Carter showed us what the Democrat's 444 days of negotiations do for us. Most of you kids were not old enough to remember how we were convinced that we were to be ashamed of our country and we deserved to have innocent hostages taken. After all we were the bully. Carter's ways made Ted Koppel and Nightline a household name. One day at a time he came on the TV every evening saying "Day 23"... Then it was "Day 127"... on and on. Not one single house would fly an American flag unless a Vet lived there. You didn't see an American flag sticker on cars, much less in stores to be sold to patriotic Americans. We were ashamed. It was all our fault as Carter convinced us.
2007-03-28 09:47:03 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
You're Liberal elders want you to believe negations worked. Are you mature enough for the truth? It's such an embarrassment to Democrats, to this day they try to hide what freed our hostages by conspiracy theories in hopes you will think negotiations worked. Ronald Reagan was running against Carter. There was no doubt in anyone's mind in the very least, both Democrat and Republican and Iran, that if Reagan was elected Iran would be destroyed if they didn't release the hostages. They were released the day Reagan took office.
2007-03-28 09:47:21 · update #1
You would have never grown up with flags being flown by your neighbors, stores proud to fly the flags high above their businesses, flags plastered on cars, and pride back in the American people if it wasn't for Reagan. The events of 9-11 would have been just another "we deserved it" and we would have gone on. Sound familiar. Carter is a prime example that not all old men are wise. Judge for yourself. Don't let your country slip away again. The UK has always helped us, it's time we help them. That's what you do for friends.
2007-03-28 09:47:50 · update #2
Make no mistakes... Reagan freed our hostages, Carter didn't. Carter didn't do one wise thing, and almost got a bunch of them killed in his rescue attempt. Our troops died in that attempt... for nothing. Overwhelming force freed those hostages without one death. Don't let the libs fool you. Again... Judge for yourself. Who do you believe?
2007-03-28 10:06:53 · update #3
I'm a German, not a Jew.
2007-03-28 10:09:12 · update #4
Folks, "Alan S" is ahead.
2007-03-28 10:12:13 · update #5
has the world gone mad? force is the last resort not the first option! Give diplomacy a chance. just because Carter couldn't negotiate doesn't mean the Brits can't. That's the first step if that fails we'll send in Al Gore and he can annoy the crap out of them and we'll only remove him if they release the captives
2007-03-28 10:01:50 · answer #1 · answered by Alan S 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Forget the Carter/Reagan stuff or liberal/conservative talk.
Based on Iraq, it should be clear invading Iran is NOT in our best interest. Iran is 3 times the size with 6 times the army as Iraq.
They are NOT a threat. There is no reason to spend American blood and treasury on it.
2007-03-28 11:12:27 · answer #2 · answered by oncogenomics 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No there are better options than all-out war. I don't think a prisoner exchange is in order either, unless some Iranians were wrongfully detained. It's a sensitive situation, going to war would probably be signing the death warrant on those captured and more to come.
It's too soon for a war with Iran, although sadly I see things ending that way in a few years.
2007-03-28 10:14:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow, I thought only kids had spelling errors. I guess I'll feed the troll. Wasn't it the west that supported the authoritarian Shah? Wasn't it the west that sold weapons to Iraq so they could invade Iran? Wasn't it the Reagan administration that sold weapons to Iran then funneled the proceeds to the Contras fighting the communists in Nicaragua?
I hate to tell you this, but Iran has a modern military unlike Iraq. They have cruise missiles that can take out our aircraft carriers in the gulf. Not to mention the Tor-M1 and S-300 anti-air defense. I'm pretty sure Russia and China would love the US to invade, more money in their pockets. So go ahead and invade chickenhawk.
2007-03-28 10:05:11 · answer #4 · answered by Steven 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Im only 21 brother but I know my History and not only is Carter a morron but that whole Iran hostage situation was a SNAFU at best. I cannot beileve this country ever saw even 1 years tmie go by where ilberals ran the country and American flags were not something your proud to have. I hope the path we're on doesnt lead us back there, but looks like it will. I say we fight Iran ebfore they have nukes, not after one has already been dropped. Even if a nuke fo theirs did hit here the libs would think Bush did it to rally us against Iran. Theres no winning.
2007-03-28 09:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Your question/comment is FULL of interest - all worthy of comment.
Firstly, I would like to add my opinion that Carter did the leg work, and Reagan reaped the rewards and credit. We can agree to disagree on that point.
With respect to helping out the British...I agree. They jumped on the bandwagon first...and it will be interesting to see the reciprocal interests of the American people. Are they ready to jump into another war for the sake of another country? One that was so supportive of them?
My final comments are about the haste to join the British in war in Iran. We need to understand better what the capture is all about. There is little information regarding it, and the causes/fall out. I do wonder what the British would have done if Iranian ships were found, illegally, in British waters...
2007-03-28 09:54:06 · answer #6 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm Canadian but i believe we should invade this time, but, be care full of north Korea and china, pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and pummel Iran, then i believe they should be controlled by the British empire, this will make us sure we will not be nuked by Iran, next, we should take over north Korea and china, we need to clean up the Communist acts in this world, we should be one nation, all countries for one, why waste time fighting each other when we could be one and explore worlds, and if world peace is to fight for it, then lets, because no one likes to be afraid of other countries and what they might do, so i say mess them up, rebuild, change the Communism.
2007-03-28 10:30:09 · answer #7 · answered by chad 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeeha! Another chance to attack somebody. Good old gun barrel diplomacy. I heard some guy in Bangladesh called G.W. Bush a big Pansy. Let's go, boys. Mount up. BTW the Iran hostage crisis was arrange the rich and powerful in the U.S. who didn't like Carter's federal income tax structure and energy policies. They wanted to make him look like a wimpy dork and did a pretty good job.
2007-03-28 10:05:15 · answer #8 · answered by socrates 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Are the kids "old enough" to read SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS?
www.link.20fr.com
Just for the record I do not know the REASON why the "british" were detained, as to make a statement as to whether it was an accurate detainment or not.
2007-03-28 09:57:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a military ship enters the territorial waters of another country without authorization, that country is justified in capturing the tripulation and putting then on trial.
International Law supports the Iranies in this case.
2007-03-28 09:52:27 · answer #10 · answered by Marino Quispe-Condori 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋