If Jimmy Carter were President, would he still be negotiating the release of the American hostages in Iran?

Question

Is this the way you want the United States to respond to:

A stated policy - covert to Islam or die.

Tactics which rely on terror and the indiscriminent murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Objective of a one world government under Islamic Law (without the infidels, of course).

My opinion: George Bush responded with what seems to be the only type of communication the Islamic radicals understand - military intervention to try and stop their senseless slaughter of innocent people.

There's been plenty of finger pointing and certainly mistakes have been made - but is there really any other response that would make the punishment even begin to fit their crimes?

Remember, we know from experience that appeasement, apathy, negotiations and diplomacy don't work - and certainly, ignoring them is not a very wise choice - these policies and responses simply led to more terrorism and more deaths.

How would you respond to this threat?

Come on, folks - I'm not "bashing Jimmy Carter" and, for what it's worth, I'm not a Republican - let alone a so called NeoCon - so I'm certainly not "running scared".
I tried to illustrate how futile it is to try and negotiate with these dirt bags.

It's a simple question:

How would YOU respond to the Islamic terrorists' threat?

Answer 1

He was such a ineffectual dufus.
We would all be wearing burquas (sp?) now if 911 happened on his watch.
Thank God for GWB!

Answer 2

Lets be clear about exactly what we mean. Contrary to the beliefs of most of america, afganistan and the middle east didnt appear out of nowhere on 9/11. No, folks, they were there, we were just not paying attention to that part of the world, so long as the oil flowed. There werent even enough translators in the CIA to deal with the new developments. Realize that the middle east is quite a complex place. It might look all the same to you, but it isnt really a bunch of raghead look alikes all sitting on their camels pissed at the united states and the sand in their shorts. That is a complex political environment, and to suggest that everyone there is somehow all on the same team all the time (as your flamebait question suggests) is sheer folly. Now I would agree with you that military action was justified in Afganistan. There was a brutal dictatorial regime abusing the civil rights of its people, and they had attacked us. These people were harboring and funding terror organizations. But perhaps we should have stayed and completed the job. Afganistan is having trouble with farmers growning poppies again. (As you know, this is where heroin comes from). Heroin production was a real problem until the taliban took over, and after they (and for the most part we) have left, afganistan is facing that problem again. Anyone want to venture a guess as to why there isnt much of a military presence in afganistan? Give you a hint: starts with 'I' and ends with 'raq'. Thats right, the war that didn't need to be. The war whose justification has changed, and changed, and changed. Bush couldn't get bin laden. And he wanted somebody. So go for Saddam. It worked before and it can work again. Colin Powell stood up before the united nations general assembly and gave a story about how saddam was working with al qaida terrorists to develop weapons and then use them against the united states. Entirely not true. Firstly, I would have listened to my military and intelligence advisors when they told me that there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. when they repeatedly tried to persuade the president that the evidence was really not there.
The Iraqi people did nothing wrong here. What crime did they commit. Hell even Saddam didnt do anything to the united states. Turns out the UN inspectors were right, that they couldn't find anything, and that for their bustering, this administration had nothing. And come November 7th, I think you will see that.
And one last thing. These people have right and reason for fearing the united states. Many on the far right which is currently in power agree with ann coulter when she says we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity. I am really more fearful of the radical right who want to listen in on my email and phone calls, and want ISPs to retain all internet traffic than I am of islamic terrorists. I _may_ be assaulted by islamic fundamentalists, I _know_ that my civil liberties are being eroded from under me as we speak. I dont see much of a difference between one world goverment under islamic law and one world bound under american hegemony.

Answer 3

Carter issued a military rescue with a small battalion of troops. It failed, unfortunately, but it was a response that made sense. Bush would've started a massive invasion on the second day, and we'd STILL be there, with a horrific death toll (and that stupid MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner shtick the first week)

Carter-bashing now? Wow, the neo-cons are really worried about the November elections!

Answer 4

one that was close to 30 years ago and i'm betting you weren't alive even when Carter was prez and if you were i'm thinking you got a small brain capacity if it is taking you this long to get around to bashing Carter kinda late so quit quoting some radio pundit and think for yourself and two get over it you and your ilk are supporting the WORST president in the history of the USA and since it hurts you so much you're lashing out,it is understandable but you waste all the energy you could be using to FIX things.

Answer 5

The peanut man did not put the usa into financial disaster.
I think Bush sucks.
yes the peanut man moved more toward peace.look at all the young men an women that were killed.for Bushes ideas.

Answer 6

But we got Reagan who swapped guns for hostages

Answer 7

Not worth typing.................