Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was very strange timing on the part of the Iraniens then. A peace offering of some kind maybe ?
Something like that. It was a confluence of many, many events. However, they weren't scared of Reagan, that's for sure. Now i will credit Reagan for saying that he would never pay for their return. That may have ratcheted up the pressure a little. But then, after Iran-Contra, his words about not dealing with terrorists ring pretty hollow in retrospect.
As someone who loves history, I think Jimmy Carter was just way ahead of his time. He was too busy trying to prevent a multitude of future crisis from happening instead of dealing with the problems of the day.
Yeah, he was a smashing success.
Quote:
Answering a question about public housing, Carter says that people should be allowed to maintain the "ethnic purity" of their neighborhoods. Despite the controversy which ensues and the anger of many in the black community, Carter sticks by his wording over the next few days before apologizing for his remarks on April 8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatDJohns
And why were the hostages released right after he left office? Does everyone forget about the Iran-Contra scandal? We traded weapons for people to help the war effort against Iraq, who we were also giving weapons to.
No one has forgotten about the Iran-Contra scandal except maybe those idiots who now claim Holder can give guns to criminals who kill Americans (with stimulus money) and that's okay. They've apparently forgotten about all that... Funny how they're usually the people harping about Iran-Contra though.
First of all, afraid of Reagan for what? What was he gonna do? What leverage did Reagan have that Carter didn't have. The idea is to get the hostages back alive. Had Reagan tried to pull that tough guy stuff, they would've just killed the hostages. I mean, if Reagan was so tough, why didn't he scare the terrorists in Lebanon? And when our Marines were killed, he cut and ran. So please...the whole "Reagan as a tough guy" stuff needs to be put to rest.
Again, the hostage release had NOTHING to do with Reagan. He wasn't even part of the deal.
Well there was speculation that William Casey had made a secret deal. The real truth lies in this:
Quote:
October 22, 1979
Carter allows the ailing Shah of Iran to enter the U.S. for medical treatment.
November 4, 1979
Outraged by the Shah's welcome in America, militant students overrun the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, seizing 66 hostages. The 444-day Iranian hostage crisis begins.
But it would be foolish to think that the Iranians weren't watching what was happening in the U.S. and there was a clear distinction between Mr. Malaise and Governor Reagan.
Quote:
Early September, 1980 The Iranian government indicates they are willing to discuss the release of the hostages.
September 21, 1980
Ronald Reagan and independent candidate John Anderson debate in Baltimore. Carter refuses to participate because of Anderson's presence.
September 22, 1980
Iraq invades Iran.
October 28, 1980
The one and only debate between Carter and Reagan takes place in Cleveland. Reagan effectively brushes aside Carter's attacks by saying, "There you go again," and seals his dominance of the evening with his closing question to voters: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
November 2, 1980 The Iranian parliament issues a statement making it clear the hostages will not be released before the election.
November 4, 1980
Reagan defeats Carter 51% to 41% in the popular vote, and in a landslide of 489 electoral votes to 49.
January 20, 1981
The hostages are released moments after Ronald Reagan takes the oath of office.
So what changed those two month no one really knows the full details of why they decided to but it certainly wasn't because they thought Reagan was the coward of the two who just watched the SU spit in his face after negotiations for SALT-II. It wasn't Reagan that had ushered in the Shah into the U.S. for medical treatment.
Quote:
Even after it became known that the Shah was suffering from cancer, President Carter was reluctant to allow him entry to the United States, for fear of reprisal against Americans still in Iran. But in October, when the severity of the Shah's illness became known, Carter relented on humanitarian grounds. "He went around the room, and most of us said, 'Let him in.'" recalls Vice President Walter Mondale. "And he said, 'And if [the Iranians] take our employees in our embassy hostage, then what would be your advice?' And the room just fell dead. No one had an answer to that. Turns out, we never did."
As Carter advisor and biographer Peter Bourne put it, "Because people felt that Carter had not been tough enough in foreign policy, this kind of symbolized for them that some bunch of students could seize American diplomatic officials and hold them prisoner and thumb their nose at the United States."
In the end, Ronald Reagan won the electoral vote 489 to 49, and enjoyed a 10 percent bulge in the popular vote. Though many call the election the dawn of the "Reagan Revolution," it's clear that the tectonic shift in American politics was well underway during the Carter presidency. "We had an underlying conservative electorate to begin with," remembers Carter's chief domestic policy advisor, Stuart Eizenstat. "The events that occurred over the four-year Carter presidency had reinforced that. Inflation that seemed out of control, a foreign policy that seemed weak because of the hostage crisis... the whole ambience reinforced the conservatism that was already present."
Funny how you guys always talk about conservatives and their military spending but then when something like that hawkishness plays out in the favor of the U.S. you completely forget about all that in a disgusting display of rhetorical gymnastics.
Was Jimmy Carter a truly bad president? I have only heard from the right on this and of course they say yes...but I had read a few books where he was mentioned and it didn't make him sound so horrible..What say you? Up until I became interested in politics I took my parents word for him being bad president because they lived through his presidency...
"Bad" is probably too harsh. He was not "bad". He was weak and ineffective as a leader. Somewhat like the one we have now but much worse. As weak as Obama is I don't think he would allow a foreign country to hold 52 diplomats as hostages for over a year. But I will say that, as far as honesty and integrity, Carter was probably the most honest we ever had.
I did live through it, and still....i don't think he was that bad. Interest rates weren't his fault.
And what was he supposed to do about the hostages? They came home alive, didn't they? Was he supposed to bomb Iran into the stone ages so that they could just kill the hostages?
Oh well.
You cannot allow a foreign country to engage in such behavior. If the national interest requires it then, yes, sacrifices have to be made. To do otherwise is to invite more of the same. Don't negotiate with terrorist except for the terms of surrender.
Ya actually have to understand WHY they were held hostage. Go back to the 1950's and the CIA/Iran history..
I am not saying Iran was not wronged. They were. Not only by us but by the UK and every other foreign power in the world almost. They had every right to be pissed off. They had every right to close the USA embassy and toss every American out of their their country. I am one of the few today that fully support their right to have a nuke program. As much as the world has abused them, they'd be stupid NOT to have one. But you do NOT take another nation's diplomats as hostages. That cannot ever be tolerated. Carter should have told them straight up "this will not be tolerated and unless you want military action, you have 48 hours to release and return them". And he should have backed it up starting with a full military blockade and then an attack if necessary.
Well there was speculation that William Casey had made a secret deal. The real truth lies in this:
But it would be foolish to think that the Iranians weren't watching what was happening in the U.S. and there was a clear distinction between Mr. Malaise and Governor Reagan. Timeline . Jimmy Carter . American Experience . WGBH | PBS
So what changed those two month no one really knows the full details of why they decided to but it certainly wasn't because they thought Reagan was the coward of the two who just watched the SU spit in his face after negotiations for SALT-II. It wasn't Reagan that had ushered in the Shah into the U.S. for medical treatment.
Funny how you guys always talk about conservatives and their military spending but then when something like that hawkishness plays out in the favor of the U.S. you completely forget about all that in a disgusting display of rhetorical gymnastics.
Again, show me some evidence of leverage that Reagan would've had that Carter didn't have. There is none. The Iranians held most of the cards. If Reagan had tried anything, the hostages would've been killed. The Iranians i'm sure paid attention to U.S. politics and probably figured that they'd get nothing out of Reagan either, but regardless, they still knew that Reagan could and would do NOTHING that would get the hostages killed. Eventually, they really had little to gain by keeping the hostages anyway.
This is about the hostages getting home alive...point blank, period.
Moreover, Reagan would've given the Shah the medical treatment too. Just about every U.S. president would've done it. The shah knew where the bodies are buried.
Lastly, this has little to nothing to do with military spending. In 1979-80 at the time of this crisis, we probably weren't all that well equipped to do anything to Iran militarily anyway. Reagan's big defense buildup was still a few years away....
I mean, again...if Reagan was so tough and scary, he sure as hell didn't scare those guys in Lebanon, did he? And what did he do in response? Nothing. He simply pulled out and moved on to the next topic.
You cannot allow a foreign country to engage in such behavior. If the national interest requires it then, yes, sacrifices have to be made. To do otherwise is to invite more of the same. Don't negotiate with terrorist except for the terms of surrender.
.....and then Reagan negotiated with the terrorists. Moreover, he didn't do squat about the terrorist attack in Beirut on our Marines.
And i sure hope you're not saying that we should've attacked Iran and gotten the hostages killed in a show of "sacrifice." I really hope you're not saying that. I really do.
I mean, again...if Reagan was so tough and scary, he sure as hell didn't scare those guys in Lebanon, did he? And what did he do in response? Nothing. He simply pulled out and moved on to the next topic.
And what, you wanted him to invade and occupy Lebanon? Your point is moot because you don't understand what was going on at the time and that wouldn't be so bad but you refuse to even attempt to learn what was going on at that time and that wouldn't be so bad but you've been shown what was going on at that time and still repeat the same lies over and over that Reagan had nothing to do with the SU collapsing and that it was a self-inflicted wound.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
