Quote :

"Yeah, and Iran just loved Jimmy Carter--so much so that they overtook the American embassy there and held hostages. What did Carter do to them? In any event, the Iranians sure as hell let them go when Reagan took office."

you are either really good at twisting things around, or very ill informed.

Carter sent a military rescue squad to try and free the hostages but it failed

The hostages were eventually released largely as a result of diplomatic efforts

Regan facilitated shipments of shit loads of weapons to Iran in the mid 80's

BLIND

PARTY

LOYALTY

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM. Reason : 2]

5/15/2008 2:27:01 PM

Quote :

"you are either really good at twisting things around, or very ill informed"

ding ding ding


that's the standard operating procedure mates

5/15/2008 2:28:38 PM

Quote :

"well does the fact that jerusalem has been under attack from terrorists for 60 years have anything to do with that quote?"

you don't know your history.

5/15/2008 2:32:00 PM

according to my history books, in 1948 Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq – attacked Israel starting the first of the conflicts


since then it's been the same old terrorist bullshit, what do yours say?

5/15/2008 2:39:37 PM

Quote :

"That hostage situation is directly related to events that occurred as a result of the CIA's coup over the democracy in Iran in order to reinstate the shah, which took place under Eisenhower, a republican."

So they chose to act while Carter was president, that must've been increase in reverence too. lol

5/15/2008 2:40:45 PM

Don't any of you hairless nutsacks lecture me on the Iran hostage crisis--I lived through it while you were watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or were still a gleam in your daddy's eye. Piss off.

Quote :

"The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution."

Quote :

"In America, the crisis is thought by some political analysts to be the primary reason for U.S. President Jimmy Carter's defeat in the November 1980 presidential election.[4] In Iran, the crisis is thought to have strengthened the prestige of the Ayatollah Khomeini and consolidated the hold of anti-Imperialism and Iranian radicals who supported the hostage taking. The crisis also marked the beginning of American legal action, or sanctions, that economically separated Iran from America. Sanctions blocked all property within US jurisdiction owned by the Central Bank and Government of Iran."

Quote :

"The October Surprise theory refers to a purported deal between high-level Reagan campaign operatives (such as campaign manager and future CIA Director William J. Casey) and representatives of the Iranian government to delay the release of the hostages until after the November 1980 U.S. elections. Although investigations by the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the 1990s declared the allegations to be unfounded. . . ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

5/15/2008 2:50:42 PM

jimmy carter has no fucking clue, in fact.... he encouraged the iranians.

now he's over in the middle east visiting hamas. gg. typical liberals

5/15/2008 2:53:01 PM

Quote :

"So they chose to act while Carter was president, that must've been increase in reverence too. lol"

I wish people would refrain from making from making cracks that undermine their own intellectual legitimacy. They waited until then because anti americanism had risen since the shah was reinstated and in 1979 is when the shah, who the united states had reinstated through cia coup of their democracy, had become ill and his regime had fallen. i forget exactly what took place but the powers that be put carter under pressure to assist the shah which made the iranians further distrust and hold resentment towards to US, thus they acted out by the hostage situation.

Quote :

"according to my history books, in 1948 Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq – attacked Israel starting the first of the conflicts"

Israel attacked first.

also, hooksaw is it your opinion that the iranians held so much respect for regan that they threw down their arms and released them as soon as he became president, and then later his administration just happened to start doing arms deals with them?

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 2:58 PM. Reason : peep]

5/15/2008 2:55:26 PM

Quote :

""approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. Four thousand Transjordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.""

wow IRSeriousCat, you are smoking some serious blunts. did you get educated at Ahmadinejad university?

not only did the ARAB countries attack first, israel dominated them as they tried to invade their country.

5/15/2008 3:02:51 PM

ok that's the last time I make a sarcastic comment on the tww. You made it sound like they were revering Ronald Reagan by setting the hostages free. By that logic, (not that I actually feel that way), that the Iranians had no respect for Carter, shah completely disregarded.

5/15/2008 3:03:58 PM

^^ my parents are actually from israel.

i think i'd have a better grasp on that history than you would, fwiw.

in order to not have to go back and debate semantics for the next few posts i'll go ahead and clarify. technically israel didn't attack first, but the jewish settlers did. the members of these groups later become citizens of israel.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM. Reason : fuck it]

5/15/2008 3:07:40 PM

Quote :

"and say what you want, it is a fact that we havent had any foreign attacks on the continental US since Bush and the govt changed policies after 9/11"

Quote :

"Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa Simpson: That’s specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn’t work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

5/15/2008 3:52:21 PM

^^ my girl's dad was born in Israel, she has been there many times. These people like Rat don't have a fucking clue

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 3:52:40 PM

^^^ Yeah, no shit (latter statement). Basically, Israel was established by the UN and the Arab states objected to that--they have wanted to wipe Israel out of existence from the beginning. Israel has been vigorously defending itself ever since.

And let me be crystal clear: If the shit ever goes down over there, I will stand with Israel. In fact, I would re-enlist to defend Israel in a prolonged war.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 4:04:39 PM

Someone embed Howard Beale's "I ran out of bullshit" rant.

5/15/2008 4:08:01 PM

It appears that hooksaw was just as terrible at interpreting current events in 1979 as he is today.

5/15/2008 4:09:21 PM

I'm glad Biden said what he said.

Bush would know Nazi appeasement. It's in his blood.

5/15/2008 4:34:29 PM

Quote :

"Israel was established by the UN and the Arab states objected to that"

And you don't see anything wrong with a nation based on race being created in an area where they were a distinct minority and not wanted?

Not that I'm saying that it's right to kill people because of this, but I know Americans would go batshit if the Nation of Islam were given land somewhere in the US (especially a nice and coveted area like New York or Boston).

The UN fucked up by doing what it did, the surrounding Arab nations were trying to protect themselves from another Western domination (they failed ). Some people can't get over that in the Arab world, and while it's easy to understand their frustration, terrorism isn't the answer. The Palestinians deserve some of their territory back, but I'm finding it harder and harder to see them actually getting much of anything with the way Israel is now.

5/15/2008 4:36:00 PM

^^^ Prove that I've misinterpreted anything, buffoon.

^ Well, Israel is a thriving country and a powerful ally--despite those constantly seeking its destruction.

Quote :

"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."

Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 4:47:51 PM

So by your interpretation of events, the Iranians actually waited to have their revolution until Carter was elected?

I mean, after all-- Ford was such a beast.

Then they cowered before the awesome mite that was the Gipper?

And I guess this interpretation requires that I ignore that Carter did attempt a military solution, and that Reagan did use negotiation?


Where would I even start?



[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 4:51:58 PM

^^well, you failed to mention the attempted rescue by the military during Carters admin, the fact that Regan funneled arms into Iran to fund what today would be classified as a terrorist org, and spin the hostage release to make it seem like it was Regan flexing his muscle.

maybe not so much misinterpretation as blind bias.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ^what he said too]

5/15/2008 4:56:53 PM

^^ Sophistry--I indicated nothing of the sort. The Carter years had our military in one of the worst defense postures in out nation's history--no amount of bullshit can change that fact. The tragic and failed rescue operation of the hostages in Iran was symbolic of Carter's failed presidency.

And--once again--you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. All you have is Google and Wiki--I lived through it. So, I'll take this opportunity to invite you to piss off.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 4:57:50 PM

Reagan negotiated with Iran? When?

He sold weapons to moderate Iranians, hoping that they would later use them against the Ayatollah Khomenei. That's bad policy, but hardly diplomacy with the terrorists.



[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 5:00 PM. Reason : 2]

5/15/2008 4:58:30 PM

Quote :

"All you have is Google and Wiki--I lived through it. So, I'll take this opportunity to invite you to piss off. "

from the guy who linked to wiki on the top of the page....

5/15/2008 5:00:29 PM

^^^ "Symbolic of," perhaps.

"The Cause of," definitely not.

You've yet to make a case for how the Iran situation is even relevant to your argument.

Carter tried the military route and failed. Then we tried the diplomatic route and won. Thanks for bringing up a historical event that bolsters my argument.


^^ There are coincidences, and then there are coincidences. 1981 was a coincidence

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 5:03:40 PM

^^ HURF DURF!!!1 I had to give you hairless nutsacks something you'd understand with a link that you'd recognize. I wouldn't want you to get all shaky and shit.

^ You're a stupid fucking idiot. You've yet to do anything except spout your revisionist history--this isn't the bullshit class that you supposedly teach.

Fact: The Iran hostage crisis ended on January 20, 1981--the day Reagan was sworn in. Deal with it.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 5:04:03 PM

whatever you do

don't forget to use the rolly eyes

5/15/2008 5:06:42 PM

5/15/2008 5:07:58 PM

Quote :

"Fact: The Iran hostage crisis ended on January 20, 1981--the day Reagan was sworn in. Deal with it."

And this was due to the fact that Reagan was just that much of a stud?

And nothing to do with the negotiations?

5/15/2008 5:13:30 PM

i dunno, i mean 9/11 is Bush's fault since he was in office the day it happened right?

it happened "on Bush's watch" right?

5/15/2008 5:14:27 PM

WHO HAS SAID THAT?

I mean, really.

5/15/2008 5:15:48 PM

i hope you mean "who has said that in this thread"

cause only a complete idiot would forget that numerous people have expressed that sentiment throughout TSB over the last few years

but wait, i'm not allowed to criticize past posts because "i just started making legitimate points" right?

5/15/2008 5:19:26 PM

well there was intelligence that was ignored about just such an attack in the works. but you know whatever.

9/11 wasn't bush's fault certainly. but he did far from a perfect job on the national security front pre-9/11 (and post, really)

5/15/2008 5:42:32 PM

What is insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results? How many times has TreeTwista dumped his viewpoint on this section in threads like this? How many times have the counter parties dumped their viewpoint (though, typically with a little more logic/fact/reason) expecting to change his mind? Are you guys that bored daily?

5/15/2008 6:00:59 PM

who the hell is this chick

nm, its just some alias that multiple people use, so who gives a fuck

^^my comparison was a simple reminder to the people saying Reagan shouldnt get credit for something that happened while he was in office, that some of them blamed bush for 9/11 BECAUSE he was in office...i dont know how much more straightforward i could be

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 6:18:59 PM

he just might have been talking about carter... seeing as carter was just there meeting with hamas and hezbollah against everyones advise.

democrats are so stupid

5/15/2008 6:21:13 PM

Quote :

"And let me be crystal clear: If the shit ever goes down over there, I will stand with Israel. In fact, I would re-enlist to defend Israel in a prolonged war."

Glad you were crystal clear about that. I would enjoy reading about your death in the papers along with whatever unit you were attached to.

5/15/2008 6:24:08 PM

Quote :

"^^ There are coincidences, and then there are coincidences. 1981 was a coincidence"

Wait, what? Are Boone and wlb420 trying to say that Reagan covertly negotiated the release of hostages to coincide with his inaguration, and that the Iran Contra mess was payback as part of those negotions? Do you also believe that explosives brought down the twin towers? Are you daft?

Goddamn conspiracy theorists.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 6:29 PM. Reason : 2]

5/15/2008 6:28:55 PM

^^ Maybe I'd be killed and maybe not. In any event, I guarantee that I'd take more than a few of the enemy with me--who knows, maybe you'd be one of them.

^ Yes. Where is their evidence? Why wasn't Reagan convicted of anything?

Quote :

"The October Surprise theory refers to a purported deal between high-level Reagan campaign operatives (such as campaign manager and future CIA Director William J. Casey) and representatives of the Iranian government to delay the release of the hostages until after the November 1980 U.S. elections. Although investigations by the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the 1990s declared the allegations to be unfounded. . . ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 7:25:31 PM

Why don't Bush, McCain, Obama, and Clinton run for the president of Israel seeing as how they care about that country more than they do the USA.

5/15/2008 7:28:29 PM

Quote :

"^^ Maybe I'd be killed and maybe not. In any event, I guarantee that I'd take more than a few of the enemy with me--who knows, maybe you'd be one of them."

the only thing you'd be taking with you is the garbage you post in here.

5/15/2008 7:31:24 PM

^ Can you shut the fuck up and get back on topic or what?

Can anyone show me in Bush's speech where he mentioned that he was referring to Democrats or any specific person? Anybody?

5/15/2008 7:36:31 PM

Kevin James apparently is very enthusiastic that Bush was talking about Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

5/15/2008 7:40:01 PM

Quote :

"Can anyone show me in Bush's speech where he mentioned that he was referring to Democrats or any specific person? Anybody?"

5/15/2008 7:45:47 PM

^ if you really want to stand by throwing subtext and literary subtlety out the window, i'm going to bookmark this thread to bring it up, when you try to make the opposite argument.

5/15/2008 7:58:14 PM

Bush is a friend of the straw man.

5/15/2008 8:02:27 PM

Quote :

"^ Can you shut the fuck up and get back on topic or what? "

sure, as soon as you take your bullshit else where, fucking terrorist.

5/15/2008 8:14:28 PM

^ Fuck you, stupid motherfucker. STFU.

Quote :

"Can anyone show me in Bush's speech where he mentioned that he was referring to Democrats or any specific person? Anybody?"

That's what I thought. It seems that the Democrats have a guilty conscience.

5/15/2008 8:21:08 PM

Ha, so the democrats collectively share a conscience now?

I think its more likely that they see this as a politically opportune time to paint Bush, and thus later on McCain, as close-minded war mongers. It's not a bad move.

5/15/2008 8:26:02 PM

^ Reuters apparently thinks so:

U.S. Democrats outraged by Bush 'appeasement' remark

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-33603620080515

5/15/2008 8:32:31 PM