English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-28 08:20:47 · 15 answers · asked by Dina W 6 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Barb,
I am not a kid, I remeber.
Funny how Liberals always recall history differently.
And thanks so much for the non-answer to my question.

2007-03-28 08:26:46 · update #1

Hey Donie,
He did not do anything, it is apparent that freezing the assets did not work.

I am so glad that you do not think that 52 Americans lives are worth getting back, know wonder why terrorists think they can get away with terrorist activity with bleeding hearts like you in the world

2007-03-28 08:36:16 · update #2

What planet are you on, the most definately were not. I remember, the country was so vested in Jimmy after the mess with Nixon.
You cannot make up History as you go along.

2007-03-28 08:47:41 · update #3

15 answers

Carter allowed the hostages to be held because he was a weak minded liberal who was afraid to stand up to a dictator who was threatening America (the U.S.A.).

The poorly planned rescue that was finally attempted after hundreds of days was further evidence of his weakness. Only eight helicopters were sent - and when there was an accident that destroyed some helicopters there were not enough helicopters left to continue the mission.

If he had gone in strongly he would have been able to make a military statement that these enemies and others would have respected.
He also may have been re-elected.

2007-03-28 08:29:23 · answer #1 · answered by Cumjunkie Doner 2 · 2 4

He tried a rescue mission.

BTW, conservatives were delighted when our military failed to complete that mission. Way to support the troops.

Reagan, clearly the second worst President ever after the current disastrous doofus in the Oval, is widely believed to have engineered a deal that kept the hostages imprisoned until after the November 1980 elections. This is unproven, but in light of some of the later treasonous intrigues of the Reagan administration (such as Iran Contra, which involved selling weapons to terrorists), I think that there is a good possibility that it is valid.

BTW, your whole question is RIDICULOUSLY biased. What a foolish statement to say that Carter "let Americans be held". This occurred in Iran, a foreign nation. Have Americans been taken hostage in Iraq recently? Well then why does Bush LET them be taken hostage?? Why did Reagan LET the marines be killed in Beirut? Take a step back and try to see through your own bias.

2007-03-28 15:41:55 · answer #2 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 0 3

Wow, my answer is way to long to put here...but just so you know. My teacher at my college was one of the Iranian hostages who was held for 444 days. He was the CIA operative. Im sure you can figure out his name. Hit me up with an email if you want to talk about it. If you really want some GREAT!!! info on that, check out "In the Shadow of the Ayyatollah: A Hostage's Account in Iran"

2007-03-28 15:31:19 · answer #3 · answered by Edmund Dantes 2 · 0 0

Jimmy is a wise and real peace loving man. He did not see the issue with the stupid common American ego. His introspection capacity is better than most of the US President in the history. He did not let the US to be a 'bad man' in the world that Mr. Bush is doing. Okay, let there be the game, let us see, what happens in the near future.

2007-03-28 16:25:30 · answer #4 · answered by The Falcon 2 · 0 3

Jimmy Carter, was the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981, and the NOBEL PEACE laureate of 2002.

2007-03-28 15:34:48 · answer #5 · answered by Nyaru 2 · 1 3

Man, what a mess. HE PROJECTED WEAKNESS. If not for that, the hostages wouldn't even have been taken, much less held for over a year until a REAL president was in power.

I remember too!

2007-03-28 15:34:23 · answer #6 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2 1

There were a lot of things going on behind the scenes. This may help you.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/other/iranhstgcrss80.html

2007-03-28 15:34:44 · answer #7 · answered by here to help 7 · 0 0

The options are pretty much limited to the broad categories of stupidity and cowardice. Any reason you could list would be a variation of one of those. There's ample evidence of both qualities in other decisions and non-decisions in that administration.

2007-03-28 15:30:15 · answer #8 · answered by open4one 7 · 2 3

hmmm they all made it home safe (not because of Reagan, but because of a deal reached prior to his inaug.)To secure their freedom, President Jimmy Carter agreed in his last days in office to release $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets.
However, Reagan DID sell weapons and weapon related parts against the orders of the U S Congress to the IRANIANS

and we didn't bomb any innocent Iranians. (you do know that even babies die in wars don't you?)

2007-03-28 15:27:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

You need to brush up on your history, kid. Don't just parrot what you see on Faux News or what you hear from some dumba** who doesn't know his knee from his elbow.

2007-03-28 15:24:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers