

You could have pointed out Libya and the bombing to make a point for Reagan but didn't. (Even though it was easier to bomb a Libya who was nowhere near the inluential partner of terror that Iran was/is)

 

Had Carter not blinked I strongly doubt that anyone else would have tried the same stunt. Any gaffs in middle eastern policy that occurred after the hostage crisis are directly a result of Carter's cowardice.

Let them go by..., or we come in and get them. If they are harmed your country pays a price.

 

By siezing American citizens in an embassy they in effect declared war on the United States. Carter in effect told them that we were afraid to agressively protect the interests of the United States. After the failed rescue mission and the way the bodies of our soldiers were desecrated we should have very agressively shown how unacceptable that was.

 

I'm sorry but everything that came after Jimmy Carter cowered to them for over a year is because Jimmy Carter cowered to them for over a year.

 

 

It is easy to say that our first response should have been to "bomb them into the stone age", but taking a larger view of the likely repercussions in the middle east, what would the ultimate outcome have been? We didn't have precision-guided munitions in the late 1970's, therefore a strong U.S. military response would have likely resulted in a large loss of civilian life. And of course I'm sure all 52 U.S. hostages would have been promptly executed (probably publicly). I can easily imagine that such a one-sided loss of life in Iran would have inflamed anti-U.S. sentiment in countries that were previously reasonably friendly (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et al). A strong U.S. military response against Iran in 1979 or 1980 resulting in large loss of civilian lives might have simply sped up the clock on the development of organizations like al Qaeda.

Had Carter not blinked I strongly doubt that anyone else would have tried the same stunt. Any gaffs in middle eastern policy that occurred after the hostage crisis are directly a result of Carter's cowardice.

 

Like in 1983 it was Carter's fault that the Marine Barracks were destroyed and 241 Marines died? Then I guess Reagan called Carter to see what to do and Carter told him to "Pull out"?

 

I never knew Carter had that much sway over Reagan.

Let them go by..., or we come in and get them. If they are harmed your country pays a price.

 

By siezing American citizens in an embassy they in effect declared war on the United States. Carter in effect told them that we were afraid to agressively protect the interests of the United States. After the failed rescue mission and the way the bodies of our soldiers were desecrated we should have very agressively shown how unacceptable that was.

 

I'm sorry but everything that came after Jimmy Carter cowered to them for over a year is because Jimmy Carter cowered to them for over a year.

 

 

Our military was in a post Vietnam state. Do you think we reallly were prepared to go in with the operation you are talking about? Do you think logistically it could have worked? You can say it was Carter slashing the military budget but I think the military was already losing funds under the last of Nixon and the Ford Administrations as well. Post Vietnam was like Post Cold War, no one knew what shape the next conflict held.