New Iranian President; Ex-Hostage taker

[Duck Dog]

Fair and balanced link. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161163,00.html)

And he wants nukes.

[Bwana]

Heh, that sounds about right. :shake:

[Radar Chief]

I’d be real curious as to what the Iranian people think of this.
It’s my understanding that over 60% of the population is 30 years old or younger, sick to death of the hard-line religious leaders and looking for reform. What they’ve apparently got is a hard-line religious leader that’ll maintain the status quo.
I wonder how this is setting with them?

[Cochise]

I’d be real curious as to what the Iranian people think of this.
It’s my understanding that over 60% of the population is 30 years old or younger, sick to death of the hard-line religious leaders and looking for reform. What they’ve apparently got is a hard-line religious leader that’ll maintain the status quo.
I wonder how this is setting with them?

Hopefully this will bring revolution over there faster than someone promising to be a reformer would.

[whoman69]

I’d be real curious as to what the Iranian people think of this.
It’s my understanding that over 60% of the population is 30 years old or younger, sick to death of the hard-line religious leaders and looking for reform. What they’ve apparently got is a hard-line religious leader that’ll maintain the status quo.
I wonder how this is setting with them?
Its evidently not true or they didn't vote, much like their compatriots here.

[Ugly Duck]

OK, you got me. I clicked on your "Fair and Balanced Link," and ended up at Faux News! Very tricky......

[Donger]

Its evidently not true or they didn't vote, much like their compatriots here.

Or, they did vote and their votes were 'lost.' I read a report that the Brits were somewhat skeptical of the 'election.'

[chagrin]

I find it insulting to say the least! What sort of sanctions or embargos do we have on Iran? If none, shouldn't we do something there?

Side note, I found myself becoming friends with an Iranian, now American citizen. One year later he is a very close friend. He loves America, hates Islam fundamentalists, Osama, etc and the Iranian Gov't. We talk about this subject alot. I do happen to believe him after all this time. He says basically it is what most of us already know, or suspect. The people are miserable and are terrified of speaking out. There is a huge heroin market there, and the Government keeps it alive. People are killed everyday for "acts against the Government". He says nobody actually voted, if they did go to vote, they were forced to vote for one of several terrorists - it made no difference.

[chagrin]

Here ya go Ugly Duck:

Democrats News Network (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.president/index.html)

[penchief]

It's unsettling to say the least.

I will say this, though. One never knows how people or even countries will respond to veiled threats or sabre-rattling. My guess is that if you want a favorable outcome from someone it isn't wise to threaten them.

[Radar Chief]

It's unsettling to say the least.

I will say this, though. One never knows how people or even countries will respond to veiled threats or sabre-rattling. My guess is that if you want a favorable outcome from someone it isn't wise to threaten them.

Not that I’d expect you to believe anything that might counter your rhetoric, but I found this interesting (http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20050610/DCTH03609062005-1.html).

Iranians Feel America's Presence in the Region Helps Their Chances at Freedom
Historic Survey Finds Plurality of Iranians Uneasy if Regime Were to Develop WMD's
WASHINGTON, June 9 /PRNewswire/ -- A recent public opinion survey of Iranians, conducted by The Tarrance Group, surprisingly found that a vast majority (74%) of Iranians feel America's presence in the Middle East will increase the probability of democracy in their own country. The survey, which was the first of its kind, found two-thirds of Iranians believe that regime change in Iraq has been a positive for both neighboring countries: with 66% believing that it served Iran's national interests, while 65% believed the Iraqi people will, in the long-run, be better off.

Commissioned by the Iran Institute for Democracy, the survey discovered that a solid majority (65%) of Iranian adults consider fundamental change in Iran's system of government, especially its Constitution, a must to bring freedom and more opportunities to their homeland.

Validating reports of widespread discontent with the clerical regime, three-fourths of Iranians (73%) support the call for a national referendum through which Iranians are given a chance to choose the form of government of their choice. Significantly, almost all Iranians reject their government's attempts to keep exiled Iranians out of the political and economic equation of Iran. Fully 84% of all Iranians say Iranians living abroad should have a role in shaping the political and economic future of their homeland.

Presidential Election:

Regarding the forthcoming Presidential elections, in a troubling sign for the regime, nearly four of every five Iranians (79%) say that the upcoming elections should not be held unless they are free, fair and transparent.

While more than 70% of Iranians feel the world is closely monitoring the June 17 election process, in a telling sign, 57% of the population would be inclined to support a boycott of the elections if conditions for a free, fair and transparent election are not met.

Demonstrating disinterest in the pool of candidates, only 39% of adults were able to choose a candidate representing their viewpoint, with Hashemi Rafsanjani only leading (32%) among those who could identify with a candidate. Hence, Mr. Rafsanjani only enjoys 13% support among all Iranians, including those who could not identify an acceptable candidate. That said, when asked to make a prediction, 42% of all surveyed predicted Rafsanjani would be declared the winner of elections, indicating a perception of a predetermined conclusion.

Nuclear Issue:

On the nuclear issue, a solid majority of surveyed respondents inside Iran (60%) feel that the international community's worry about the prospects of terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction is real. Further, a plurality (42%) says the Islamic Republic gaining access to nuclear weapons would add to their anxiety, discomfort and inability to sleep comfortably at night, while only 37% say it would not burden their peace of mind.

Methodology

Commissioned by the Iran Institute for Democracy, the survey was conducted among N=758 adults age 16+ (voting age) in Iran, from May 26 through June 4, 2005. Sample design, questionnaire design, and data processing were conducted by The Tarrance Group. Random digit dialing (RDD) was used to generate the sample, and interviews were conducted via telephone from a call center in the United States using Farsi-speaking interviewers. The margin of error associated with a sample of this size of +/- 3.6%, at the 95% confidence level. The average interview length was 24.6 minutes.

[Taco John]

Not that I’d expect you to believe anything that might counter your rhetoric, but I found this interesting (http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20050610/DCTH03609062005-1.html).


::The Tarrance Group::
A national Republican polling firm, providing polls, election information, and related services.



/just sayin...

[penchief]

Not that I’d expect you to believe anything that might counter your rhetoric, but I found this interesting (http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20050610/DCTH03609062005-1.html).

What part of my comment was rhetoric. I am only making a statement based my observations in life which could quite possibly apply to this topic.

Considering that neither Iran or Korea possessed a nuclear weapon or reconstitued their programs before Bush's aggressive rhetoric or our attack on Iraq, I find our current situations with both countries to be almost a self-fullfilling prophecy on the part of this administration and it's short-sighted approach to nearly just about everything (now, that is rhetoric).

[Radar Chief]

What part of my comment was rhetoric. I am only making a statement based my observations in life which could quite possibly apply to this topic.

Considering that neither Iran or Korea possessed a nuclear weapon or reconstitued their programs before Bush's aggressive rhetoric or our attack on Iraq, I find our current situations with both countries to be almost a self-fullfilling prophecy on the part of this administration and it's short-sighted approach to nearly just about everything (now, that is rhetoric).

Yea, it’s all Bushy’s fault that Billy Bob Clinton gave NK nuclear fuel after they’d already successfully tested a missile for carrying a nuke.
That last part is right though, everything ‘bout you is rhetoric.

[Radar Chief]

::The Tarrance Group::
A national Republican polling firm, providing polls, election information, and related services.



/just sayin...

While I’m always at least a little skeptical of opinion poles, I like that they plainly state their methodology at the end of the article.
Not that the numbers couldn’t have been fudged or questions misleading, just say’n. :shrug:

[Taco John]

I know... All I'm saying is that it's hard to consider it an unbiased poll. They have an agenda.

Not that the results are unbelievable or anything. I'd imagine that any kid growing up in that region would feel a little screwed...

[Ugly Duck]

Here ya go Ugly Duck:Thank you, chagrin! Here's the way I approach these kinds of stories:

1) Wait for it to appear somewhere other than Faux News.

2) Assume that the Bushron/Cheneyburton Administration is lying about it.

3) Check to see if it came from the same RoveGB offices that gave us the SwiftLiars and McCain's Black Bastards.

Still checking......

[BIG_DADDY]

SwiftLiars ROFL ROFL ROFL

Give me a ****ing break. Your a funny guy.

[manny]

How many Americans died in that hostage situation?

[Donger]

How many Americans died in that hostage situation?

8

[Frankie]

New Iranian President; Ex-Hostage taker.
And why is that SOOOO unexpected to you? Many of the initial "Hostage takers" went into political careers. The surprise is that many of THEM went on to oppose the regime.

[Frankie]

Thank you, chagrin! Here's the way I approach these kinds of stories:

1) Wait for it to appear somewhere other than Faux News.

2) Assume that the Bushron/Cheneyburton Administration is lying about it.

3) Check to see if it came from the same RoveGB offices that gave us the SwiftLiars and McCain's Black Bastards.

Still checking......


:bravo:

[Frankie]

8
Botched rescue attempt. Manny's question is still valid.

[BIG_DADDY]

:bravo:

What are you clapping about? If anyone should know the answer to this it's you. If you don't I would just be too damn embarrassed to even have an opinion on the subject.

[mlyonsd]

Botched rescue attempt. Manny's question is still valid.

The 8 that died weren't Americans? So if there were no hostages those 8 would have died anyway? I'm a little confused.

[Radar Chief]

Botched rescue attempt. Manny's question is still valid.

Uh, so is Donger’s response. :spock:

[Frankie]

What are you clapping about? If anyone should know the answer to this it's you. If you don't I would just be too damn embarrassed to even have an opinion on the subject.

Just agree with UD on the Bush Network News news and their "Fair and Balanced" irony. As for this guy being an ex-"Hostage Taker," that's NOT big news to me. But watch for Fox and Bushies to make it a life and death thing. Funny as sh!t.

[mlyonsd]

Just agree with UD on the Bush Network News news and their "Fair and Balanced" irony. As for this guy being an ex-"Hostage Taker," that's NOT big news to me. But watch for Fox and Bushies to make it a life and death thing. Funny as sh!t.

Better tell that to the Clinton News Network:
http://www.cnn.com/

Since it's the lead story on their main web page too.

[Frankie]

The 8 that died weren't Americans? So if there were no hostages those 8 would have died anyway? I'm a little confused.
The point of Manny's question was not that. No hostages died. The rescue operation was strictly an American initiation.

[BIG_DADDY]

Better tell that to the Clinton News Network:
http://www.cnn.com/

Since it's the lead story on their main web page too.


NICE!!!

Gives us a good reason to undermine hi authority.

Surprised your not for throwing out a POS like that anyway Frankie. Everyone I know from Iran is. I guess it's all about following the party line with you.

[Frankie]

Uh, so is Donger’s response. :spock:
Indirectly yes. I just pointed out that Manny's question was about the hostage takers and their intent. The whole thing was a big embarrassing bluff.

[Donger]

The rescue operation was strictly an American initiation.

Are you serious? Sure, we chose to try the op, but as you note, it was a RESCUE op.

[BIG_DADDY]

Are you serious? Sure, we chose to try the op, but as you note, it was a RESCUE op.


Convenient perspective? :shrug:



ROFL

Good god that's simply amazing.

[Frankie]

Better tell that to the Clinton News Network:
http://www.cnn.com/

Since it's the lead story on their main web page too.
Read UD's post. I was agreeing with his point of questioning Fox News and the current White House as our source of info. That this guy was involved in the Hostage episode in his youth, ias not surprising and newsworthy. Unless the White House and Fox want to make it so. It is, I'm sure reported on all news networks (In fact CNN.com is where I first read it earlier today).But let's see which one's will beat it to death.

[Frankie]

Are you serious? Sure, we chose to try the op, but as you note, it was a RESCUE op.

Look, I'm as sorry as you are about Americans losing their lives in the rescue attempt. But the cold arguement can nevertheless be made that the Carter administration weighed the risks and made the decision to go in. Not the hostage takers.

[BIG_DADDY]

That this guy was involved in the Hostage episode in his youth, ias not surprising and newsworthy.

Unfreakinbelievable. I don't know how you can even say that. Once again I thought you wanted something better for your homeland? I have a real hard time taking you serious at times like this.

[Donger]

That this guy was involved in the Hostage episode in his youth

Youthful indiscretions, eh?

He was 21 or 22 in 1978.

[Donger]

Look, I'm as sorry as you are about Americans losing their lives in the rescue attempt. But the cold arguement can nevertheless be made that the Carter administration weighed the risks and made the decision to go in. Not the hostage takers.

Do you lay any of the blame for those deaths on the hostage-takers?

[Radar Chief]

Unfreakinbelievable. I don't know how you can even say that. Once again I thought you wanted something better for your homeland? I have a real hard time taking you serious at times like this.

He is right though, BD, a terrorist leading Iran isn’t “surprising”. ;)

[BIG_DADDY]

He is right though, BD, a terrorist leading Iran isn’t “surprising”. ;)

Or Newsworthy. ROFL

[manny]

Do you lay any of the blame for those deaths on the hostage-takers?


Do you lay any of the blame for the 10,000+ killed by the Shah, after the CIA overthrew a democratically-elected government and installed the Shah, on the US?

[Donger]

Do you lay any of the blame for the 10,000+ killed by the Shah, after the CIA overthrew a democratically-elected government and installed the Shah, on the US?

I blame Bush.

[manny]

I blame Bush.

Not a serious answer.

[Donger]

Not a serious answer.

Heh. Yes, we are somewhat responsible for the Shah and his reign. Just as the hostage takers were somewhat responsible for the deaths of those eight US servicemen.

[manny]

Heh. Yes, we are somewhat responsible for the Shah and his reign. Just as the hostage takers were somewhat responsible for the deaths of those eight US servicemen.

We agree.

[Michael Michigan]

It's unsettling to say the least.

I will say this, though. One never knows how people or even countries will respond to veiled threats or sabre-rattling. My guess is that if you want a favorable outcome from someone it isn't wise to threaten them.

How did they respond on January 20, 1981?

[Frankie]

Do you lay any of the blame for the 10,000+ killed by the Shah, after the CIA overthrew a democratically-elected government and installed the Shah, on the US?

By their arguing they should. Rep.

[Frankie]

Do you lay any of the blame for those deaths on the hostage-takers?
BTW I'm not BLAMING. I'm just pointing out the cold hard fact.

[Frankie]

Youthful indiscretions, eh?

He was 21 or 22 in 1978.
Again. Not the point. That you find this guy's past to be real news is the point.

[Donger]

BTW I'm not BLAMING. I'm just pointing out the cold hard fact.

So, which is it?

Yes, I blame them.
No, I don't blame them at all.

Or something in between?

[Donger]

Again. Not the point. That you find this guy's past to be real news is the point.

What? You mean like George Bush's service record during Vietnam?

[Michael Michigan]

::The Tarrance Group::
A national Republican polling firm, providing polls, election information, and related services.



/just sayin...

Your ignorance knows no bounds. They have a tremndous track record in polls.

All it would have taken for you to not look foolish--yet again--was two more clicks of your mouse. But hey--I'm a giver--I'll help.

http://www.tarrance.com/files/TTG-Vote-Projections-and-Results.pdf [PDF]

[Frankie]

So, which is it?

Yes, I blame them.
No, I don't blame them at all.

Or something in between?

I said I'm not blaming any side. A set of events happened and both sides should take responsibility for their actions (and reactions). Iran lost $12 billion for what was merely a big bluff. The U.S. lost some soldiers in her attempt to mount a high risk operation. Both sides suffered for their own decision. If this were a court case, that's the way the judge would rule, I bet.

[Frankie]

What? You mean like George Bush's service record during Vietnam?
Real news in a society bosting of "free" elections. Not so much in a country run by religious hardliners. Oops, sorry, I see your point.

[memyselfI]

Fair and balanced link. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161163,00.html)

And he wants nukes.

I guess democracy in the ME won't always break the US way, eh? If it's true, it should make for some interesting hard sell at the UN as to why Iran needs to be invaded because of the illegal actions of their president while he was a college student. :hmmm:

[BIG_DADDY]

I said I'm not blaming any side. A set of events happened and both sides should take responsibility for their actions (and reactions). Iran lost $12 billion for what was merely a big bluff. The U.S. lost some soldiers in her attempt to mount a high risk operation. Both sides suffered for their own decision. If this were a court case, that's the way the judge would rule, I bet.

YOu can't see the forest for the trees, that's ridiculous.

[Donger]

Real news in a society bosting of "free" elections. Not so much in a country run by religious hardliners. Oops, sorry, I see your point.

You really don't think that it's newsworthy that the next president of Iran may have been part of the group responsible for taking 66 Americans hostage and holding them for 444 days?

[BIG_DADDY]

You really don't think that it's newsworthy that the next president of Iran may have been part of the group responsible for taking 66 Americans hostage and holding them for 444 days?

Frankie doesn't have the mental capacity to do anything other than bark the party line. I think this thread makes that quite clear.

[Frankie]

Frankie doesn't have the mental capacity to do anything other than bark the party line. I think this thread makes that quite clear.
:rolleyes:

[memyselfI]

There is something very fishy about these accusations...

None of these guys they are interviewing can say with absolute certainty that 1. he's the guy in the first place and 2. that he was responsible for their kidnapping or 3. that he did anything more than be there. If he was there then what EXACTLY does that mean?

From everything I've heard and read, the students who took over the Embassy were on their own at the beginning. They were not acting out for or on behalf of the government. MOF, the government debated whether or not to sanction their actions and decided it was beneficial to do so. It was THAT decision that escalated the situation. According to Robin Wright, this guy was NOT one of the ringleaders. He could have been one of the 'thousands of students' who were at the scene at one time or another.

So if he simply was there, does that make him unfit to govern the country?

FWIW, I think he's a hardliner RWNJ whacko fundamentalist and THAT makes him unfit to govern the country. The fact that he participated in anti-US activities itself does not. I guess it will boil down to his level of involvement if it can be proven it's the same guy.

[Donger]

Frankie doesn't have the mental capacity to do anything other than bark the party line. I think this thread makes that quite clear.

:rolleyes:

That's moderately amusing.

Is that your answer Frankie?

[Frankie]

That's moderately amusing.

Is that your answer Frankie?

It was not a question to require an answer. Just a personal attack. And NOT unexpected if my past experience guides me correctly.

[Donger]

It was not a question to require an answer. Just a personal attack. And NOT unexpected if my past experience guides me correctly.

Wow. That wasn't a personal attack. I'm simply curious as to if you really think that it's isn't newsworthy.

But, since you refuse to answer, I can only assume that your answer would have been no.

[Frankie]

Wow. That wasn't a personal attack. I'm simply curious as to if you really think that it's isn't newsworthy.

But, since you refuse to answer, I can only assume that your answer would have been no.

Quote:Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY
Frankie doesn't have the mental capacity to do anything other than bark the party line. I think this thread makes that quite clear.

Small personal attack (compared to before) but one nevertheless. As for your question,.. AGAIN,.. I'm pointing out that I'm not talking about placing BLAMES. For further explanation read my posts here. I won't have time to keep repeating them.

[Donger]

Quote:Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY
Frankie doesn't have the mental capacity to do anything other than bark the party line. I think this thread makes that quite clear.

Small personal attack (compared to before) but one nevertheless. As for your question,.. AGAIN,.. I'm pointing out that I'm not talking about placing BLAMES. For further explanation read my posts here. I won't have time to keep repeating them.

Huh? I'm asking about this question: "You really don't think that it's newsworthy that the next president of Iran may have been part of the group responsible for taking 66 Americans hostage and holding them for 444 days?"

[BIG_DADDY]

Quote:Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY
Frankie doesn't have the mental capacity to do anything other than bark the party line. I think this thread makes that quite clear.

Small personal attack (compared to before) but one nevertheless. As for your question,.. AGAIN,.. I'm pointing out that I'm not talking about placing BLAMES. For further explanation read my posts here. I won't have time to keep repeating them.

The fact that you can't see the forest for the trees proves my capacity theory. Just a fact.

[penchief]

While I’m always at least a little skeptical of opinion poles

I think Poles are entitled to their opinions as much as you or I.

[penchief]

How did they respond on January 20, 1981?

Oh, you mean that secret deal that the young neocons negotiated with Iranian terrorists before the Reagan administration even took office?

Yeah, they were really shakin' in their boots knowing that they were gonna' get all those American arms.

[Michael Michigan]

Oh, you mean that secret deal that the young neocons negotiated with Iranian terrorists before the Reagan administration even took office?

Yeah, they were really shakin' in their boots knowing that they were gonna' get all those American arms.

Damn that was easy.

[penchief]

Damn that was easy.

No kidding. I'm surprised you lobbed that softball up there.

[Michael Michigan]

No kidding. I'm surprised you lobbed that softball up there.

Please--elaborate. Knock it out of the park.

[penchief]

Please--elaborate. Knock it out of the park.

I'll start by asking a simple question. Why do you think they released the hostages on Reagan's inauguration?

[Michael Michigan]

I'll start by asking a simple question. Why do you think they released the hostages on Reagan's inauguration?


Fear.

[Rain Man]

There is something very fishy about these accusations...

None of these guys they are interviewing can say with absolute certainty that 1. he's the guy in the first place and 2. that he was responsible for their kidnapping or 3. that he did anything more than be there. If he was there then what EXACTLY does that mean?

It means he was a terrorist.

I didn't click the link since I've already read about this, so I don't know if there was a photo or not. There was a photo in the paper this morning of one of the terrorists guiding a blindfolded hostage. If it wasn't him, then it was his twin, because even with 25 years passed by, it was obvious that it was him.


So if he simply was there, does that make him unfit to govern the country?

FWIW, I think he's a hardliner RWNJ whacko fundamentalist and THAT makes him unfit to govern the country. The fact that he participated in anti-US activities itself does not. I guess it will boil down to his level of involvement if it can be proven it's the same guy.

From the U.S. standpoint, yes. I think that Lt. William Calley of the My Lai massacres would have a hard time getting elected here, and that guy should've had an equally hard time getting elected there if the populace really wanted to join the world community.

[Logical]

Indirectly yes. I just pointed out that Manny's question was about the hostage takers and their intent. The whole thing was a big embarrassing bluff.

Embarrassing yes, but I do not really believe Carter was bluffing. Carter was just an inept clown who never understood that a leader leads/delegates then lets the experts handle the job. Carter always had to be involved in every detail which is why he was such a miserable failure as a President.

[penchief]

Fear.

Then why not release them on the first Tuesday of November? Why would they wait two and a half months only to contribute to Reagan's myth by releasing them five minutes after his inaugural? Surely they knew they would be contributing to his celebration? Fear? If it were fear they wouldn't have waited. I think it makes more sense that the release date was part of the deal.

Second question. Why did the Reagan administration immediately start the arms flowing instead of backing up their tough campaign rhetoric with action?

[Logical]

Do you lay any of the blame for those deaths on the hostage-takers?

Truthfully I don't. I lay all the blame on Carter and his ineptness. Carter had no business being involved directly in the operation and that constant reporting/decision making involvement caused those 8 mens deaths along with the unfortunate circumstances. Circumstances that had the leaders in the field been in control could have been effectively managed.

[Logical]

I blame Bush.LOL that might be accurate, wasn't the elder Bush in charge of the CIA when they helped the Shah overthrow Iran?

[Logical]

Huh? I'm asking about this question: "You really don't think that it's newsworthy that the next president of Iran may have been part of the group responsible for taking 66 Americans hostage and holding them for 444 days?"

Newsworthy, probably. News is all about subscriptions/ratings and using events to stimulate them.

Important, NO, what some 20 something did 27 years ago is not really important. What is important as D.enise properly points out is his current nutjob views and positions as they relate to US interests.

[Michael Michigan]

Then why not release them on the first Tuesday of November? Why would they wait two and a half months only to contribute to Reagan's myth by releasing them five minutes after his inaugural? Surely they knew they would be contributing to his celebration? Fear? If it were fear they wouldn't have waited. I think it makes more sense that the release date was part of the deal.

Second question. Why did the Reagan administration immediately start the arms flowing instead of backing up their tough campaign rhetoric with action?

This is where I thought you were going. Quote Gary Sick for me.

[Logical]

Fear.
Maybe partially, but I have to agree that a secret deal was worked out in advance. Reagan's admninstration was pretty shrewd and realized that if both Iraq and Iran were in conflict with each other Islam would be significantly weakened and its ability to generate terrorist outside the region severely curtailed. They made sure both sides were well armed so that a war of attrition would last a while and significantly weaken both sides. So I think fear played a much smaller part in the hostages being released than has been perceived by many.

[penchief]

This is where I thought you were going. Quote Gary Sick for me.

I'm asking you to answer these questions using your own logic.

I could quote a whole lot more people than Gary Sick. But let's try to keep other people out of it.

For what logical reason would American arms start flowing to Iran immediately after Reagan took office?

Wasn't he the, "We'll never deal with terrorists" candidate? How do YOU reconcile that apparent contradiction?

[Logical]

I'm asking you to answer these questions using your own logic.

I could quote a whole lot more people than Gary Sick. But let's try to keep other people out of it.

For what logical reason would American arms start flowing to Iran immediately after Reagan took office?

Wasn't he the, "We'll never deal with terrorists" candidate? How do YOU reconcile that apparent contradiction?

I agree, heck you could quote me.:D

Haha he said Logical, and I just posted a beautiful explanation that would indeed support the start of Arms flow.

Yes, he was, you cannot except for the fact that no one should ever trust what any politician says while campaigning.

[memyselfI]

It means he was a terrorist.

I didn't click the link since I've already read about this, so I don't know if there was a photo or not. There was a photo in the paper this morning of one of the terrorists guiding a blindfolded hostage. If it wasn't him, then it was his twin, because even with 25 years passed by, it was obvious that it was him.






Terrorists? Please. The students who stormed the embassy were mostly politically active college kids who got in over their heads. There was dissent amongst them about how to handle the hostages once they stormed the Embassy and they were not acting at the behest of the Iranian government. Once the government got involved then the dynamic changed to a coordinated effort. But the original intent of storming the embassy was NOT to take hostages at the request of the Iranian government. The students were trying to send a message NOT create an international crisis.

You should get back to me when you've had a chance to get up to speed...

A number of the hostages, as well as journalists who've interviewed the top ringleaders of the movement that took the hostages, have said these do not appear to be the same people in the pictures. One of the hostages claims that the B/W picture was not one of the student captors he remembers but the color picture of the President is one he cannot forget.

[penchief]

Maybe partially, but I have to agree that a secret deal was worked out in advance. Reagan's admninstration was pretty shrewd and realized that if both Iraq and Iran were in conflict with each other Islam would be significantly weakened and its ability to generate terrorist outside the region severely curtailed. They made sure both sides were well armed so that a war of attrition would last a while and significantly weaken both sides. So I think fear played a much smaller part in the hostages being released than has been perceived by many.

I think it is also just as likely that they were concerned that Carter would negotiate a deal before the election which could seriously hinder their presidential aspirations. In fact, I believe it was William Casey who originally coined the term "October surprise" when expressing that very concern.

On another note; if what you say above is true wouldn't that be all the more reason for the Middle East to hate our guts? Especially considering the fact that we introduced WMD into the mix?

[Donger]

LOL that might be accurate, wasn't the elder Bush in charge of the CIA when they helped the Shah overthrow Iran?

No.

[Donger]

Terrorists? Please. The students who stormed the embassy were mostly politically active college kids who got in over their heads.

Yeah, I'm sure the 66 hostages just shook their heads, grinned and said to themselves, "Jeez! Students?! What are you going to do. Crazy kids."

[memyselfI]

Yeah, I'm sure the 66 hostages just shook their heads, grinned and said to themselves, "Jeez! Students?! What are you going to do. Crazy kids."

That is apparently what they did the first time the students seized the American embassy earlier that same year...

:hmmm:

[Logical]

...

On another note; if what you say above is true wouldn't that be all the more reason for the Middle East to hate our guts? Especially considering the fact that we introduced WMD into the mix?

In truth I doubt the average ME individual has sufficient knowledge of such political dealings to use it as motivation. I think their hatred is far simpler in nature, jealousy, religious bigotry, and a fundamental dislike of our societal ways. Many of them truly view our cultural habits as perversions of their views of decency.

[Logical]

No.George HW Bush was Director of the CIA from January 1976 through December 1976. After looking it up I found that the Shah was installed in Iran in 1953 so you are correct. I had no idea the Shah had been in power in Iran for so long. If you think about it this was one of the CIAs most successful ventures being as the Shah held power for almost 25 years.

[Donger]

George HW Bush was Director of the CIA from January 1976 through December 1976. After looking it up I found that the Shah was installed in Iran in 1953 so you are correct. I had no idea the Shah had been in power in Iran for so long. If you think about it this was one of the CIAs most successful ventures being as the Shah held power for almost 25 years.

And, he was originally installed because the west feared that his father was going to side with the Axis powers during WWII, if memory serves.

[memyselfI]

George HW Bush was Director of the CIA from January 1976 through December 1976. After looking it up I found that the Shah was installed in Iran in 1953 so you are correct. I had no idea the Shah had been in power in Iran for so long. If you think about it this was one of the CIAs most successful ventures being as the Shah held power for almost 25 years.

Conversely, one could argue this was sowing the seeds of many decades of discontent and distrust within the region of which we are still trying to deal with.

I'm not sure how this could be viewed long term as a CIA 'successful venture.'

[Donger]

That is apparently what they did the first time the students seized the American embassy earlier that same year...

:hmmm:

I didn't know that they had done that. I'm not asking because I don't believe you, merely out of historical curiousity, but do you have a handy link for that?

[memyselfI]

I didn't know that they had done that. I'm not asking because I don't believe you, merely out of historical curiousity, but do you have a handy link for that?

Here are a couple:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20041213&s=aslan

This was not the first time the embassy had been attacked during that tumultuous year. Nine months earlier, on Valentine's Day, a smaller group had briefly captured the compound before being immediately dispatched by an irritated Ayatollah Khomeini, who personally apologized to William Sullivan, the American ambassador, for the incident. So when the embassy staff saw the Muslim Students running around the courtyard "like little kids in an amusement park," in the words of one Marine, they assumed this would be a repeat of the Valentine's Day seizure. Surely rescue would soon be on its way, especially once the Ayatollah, who had pledged to protect the embassy, received word of what had happened. No one--not the embassy staff nor their student captors--could have predicted that this would be the beginning of a hostage crisis that would seize the imaginations of both countries for 444 fretful, grueling days.


http://www.theworld.org/worldfeature/Iran/part3.shtml

The hostages assumed the crisis would blow over within 24 hours. A similar attack nine months earlier had been resolved rapidly. But this time Khomeini backed the students. One day turned into two, and then days into weeks and weeks into months. John Limbert the political officer was one of the hostages. He says he quickly learned what all prisoners learn.

[Donger]

Here are a couple:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20041213&s=aslan

This was not the first time the embassy had been attacked during that tumultuous year. Nine months earlier, on Valentine's Day, a smaller group had briefly captured the compound before being immediately dispatched by an irritated Ayatollah Khomeini, who personally apologized to William Sullivan, the American ambassador, for the incident. So when the embassy staff saw the Muslim Students running around the courtyard "like little kids in an amusement park," in the words of one Marine, they assumed this would be a repeat of the Valentine's Day seizure. Surely rescue would soon be on its way, especially once the Ayatollah, who had pledged to protect the embassy, received word of what had happened. No one--not the embassy staff nor their student captors--could have predicted that this would be the beginning of a hostage crisis that would seize the imaginations of both countries for 444 fretful, grueling days.


http://www.theworld.org/worldfeature/Iran/part3.shtml

The hostages assumed the crisis would blow over within 24 hours. A similar attack nine months earlier had been resolved rapidly. But this time Khomeini backed the students. One day turned into two, and then days into weeks and weeks into months. John Limbert the political officer was one of the hostages. He says he quickly learned what all prisoners learn.


Thank you.

[memyselfI]

Thank you.

No problem. You are not the first person I've come across who did not know.

[Michael Michigan]

I'm asking you to answer these questions using your own logic.

I could quote a whole lot more people than Gary Sick. But let's try to keep other people out of it.

For what logical reason would American arms start flowing to Iran immediately after Reagan took office?

Wasn't he the, "We'll never deal with terrorists" candidate? How do YOU reconcile that apparent contradiction?

Well unless you were running guns back in the early 80's you are going to have to cite someone.

Keep in mind, Iraq invaded Iran in September of '80.

[Frankie]

Huh? I'm asking about this question: "You really don't think that it's newsworthy that the next president of Iran may have been part of the group responsible for taking 66 Americans hostage and holding them for 444 days?"
No. I'm surprised that you do. A lot of those people are in today's political activities. It's not strange that a few of them have come up the ranks in the last 25 years.

[Taco John]

I sure think it's newsworthy. Damned newsworthy.

But I also think the sudden disappearance of $6 billion dollars is newsworthy, so I'm apparently not a very good guage of what is newsworthy or not.

Both are incredibly newsworthy from where I stand... So much so that I think a person would have to be in extreme denial (for one reason or another) not to.

[Frankie]

Embarrassing yes, but I do not really believe Carter was bluffing. Carter was just an inept clown who never understood that a leader leads/delegates then lets the experts handle the job. Carter always had to be involved in every detail which is why he was such a miserable failure as a President.

I meant that the embassy seizure was a mere bluff. One that mushroomed into 444 days.

[penchief]

In truth I doubt the average ME individual has sufficient knowledge of such political dealings to use it as motivation. I think their hatred is far simpler in nature, jealousy, religious bigotry, and a fundamental dislike of our societal ways. Many of them truly view our cultural habits as perversions of their views of decency.

If we assume this secret deal was done after the election but before the inauguration, wouldn't it be considered a little questionable that anyone in our country would delay the release of the hostages for political purposes? Plus, they would have been working from a position of authority that they didn't yet possess. This scenario just doesn't make sense because why would they do that if they already won the election? They still would have gotten the credit, not Carter. There was no benefit to wait other than enhancing the inaugural spectacle.

If, as many believe, the secret deal was consumated before the November elections to counter a Carter "October surprise," wouldn't that be just plain shitty all the way around? Not only would they have been working from a position of authority that they didn't have or were not certain to have, but it also undermined the political process in a very profound way by undermining the efforts of a sitting president for strictly political gain.

Now, if at the time, Saddam was our CIA ally and Iran truly was our enemy (and the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world) why wouldn't we want to undermine the Iranian revolution? We certainly had 444 days of frustration, anger, and feelings of revenge as justification to do so. To turn right around and reward those who were responsible for our national ordeal makes no sense at all. War only hardens feelings of nationalism and religious fundamentalism in those countries involved. At the very least, it was counter-productive to our stated goals and in direct contradiction to the Reaganites' campaign rhetoric.

[penchief]

Well unless you were running guns back in the early 80's you are going to have to cite someone.

Keep in mind, Iraq invaded Iran in September of '80.

It's common knowledge that those shipments began within days after the inauguration. All you have to do is google "Reagan, Iranian hostages," and there will be plenty for you to read.

When Iraq invaded Iran is irrelevant to why Reagan shipped arms to Iranian terrorists immediately after taking office. Seems like an odd priority, doesn't it? Let's not forget that Saddam was our buddy at the time. Let's also keep in mind that we're talking about the architects of the Iran-Contra scandal.

[penchief]

The more I see pictures of the new president and pictures from twenty-five years ago, the more it looks like it isn't the same guy. I'm not saying I know for sure but there is a lot of room for doubt.

Specifically, the profile shot clearly shows that Mahmoud has the classic protruding bone in the middle of his nose which causes it to arc outward. The profile of the hostage-taker clearly shows he has a ski slope nose which arcs inward.

I suppose he could have suffered a broken nose at some point but it is definitately something to wonder about.

[penchief]

And, he was originally installed because the west feared that his father was going to side with the Axis powers during WWII, if memory serves.

He was installed because the democratically elected government in Iran was about to nationalize the oil industry.

[mlyonsd]

Read UD's post. I was agreeing with his point of questioning Fox News and the current White House as our source of info. That this guy was involved in the Hostage episode in his youth, ias not surprising and newsworthy. Unless the White House and Fox want to make it so. It is, I'm sure reported on all news networks (In fact CNN.com is where I first read it earlier today).But let's see which one's will beat it to death.

Even CBS had it as their lead story on the nightly news.

I'm not posting on the relevance of the story, just exposing your bias towards Fox when they are in reality just doing their job.

[Amnorix]

And, he was originally installed because the west feared that his father was going to side with the Axis powers during WWII, if memory serves.

I do not believe so. Without looking it up, my recollection is that Iran was part of the British Empire and not considered a risk for going over to the Axis. This is reinforced by the fact that the Teheran Conference was held there in '44 or whenever it was.

Secondly, I specifically recall that the coup that plced the Shah in power was done during th Eisenhower adminstration, long after the end of WWII.

What the specific reasons for the coup were, I'm uncertain. I do know, however, that Iranian fundamentalism and the Ayatollah were helped along by the perception that we controlled Iran through our puppet, the Shah. To a degree, we have reaped what we have sewn when it comes to fundamentalist Iran. What path Iran would have taken had we not put the Shah into power and backed him is, of course, unknown. Maybe better, maybe worse.

[Donger]

He was installed because the democratically elected government in Iran was about to nationalize the oil industry.

I'm going to have to look this up now, damnit. I know that he replaced his father and that the west was concerned that either Daddy or the government was going to align with the Axis powers.

[Donger]

I do not believe so. Without looking it up, my recollection is that Iran was part of the British Empire and not considered a risk for going over to the Axis. This is reinforced by the fact that the Teheran Conference was held there in '44 or whenever it was.

Secondly, I specifically recall that the coup that plced the Shah in power was done during th Eisenhower adminstration, long after the end of WWII.

He did replace his father early in WWII; 1941 I believe. And yes, he was ousted in the early 1950s and was quickly placed back in power.

[Amnorix]

I'm going to have to look this up now, damnit. I know that he replaced his father and that the west was concerned that either Daddy or the government was going to align with the Axis powers.


Great. Let us know what you find.


:evil:

[Donger]

British foreign policy emphasized adroit diplomacy backed by military might to ensure the privileged treatment of British interests in the country, and Britain imposed humiliating restrictions on Iranian sovereignity. Reza Pahlavi sought to decrease this influence by reaching out to other European powers such as Italy and Germany. Ironically, instead of decreasing British and Russian influence, this policy only provided new impetus for continued interference in Iranian affairs and proved the Shah's undoing: in 1939, Germany invaded Poland and World War II began.
[edit]

Reign of Mohammad Reza
[edit]

Deposition of his Father

In 1941, Germany invaded its former ally, the Soviet Union, which quickly re-allied with Britain. Concerned that Reza Shah was about to align his petroleum-rich country with Germany, the British and the Soviets occupied Iran and forced the Shah to resign in favor of his son. Iran became a major conduit for British and later American aid to the USSR. This massive supply effort became known as the "Persian Corridor", and marked the first large-scale US involvement in Iran.
[edit]

Counter-coup and consolodation of power

At the end of World War II, political unrest dogged Iran and in 1953 the nation's nationalist prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, forced the Shah to flee the country. He was quickly escorted back to power and fired Mossadegh through a counter-coup, led by General Fazlollah Zahedi, which was supported by the American CIA and Britain's SIS (MI6).

[Amnorix]

He did replace his father early in WWII; 1941 I believe. And yes, he was ousted in the early 1950s and was quickly placed back in power.


So Daddy was going to align with the Axis, and so the son took over?

Okay, but that's separate from what happened in the 50s, then.

EDIT: never mind. Thanks for teh posts

[manny]

I sure think it's newsworthy. Damned newsworthy.

But I also think the sudden disappearance of $6 billion dollars is newsworthy, so I'm apparently not a very good guage of what is newsworthy or not.

Both are incredibly newsworthy from where I stand... So much so that I think a person would have to be in extreme denial (for one reason or another) not to.

Newsworthy?


That he "may have been"---NO. I'm sick and tired of the media being a transmission belt for politically-motivated speculation and thereby pushing an agenda, in this case racheting up a campaign for US hostility toward Iran and ultimately some form of military or covert action. This guy has been the mayor of Tehran for two years, was a candidate for President of Iran for several months, and only now does it come out that he "may have been" involved in the '79 Embassy Takeover? That makes me think that this "story" was on hold until after the Iranian election when an Ahmadinejad victory would make for an opportunity to do a media campaign to dredge up the Embassy Takeover (without, of course, dredging up the history of the involvement of the US with the repression in Iran that motivated the Iranian revolution).

If it turns out he was directly involved, then it would be worthy of some discussion in the media, involving the WHOLE history hat lead to that event, not just the parts that make for a good excuse for US military action against Iran. Anybody want to bet that is likely to happen?

[manny]

I'm going to have to look this up now, damnit. I know that he replaced his father and that the west was concerned that either Daddy or the government was going to align with the Axis powers.

The democratically-elected President of Iran overthrown for the Shah was named Mohammed Mossadegh if that helps your search, and he won election on the issue of nationalizing the oil fields.

[Donger]

If it turns out he was directly involved, then it would be worthy of some discussion in the media, involving the WHOLE history hat lead to that event, not just the parts that make for a good excuse for US military action against Iran. Anybody want to bet that is likely to happen?

If Iran proceeds with its plans to become a nuclear power, I think it's inevitable.

[Donger]

The democratically-elected President of Iran overthrown for the Shah was named Mohammed Mossadegh if that helps your search, and he won election on the issue of nationalizing the oil fields.

Yes, in 1953, not WWII.

[penchief]

In truth I doubt the average ME individual has sufficient knowledge of such political dealings to use it as motivation. I think their hatred is far simpler in nature, jealousy, religious bigotry, and a fundamental dislike of our societal ways. Many of them truly view our cultural habits as perversions of their views of decency.

That could be true. However, sometimes I feel that that the average Middle Eastern native is much more politically sophisticated than the average Amereican. I mean, after all, their youth admires Osama bin Laden while our youth admires J-Lo.

I'm not saying that it's appropriate but it is food for thought.

[mlyonsd]

That could be true. However, sometimes I feel that that the average Middle Eastern native is much more politically sophisticated than the average Amereican. I mean, after all, their youth admires Osama bin Laden while our youth admires J-Lo.

I'm not saying that it's appropriate but it is food for thought.

But in the end they're both misguided. One thing I'll say in defense is that American children don't go to bed at night hoping their family isn't executed for politically leaning the wrong way. It's a lot easier for our kids to worry about more innocent things.

[Loki]

And why is that SOOOO unexpected to you? Many of the initial "Hostage takers" went into political careers. The surprise is that many of THEM went on to oppose the regime.

i guess THEIR efforts didn't work so well for THEM...
way to go hostage-takers-turned-good-guys! :thumb:

(say frankie... despite their apparent shortcomings of opposing the
regime, they are still hostage takers... right?)

[Loki]

Botched rescue attempt. Manny's question is still valid.

so it was ok that they had to be rescued in the first place?

sure... find a way to blame it on the Americans trying to free a bunch
of our citizens from a group of terrorist ragheads...

what a great perspective frankie! :thumb:

[Loki]

What? You mean like George Bush's service record during Vietnam?

lol... classic.

[Loki]

There is something very fishy about these accusations...
...
I guess it will boil down to his level of involvement if it can be proven it's the same guy.

:hmmm:

[mlyonsd]

lol... classic.

W had a service record during Vietnam so I don't see the humor.

[Loki]

W had a service record during Vietnam so I don't see the humor.

apparently not.

i was laughing at donger's retort to frankie... not the service record.

[Frankie]

i guess THEIR efforts didn't work so well for THEM...
way to go hostage-takers-turned-good-guys! :thumb:

(say frankie... despite their apparent shortcomings of opposing the
regime, they are still hostage takers... right?)

When, in my posts here, did I accuse anybody of being "good guys." As always you are jumping and reacting to your own conclusions. :shake:

[Loki]

When, in my posts here, did I accuse anybody of being "good guys." As always you are jumping and reacting to your own conclusions. :shake:

as always... yep... that's me. jumping AND reacting to my own
conclusions.

still doesn't answer my question does it?

[Frankie]

The other side of the coin:

"Ex-Iranian Agent: Photo Not Ahmadinejad"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050703/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_ahmadinejad

:shrug:

[Loki]

The other side of the coin:

"Ex-Iranian Agent: Photo Not Ahmadinejad"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050703/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_ahmadinejad

:shrug:

looks like that entire article did nothing but open up more cans of
worms.

and who is going to trust the word of an iranian secret service spook
with identifying the president elect? if he fingers him, then he's either
out of a job, or planted six feet under. neither are very good choices
for him, so i wouldn't put much stock in the "it was some other guy"
statement he's made.

[penchief]

looks like that entire article did nothing but open up more cans of
worms.

and who is going to trust the word of an iranian secret service spook
with identifying the president elect? if he fingers him, then he's either
out of a job, or planted six feet under. neither are very good choices
for him, so i wouldn't put much stock in the "it was some other guy"
statement he's made.

I still say if you look at the profiles of the two men that were shown on television, there is no way those two noses are from the same person. One has a huge bone in the middle causing it to arc severely outward while the other dude has a serious ski-slope nose causing it to arc inward.

Stranger things have happened but that seems to me like a reason to seriously question the likelihood of it being the same person.

[mlyonsd]

I still say if you look at the profiles of the two men that were shown on television, there is no way those two noses are from the same person. One has a huge bone in the middle causing it to arc severely outward while the other dude has a serious ski-slope nose causing it to arc inward.

Stranger things have happened but that seems to me like a reason to seriously question the likelihood of it being the same person.

I agree. I also thought the way their eyes were set looked different. The two guys kind of looked alike but I couldn't ever say for sure they were the same person.

[Frankie]

I agree. I also thought the way their eyes were set looked different. The two guys kind of looked alike but I couldn't ever say for sure they were the same person.

All them dang I-rainians look alike to us anyway!! ;)
:p

[mlyonsd]

All them dang I-rainians look alike to us anyway!! ;)
:p

I'd be lying if I said I didn't consider posting that thought. I'm glad you did it for me you racist Iranian wacko. :p

[Frankie]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't consider posting that thought. I'm glad you did it for me you racist Iranian wacko. :p
:LOL:

[Rain Man]

Terrorists? Please. The students who stormed the embassy were mostly politically active college kids who got in over their heads. There was dissent amongst them about how to handle the hostages once they stormed the Embassy and they were not acting at the behest of the Iranian government. Once the government got involved then the dynamic changed to a coordinated effort. But the original intent of storming the embassy was NOT to take hostages at the request of the Iranian government. The students were trying to send a message NOT create an international crisis.




I never said that they were acting at the behest of the government. I said that they were terrorists. There's an enormous difference.

And just so we're clear, you're saying that the students were trying to send a message of peace and love by taking hostages? Do you think that this is an acceptable means of political statement? Would you feel the same way if a bunch of Texas A&M students took over the Iranian consulate now?

[Frankie]

I never said that they were acting at the behest of the government. I said that they were terrorists. There's an enormous difference.

And just so we're clear, you're saying that the students were trying to send a message of peace and love by taking hostages? Do you think that this is an acceptable means of political statement? Would you feel the same way if a bunch of Texas A&M students took over the Iranian consulate now?

You are an Aggie?
:eek:

[Loki]

You are an Aggie?
:eek:

just answer the question. it's pretty much the same thing i asked you
earlier.

[Frankie]

just answer the question. it's pretty much the same thing i asked you
earlier.
Has there been a question that I haven't answered? :shrug:

[Rain Man]

You are an Aggie?
:eek:


I resent that. I, sir, am a Longhorn. I set forth Aggies as an example because they would be most likely to take hostages among all of our nation's university students.

[Loki]

Has there been a question that I haven't answered? :shrug:

several... but at this point, nevermind.

happy 4th of july everyone.

[Frankie]

I resent that. I, sir, am a Longhorn. I set forth Aggies as an example because they would be most likely to take hostages among all of our nation's university students.
Ouch. That must be as bad as calling me a Hawkeye. ;)