What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
89 Comments
- uncleosbert, on 11/04/2009, -5/+31well, he didn't let those guys rot. he negotiated for their release and when the negotiations fell through, he sent an armed rescue mission. there are still a lot of people trying to figure out why the hostages were turned over to reagan so fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_cons ... - Krakerjax, on 11/05/2009, -2/+20I remember a time in school where I was taught that America had a policy of "Lets not ***** with other countries. Their problems are their problems, not ours, lets leave it that way."
Good times. - BasalCellBossk, on 11/05/2009, -3/+16Reagan and Poppy Bush did a deal with the Iranians to keep the hostages incarcerated until they could get rid of Carter. Don't believe it? Look at Iran-Contra. Reagan was corrupt.
- jsffive, on 11/05/2009, -2/+15Was that pre-1953, before the CIA in cooperation with British intelligence, engineered a coup in what was then the only democracy in the Middle East?
For well over fifty years, the United States has had a continuous, consistent policy of "***** with other countries, and lie to the entire world about it." - whatthefu, on 11/05/2009, -4/+15How has Carter been embarrassing post-presidency? He works for charity and peace. What are you, some kind of douche bag? Galvanizing terrorist leaders? Do you even listen to yourself when you speak?
- sangjmoon, on 11/05/2009, -3/+13Jimmy Carter's real demise was his indecisiveness or at least his appearance of indecisiveness. If you look at Obama, you could almost say he was following in Carter's footstep including the appearance of indecisiveness. He needs to stop dawdling and make a decision. No president has all the answers before he has to commit the military; however, if he is indecisive, it is worse than making the wrong decision. If Obama is to win a second term, he needs to break from Carter's path.
- uncleosbert, on 11/04/2009, -11/+21yeah, a 70 year old retired celebrity was going to go get the hostages after 8 men died trying to accomplish that rescue.
you're right. he should have declared war like a real man, like that george w bush. that would have showed 'em. a few thousand dead americans are just the cost of having enormous nads you can plunk on the table that the un. - appleseed1234, on 11/05/2009, -3/+12Of course Reagan took all the credit, and was likely responsible for their prolonged stay as it's speculated he bribed the Iranians to hold them until the day he stepped into office. With the Iran-Contra scandal, I'm hardly surprised.
- jsffive, on 11/05/2009, -2/+11There were only FOUR demands that the students asked for; the return of the Shah, for trial and execution, the unfreezing of Iran's assets, an apology from the United States for it's complicity in the 1953 coup of Mossadeq, and a promise from the U.S. government that they would stop meddling in the affairs of Iran.
And they just couldn't do it.
Carter called the 1953 coup "ancient history"... and it was only twenty-six years later. And yet, how many times a week does our Press invoke World War II, which ended over sixty years ago?
The truth is, the U.S. would have GLADLY unfrozen the assets, but in no way, shape, or form, were they going to hand over a despot who would have admitted to the United States' complicity in the coup. No way were they going to openly admit to doing the kinds of things that they were accusing the Communists of doing. THAT'S why those hostages stayed as long as they did. And Carter lost reelection, he lost all his political capital, to keep a lousy secret. - StripeyMagee, on 11/05/2009, -8/+16Iran contra anyone? Oh, 'can't recall' is the typical response.
Then we can't even discuss the installation of the shah, he was our guy.
Another case of US meddling gone wrong.......... - inactive, on 11/05/2009, -4/+12Wow...you must be pretty old.
- surdelmundo, on 11/04/2009, -16/+23When we start meddling we get blood on our hands that then stains everything.
Our covert actions always have more unintended, long-term, negative consequences than any short-term consequences that drove us to meddle in the first place. This would never have happened if we had not overthrown the legal government of Iran in order to steal their oil. The overthrow of Mossadeq was the stone thrown into the pond.
The kidnapping of our embassy personnel was one of the first ripples. The ripples keep coming and we keep reacting with brutal force, each time assuring that the next ripple will be worse.
Government run by the military, Industrial, congressional, Intelligence Complex is a disaster. - Grogtron, on 11/05/2009, -0/+7The hysteria here is not unlike those students.
Ebrahim Asgharzadeh
Chief architect of the takeover; now a reformist, jailed for dissent
"Imperialism" was the biggest word for me: It signaled what the U.S. was all about. We didn't see complexities; we saw the U.S. as one bloc. But we were engineers, students; we weren't fundamentalists. In fact, we saw fundamentalism as a danger. - whatthefu, on 11/05/2009, -5/+11@EndAntiSemitism: Reagan wasn't the reason hostages were let go. You can't revise history and downplay the dynamics of geopolitics because you want your political party to look good. A small part of it was simply to embarrass Carter, who they saw as sympathetic to the oppressive Shah.
- dsenman, on 11/05/2009, -1/+7I find this pretty amazing - the secret rescue of six American diplomats by the Canadian government during the takeover. Badass stuff right there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_caper - swantamer, on 11/05/2009, -5/+10Arming the jihadists was the worst foreign policy blunder of all time. Carter started it but Regan, an A-1 *****, never looked back. He was too busy trying to fight godless communism (which was obviously no real threat) we now end up in a war with fundamentalists who have been the real threat all along.
- Dregganaut, on 11/05/2009, -7/+12-6 diggs?
Is the truth this distasteful?
I guess it's easier to blame Jimmy Carter than to admit America made a mistake. - uncleosbert, on 11/05/2009, -7/+12"They let those hostages go because they knew Reagan wasn't going to continue pussyfooting around like Carter about what basically amounted to an act of war."
exactly. cowboy presidents keep the rest of the world fearful and complacent. they have only our best interests at heart. those guys playing by the rules are chumps who deserve to be flushed down the toilet of history.
please carry on! - LibertariansLOL, on 11/05/2009, -2/+7reagan put our country a trillion dollars in debt lol!
- Krakerjax, on 11/05/2009, -1/+6Crosaks, we joined the war because eventually one of a few things would happen;
a) Germany would win Europe and then attack us anyway, putting us at a severe disadvantage
b) Germany would win, and if we hadn't helped, we would become a villian by our own inaction.
c) Europe would eventually defeat Germany, but because we didn't help, we lose global respect because we refused to get involved.
So we joined the war, because back then we still gave a rats ass about what people thought about us. - Krakerjax, on 11/05/2009, -1/+5Also, Germany sent a letter to Mexico asking for them to help attack us if the time came.
The name of it escapes me, but it was the last straw I believe - joejitsu, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Good or bad he was our ally, and the USA doesn't betray its allies like that.
- nullcodes, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4We can look back and say he shoulda invaded ..killed mad Iranian mullah fools .. and rescued the hostages.. but then we forget back then the Soviets had thousands of nukes pointed this way. So it may have been a risky move. Sure we can look back now and claim the Soviets wouldnt have fired .. but who's to know that? It's the same thing that ***** off Vietnam. It was hard to fight the Viet Cong and NVA with the Soviet nuke threat up in the air.
- appleseed1234, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3@crosaks Germany declared war on us? Though truthfully I don't doubt we would have done it if they hadn't.
- Dregganaut, on 11/05/2009, -5/+8The "cold war fears" explanation lacks merit:
"In the view of American mainstream public opinion, the crisis in Iran was perceived as a part of a Cold War conflict rather than as a nationalist struggle against Western colonialism.[43]
But in the words of Ervand Abrahamian, the coup d'état was "a classic case of nationalism clashing with imperialism in the Third World". Secretary of State Dean Acheson admitted the “`Communist threat` was a smokescreen” in responding to Pres. Eisenhower's claim that the Tudeh party was about to assume power.[44]
"Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue — i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection ....""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2 ... - appleseed1234, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Iran Contra? Despite your attempt at historical revision, that ***** happened, they were caught. It's not really a conspiratorial stretch to imagine that Iran was willing to make deals with a president-to-be in exchange for support when they were in the middle of a large scale war with their neighbor. Having them released a mere 20 minutes after his inauguration address did wonders for his public image, even the most die-hard Reagan fan would have doubts about that being coincidental.
- EndAntiSemitism, on 11/05/2009, -2/+5Buried as soon as I saw the acronym "NWO"
- joejitsu, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2And the US doesn't betray its puppets, or they wouldn't be or puppets. Duh!
- kd1s, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Indeed, the CIA coup in the 1950's was very bad juju for U.S. foreign policy. Say, that was under Eisenhower wasn't it.
Hmmm. Beware the military industrial complex indeed. - archiesteel, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Huh, the link between the Reagan administration and the Iran-Contra scandal are nothing new. This was well-documented during the Tower Commission.
This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory. We're talking about actual historical facts, here.
Let me guess, you and genitalben probably don't believe the US participated in the coup that ousted the democratically-elected Iranian president in 1953 and set the stage for the rise of the Ayathollahs, which culminated 26 years later in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic?
Too bad, it's all documented, just like the Iran-Contra affair: look up "Operation Ajax." - sodade, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Considering all the photos we have of neocons shaking saddam's hand and smiling and all the history of the CIA's shady involvement in the ME, I think it is fair to say that there was a great deal of US influence in Iraq.
- Dustin00, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2"we've failed to understand ever since"
Many people understand the situation, but our leaders are too busy sucking military ***** to care or change our course.
Our news doesn't talk to actual experts; they're too pragmatic and level headed. You can't get the Political Jerry Springer effect with them. - twinklyJesus, on 11/05/2009, -1/+3Welcome to "what happened to my Digg account?"
- appleseed1234, on 11/05/2009, -1/+3First of all, you're thinking of the Zimmerman Telegram, which occurred during WWI.
Second, it's highly unlikely Germany would have ever wanted to or had the means to attack America. Their end goal was to rule continental Europe and hope that the British Empire would eventually come around to their side, and America with them. - kd1s, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2And don't forget, Poppy Bush was once Director of Central Intelligence. This means he had the knowledge and the connections to get things done.
- Leadman584, on 11/05/2009, -1/+3Another Bad Ass rescue of 2 hostages. Inspiring read. Couldn't find a shortened version that did it justice, so prepare for a wall of text.
The year was 1978 and Christmas was drawing near. EDS was working on a contract with the Iranian government to put in place a new electronic social security system. Murmurs of unrest could be heard and crisis was coming. EDS evacuated employees and their families from Tehran. However, two remained behind to deliver on promises made to the client and keep the business going. Those two, Paul Chiapparone and Bill Gaylord, were taken hostage during the political turmoil.
After Perot appealed to both the US and Iranian governments on behalf of his colleagues to no avail, a more unconventional strategy began to form. EDS president and chief operating officer Jeff Heller recalls, "At that time in our history, we were more of a family than a big ol' corporation." The commitment to each other, the experience of the employees, and the family atmosphere made it seem logical to hatch plans for a rescue attempt. Operation HOTFOOT (Help Our Two Friends Out Of Tehran) was underway. EDSers Merv Stauffer and Tom Marquez visited Murphy Martin, a veteran newsman for a Dallas TV station and ABC News. Stauffer and Marquez were looking for a way to get Perot into Iran. Martin called some of his TV network contacts and learned that the news operations at ABC, CBS, and NBC used a rotating system of courier jets to get news film into and out of Iran. Martin passed the information to the EDS duo, who called a few days later to say, "It worked." "What worked?" Martin asked. "Ross got in. He made it into Iran."
Perot, then EDS chief executive, had slipped into Iran on January 13, posing as a film courier for NBC. Perot had recruited the legendary Arthur D. "Bull" Simons, retired member of the U.S. Army Green Berets, to plan and help carry out the rescue. Colonel Simons asked Perot to go to the prison and let Chiapparone and Gaylord know they should be ready to go. Perot fulfilled this perilous mission even while being sought by authorities in Iran because, "Colonel Simons told me to do it." While there, Perot delivered a few things to the captives such as Christmas cards from their families, magazines, some food, and clothing. "At first, it was amazing that Ross was walking across the courtyard," Gaylord said when asked what he thought when Perot arrived at the prison. "But on second thought it wasn't because he was the only man in the world who would have done that."
Perot asked men at EDS with military experience to volunteer for the rescue mission. He hoped that one out of five employees asked would join the mission. Instead, everyone said yes. "Most of these guys had been through Vietnam and had been in some really tough situations," said Chiapparone. "But they didn't have to do this. I mean, they had families to think about." The overwhelming response reinforced the idea of EDS as a family, a company whose employees are its biggest asset and whose leaders believe they have a responsibility to take care of their people.
"There was never any doubt in anybody's mind that we would pull it off," said team member Ralph Boulware. "We were a lot younger, a lot more assertive, a lot more confident. The concept of failing just didn't enter our minds. We rehearsed it, we talked about it, we thoroughly trusted each other and the thought of not succeeding was really not an option." Once the two were freed from the prison, their journey took them across Iran to the Turkish border. Perot recalls that luck played no small part in their successful escape. There were many close calls before the men crossed the border into Turkey and safety. - joejitsu, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2He was a friend of ours who went rogue douche. The Shah was very pro-USA and anti-Soviet; he truly was an ally. Saddam played both sides and we mostly supported him to counter Iran not because we liked him.
- appleseed1234, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Ever heard of the phrase "Drang nach Osten"? Why bother over-extending past that?
- Krakerjax, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Ahhh, yeah, sorry my history is a little rusty. Pearl Harbor was the reason we joined the war if I recall.
But if Germany took over Europe, that would make them pretty much a global superpower. You think its unlikely they'd seek to continue their legendary 3rd reich? - sodade, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2"Possibility?" Iran-Contra is pretty well known.
- MrSteamTank, on 11/05/2009, -3/+5Actually there is a very real possibility it was the Reagan administration colluding with Iran to ensure Carter's defeat in the elections. I mean they released the hostages the day after Reagan got elected. It was obvious the Republican party didn't have time for negotiations in the 1 day they were in power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise - twinklyJesus, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Appleseed:
Hitler was attempting to develop long-range bombers that could reach the US and had drawn up plans for bombing NYC and Washington DC.
Doesn't sound like he had no intention of leaving us alone, does it? - joejitsu, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Dude, what are you retarded?
Anyway, back to the original point. Saddam was our ally, but gradually became an enemy. The Shah remained our ally up the revolution. The USA couldnt hand him over, because he was a former ally and the USA doesn't sell its friends sort like that. If the USA did than other allies wouldn't trust the USA.
Anyway, I am done with this thread. - sodade, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2ROTFL. Saddam was our ally too dumbass.
Damn - that was the best laugh I've had in days. - MattyC69, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1That was an amazing article. Wow. So powerful, especially because these are from the mouths of the people who were actually involved. The part where the rescue mission failed was so depressing. I mean they were stopped by some sand and dust, and 8 guys died accidentally for no reason. Tragic. This whole thing was tragic.
- Dustmuffins, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1He needs to be "The Decider"
- kd1s, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1And remember that with one of the shimpents to Iran they included a chocolate cake.
- kd1s, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1The 20th century changed all of that. It really changed right as World War II was about in the middle. England and Russia both realized that the U.S. would become THE world superpower.
Why else do you think Stalin reneged on his promises not to break up Berlin, or to install communist governments in Poland.
He knew it was either try to counter the U.S. hegemony or try to resist it. Of course resisting bankrupted both the U.S. and Russia - ZenFountain, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2I remember being taught that two wrongs don't make a right. When the Iranian students overran our embassy and took our diplomatic envoys and staffers hostage, with Khomeini's blessing, they violated the most sacred principal of international relations. Furthermore they used those hostages as pawns to meddle in our affairs, humiliating Carter during the 1980 campaign and then releasing the hostages seconds after Reagan was sworn in as one final slap in the face.
It's right to question whether the CIA's involvement in the coup was ethical or even in our national interest, but it saddens me to see how far the apologist will go. Obama made a de facto apology in a speech earlier this year and the Iranians are still holding their annual death to America festivity. It certainly doesn't seem the Iranian government is ready for reconciliation despite our hand being stretched out quite far... - Dregganaut, on 11/05/2009, -2/+3Wahhhhhh.
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is