Iran Hostage Crisis 1979-bomb or not

[harmonica]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

At the time of Jimmy Carters feckless leadership, I was stationed in Germany to defend the US from the Soviet Socialist Threat gladly volunteer to do. We had all our F-4s loaded to the gills, ready to bomb Tehran back into the stone age, but then Jimmy in with his liberal comparison decided that diplomacy was such a better deal. Since then, Iranians terrorists have been killing 10'000's of innocent men, women and children around the world with their Jihad, while those few US citizens(Like in Benghazi) could of been sacrificed for the greater good, and Radical Islam would of been smacked down big time...The rest is history....

 

[harmonica]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

At the time of Jimmy Carters feckless leadership, I was stationed in Germany to defend the US from the Soviet Socialist Threat gladly volunteer to do. We had all our F-4s loaded to the gills, ready to bomb Tehran back into the stone age, but then Jimmy in with his liberal comparison decided that diplomacy was such a better deal. Since then, Iranians terrorists have been killing 10'000's of innocent men, women and children around the world with their Jihad, while those few US citizens(Like in Benghazi) could of been sacrificed for the greater good, and Radical Islam would of been smacked down big time...The rest is history....

I agree-- it enabled more terrorism/etc against the US
sometimes you DO need to swing the 'big stick'

they say oil prices would've went up
we didn't need to destroy the entire industry--we could've given them a strong ultimatum plus a sample
Iran would not want their main industry ruined

but then, with bombing, there might have been POWS
and the hardliners might not care if the oil industry was ruined

 

[Pogo]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

The Carter Administration eventually got all the hostages safely back without firing a shot OR dropping a bomb. Why do you want to drop a bomb when the rescue was already made without any? Doesn't that tell us a lot.

I mean if you lose your keys, and then you find them ---- do you still go on looking for them? What a goof-ass question.

Carter's entire administration in fact never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. He's the only POTUS since Hoover who can say that.

Yesterday btw was the anniversary of the "Canadian Caper" where six others were spirited out of Iran complete with fake passports made by the CIA that originally failed to follow Iranian date formats....

 

[Picaro]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

Attacks on embassies are considered as attacking the country's soil itself, so there is that. I don't think it was clear at the time there was even a government, though, so who do you attack, exactly? After that became clear, then yes, we should have attacked. If we had, a whole lot of instability and death would have been nipped in the bud.

 

[Pogo]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

Attacks on embassies are considered as attacking the country's soil itself, so there is that. I don't think it was clear at the time there was even a government, though, so who do you attack, exactly? After that became clear, then yes, we should have attacked. If we had, a whole lot of instability and death would have been nipped in the bud.

There wasn't any death. No shots were fired at all. The hostages were brought home entirely through diplomacy. Alive and well.

You can't subtract from zero.

 

[Picaro]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

Attacks on embassies are considered as attacking the country's soil itself, so there is that. I don't think it was clear at the time there was even a government, though, so who do you attack, exactly? After that became clear, then yes, we should have attacked. If we had, a whole lot of instability and death would have been nipped in the bud.

There wasn't any death. No shots were fired at all. The hostages were brought home entirely through diplomacy. Alive and well.

You can't subtract from zero.

You're nuts. Millions died as a result of the Ayatollahs and are still dying every day. Stick to smoking your bong and playing with your fingerpainting.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

 

[Picaro]

And I will add that Carter's virulent Jew Hating bigotry played a huge role in the failure of the rescue attempt; he wouldn't ask the Israelis for advice and aid in the ins and outs of desert operations, and that was a costly mistake of the first order. He did his best to get them all murdered while President, and continued to do so long after with his love for the PLO gangsters and the like.

 

[Pogo]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

Attacks on embassies are considered as attacking the country's soil itself, so there is that. I don't think it was clear at the time there was even a government, though, so who do you attack, exactly? After that became clear, then yes, we should have attacked. If we had, a whole lot of instability and death would have been nipped in the bud.

There wasn't any death. No shots were fired at all. The hostages were brought home entirely through diplomacy. Alive and well.

You can't subtract from zero.

You're nuts. Millions died as a result of the Ayatollahs and are still dying every day. Stick to smoking your bong and playing with your fingerpainting.

ZERO people ---- no hostages, no soldiers, no civilians --- died in the Iran hostage situation. Fact.

Again that number is: "0".

 

[Pogo]

And I will add that Carter's virulent Jew Hating bigotry played a huge role in the failure of the rescue attempt; he wouldn't ask the Israelis for advice and aid in the ins and outs of desert operations, and that was a costly mistake of the first order. He did his best to get them all murdered while President, and continued to do so long after with his love for the PLO gangsters and the like.

---- and you want to call somebody else "nuts".

SMH

 

[there4eyeM]

The U.S. backed overthrow of Iran's government in 1953 is a root cause. Yet, in some minds, the Iranians are just crazy America haters who attacked out of pure hate for freedom.

 

[Picaro]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

Attacks on embassies are considered as attacking the country's soil itself, so there is that. I don't think it was clear at the time there was even a government, though, so who do you attack, exactly? After that became clear, then yes, we should have attacked. If we had, a whole lot of instability and death would have been nipped in the bud.

There wasn't any death. No shots were fired at all. The hostages were brought home entirely through diplomacy. Alive and well.

You can't subtract from zero.

You're nuts. Millions died as a result of the Ayatollahs and are still dying every day. Stick to smoking your bong and playing with your fingerpainting.

ZERO people ---- no hostages, no soldiers, no civilians --- died in the Iran hostage situation. Fact.

Again that number is: "0".

Yes,we know you're rather dense and clueless, and just throw out rubbish to get attention.

 

[Picaro]

Propping up the Shah over the Tudeh puppet was the best thing that ever happened to Iran. I know this is hard for stoners, arm chair commies, and Burb Brats to grasp, but it was the best option at the time compared to the alternatives.

The U.S. backed overthrow of Iran's government in 1953 is a root cause. Yet, in some minds, the Iranians are just crazy America haters who attacked out of pure hate for freedom.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

The Carter Administration eventually got all the hostages safely back without firing a shot OR dropping a bomb. Why do you want to drop a bomb when the rescue was already made without any? Doesn't that tell us a lot.

I mean if you lose your keys, and then you find them ---- do you still go on looking for them? What a goof-ass question.

Carter's entire administration in fact never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. He's the only POTUS since Hoover who can say that.

Yesterday btw was the anniversary of the "Canadian Caper" where six others were spirited out of Iran complete with fake passports made by the CIA that originally failed to follow Iranian date formats....

What a lying sack of shit, it was President Reagan that got the hostages back, you worthless fuck..

With the completion of negotiations, the hostages were released on January 20, 1981, That day, at the moment President Reagan completed his 20‑minute inaugural address after being sworn in, the 52 American hostages were released into U.S. custody. The Mooolahs, knew that President Ronald Reagan wasn't go to continue the spineless policies that the Obama wanna be kept enacting against Iran. The jets were ready to bomb Tehran into the gulf, and the Moolahs knew it. Fucking amazing that a shameless fucking worthless Liberal(i know very redundant statement) would even try to rewrite history....I would ask "Have you no Shame" but then you are a libera, so no, you have no shame....
Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis ['/quote]

 

[Pogo]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

The Carter Administration eventually got all the hostages safely back without firing a shot OR dropping a bomb. Why do you want to drop a bomb when the rescue was already made without any? Doesn't that tell us a lot.

I mean if you lose your keys, and then you find them ---- do you still go on looking for them? What a goof-ass question.

Carter's entire administration in fact never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. He's the only POTUS since Hoover who can say that.

Yesterday btw was the anniversary of the "Canadian Caper" where six others were spirited out of Iran complete with fake passports made by the CIA that originally failed to follow Iranian date formats....

What a lying sack of shit, it was President Reagan that got the hostages back, you worthless fuck..

With the completion of negotiations, the hostages were released on January 20, 1981, That day, at the moment President Reagan completed his 20‑minute inaugural address after being sworn in, the 52 American hostages were released into U.S. custody. The Mooolahs, knew that President Ronald Reagan wasn't go to continue the spineless policies that the Obama wanna be kept enacting against Iran. The jets were ready to bomb Tehran into the gulf, and the Moolahs knew it. Fucking amazing that a shameless fucking worthless Liberal(i know very redundant statement) would even try to rewrite history....I would ask "Have you no Shame" but then you are a libera, so no, you have no shame....
Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis ['/quote]

Ummmmmmm no Blinky. Carter and Warren Christopher got it done. And when they landed in Germany at their first stop Carter was there to greet them.

What, you think Reagan, standing there at the podium, told the Chief Justice, "hold on a second" and picked up the phone and said "Hello Iran? Free the hostages" and they went "oh OK"? Abject naiveté. Go look up the Algiers Accords. It took several weeks of negotiation.

It's no doubt right there on that Wiki page. That's why you don't want to link it.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Propping up the Shah over the Tudeh puppet was the best thing that ever happened to Iran. I know this is hard for stoners, arm chair commies, and Burb Brats to grasp, but it was the best option at the time compared to the alternatives.

The U.S. backed overthrow of Iran's government in 1953 is a root cause. Yet, in some minds, the Iranians are just crazy America haters who attacked out of pure hate for freedom.

Riiiiight, because going out to fuck with other people's elected governments is the "best thing for them"

What a fucking retard.

 

[harmonica]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

Attacks on embassies are considered as attacking the country's soil itself, so there is that. I don't think it was clear at the time there was even a government, though, so who do you attack, exactly? After that became clear, then yes, we should have attacked. If we had, a whole lot of instability and death would have been nipped in the bud.

There wasn't any death. No shots were fired at all. The hostages were brought home entirely through diplomacy. Alive and well.

You can't subtract from zero.

as Pcaro states--this was an attack on the US when they invaded our embassy........
it's not like some moron taking hostages at a bank or something

what about Operation Eagle Claw?? Jimmy was willing to risk their lives then on an IDIOTIC rescue mission?
that probably risked their lives more than bombing would've
Jimmy made a very bad call...if you know anything about military history/tactics
he wanted to use military force--but in a stupid way

 

[Pogo]

should Carter have handled the crisis differently?
the US was humiliated

should we have bombed Iran?
bombing brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table
bombing helped bring the Kosovo problem to the table

with Iran having a big oil industry--bombing them would've been even more effective than the bombing of North Vietnam

would the religious hardliners of Iran overcome the more ''sensible'' leaders/businessmen who would not want Iran's oil industry ruined?

Attacks on embassies are considered as attacking the country's soil itself, so there is that. I don't think it was clear at the time there was even a government, though, so who do you attack, exactly? After that became clear, then yes, we should have attacked. If we had, a whole lot of instability and death would have been nipped in the bud.

There wasn't any death. No shots were fired at all. The hostages were brought home entirely through diplomacy. Alive and well.

You can't subtract from zero.

as Pcaro states--this was an attack on the US when they invaded our embassy........
it's not like some moron taking hostages at a bank or something

what about Operation Eagle Claw?? Jimmy was willing to risk their lives then on an IDIOTIC rescue mission?
that probably risked their lives more than bombing would've
Jimmy made a very bad call...if you know anything about military history/tactics
he wanted to use military force--but in a stupid way

The fact remains ----- it all got done without firing a shot. And there's nothing you warmongers can do about that.

Y'all are a freaking trip. Bad enough you think you can just roll over the world by brute force ----- now we get a thread that wants to jump into a time machine and do it retroactively.

Rescued everybody without firing a shot. Don't you GET that? That's what's called a win.

SMH

 

[Meathead]

ZERO people ---- no hostages, no soldiers, no civilians --- died in the Iran hostage situation. Fact.

Again that number is: "0".

Stick to topics you know something about. Here is a sample of Carter's failure and incompetance in handling the hostage situation - 8 dead:

Operation Eagle Claw - Wikipedia