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.
Iran was secretly getting weapons from the US during that time. Sadam was not aware of it during that time as the US were openly selling US arms to Iraq., Sadam did eventually discover that the US was selling weapons to Iran, and became anti American after that.
Well yeah then we get into the Iran Contra deal but that was all after the Hostage Crisis.
You both have misunderstood my point about possibly going to war with a nuclear armed country over this.
Had the USA sent troops to Iran or engaged in the equivalent of a real war, we could have easily ended up in a struggle with the USSR. Iran borders the USSR. It is sort of like "What would the American response have been if the USSR attacked Mexico?" I will give everyone exactly one guess what the response would be.
Ahh OK fair enough and I thought that's what you were hinting at. But Iran was anything but a client state of the USSR at that point in time although I am sure the Soviet were trying to worm there way in. But "real war" was not acceptable to anyone at the time. US technology even then included capability for surgical strikes - very quick, very focused, very violent. Before the Soviets would react it would be done.
Fourth, for those who contend that the Iranian military forces were of a 1914 caliber, I would point you to the Mogadishu raid of 1993, when modern, trained, and recently successful U.S. military forces were chased out of the city by an angry populace utilizing AK-47s and RPGs.
The problems in Somalia just stress the same problems that occurred in Tehran in 1979 and Bengazhi in 2012 - lack of preparation and indecisiveness. I don't want to get into the political commonality here, but there it is. You can't win a conflict by half measures. Nor does it mean you need to blow something off the face of the earth.
In Mogadishu we had one supreme jerk that is to blame besides the polices of the administration that was in power at the time - Secretary of Defense Lee Aspin refused to keep armor support in Somalia in spite of the request of commanders on the ground, and if those assets were in place, the Sammies would find their RPG's bouncing off the Abrams tanks and mobs taken out by Spectre gun ships. He rightfully lost his job over that.
And THAT sir is the lesson learned here, not of any undefeatable omniprecent insurgents, but our failure in policies, the failure of politics.
You both have misunderstood my point about possibly going to war with a nuclear armed country over this.
Had the USA sent troops to Iran or engaged in the equivalent of a real war, we could have easily ended up in a struggle with the USSR. Iran borders the USSR. It is sort of like "What would the American response have been if the USSR attacked Mexico?" I will give everyone exactly one guess what the response would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Ahh OK fair enough and I thought that's what you were hinting at. But Iran was anything but a client state of the USSR at that point in time although I am sure the Soviet were trying to worm there way in. But "real war" was not acceptable to anyone at the time. US technology even then included capability for surgical strikes - very quick, very focused, very violent. Before the Soviets would react it would be done.
Yes, I missed the point about the Soviet Union being drawn into a US-Iranian conflict. However, the USSR in 1980 was already engaged in Afghanistan. Soviet forces confronting US forces in Iran might not have been possible, as I don't believe that the Soviets planned for the concept of fighting a war on two or three fronts (Iran, Afghanistan, and Europe). However, I could see the Soviet Union providing arms, logistics and training to the Iranian forces, making a US/Iranian war extremely costly for the United States.
The problems in Somalia just stress the same problems that occurred in Tehran in 1979 and Bengazhi in 2012 - lack of preparation and indecisiveness. I don't want to get into the political commonality here, but there it is. You can't win a conflict by half measures. Nor does it mean you need to blow something off the face of the earth.
In Mogadishu we had one supreme jerk that is to blame besides the polices of the administration that was in power at the time - Secretary of Defense Lee Aspin refused to keep armor support in Somalia in spite of the request of commanders on the ground, and if those assets were in place, the Sammies would find their RPG's bouncing off the Abrams tanks and mobs taken out by Spectre gun ships. He rightfully lost his job over that.
And THAT sir is the lesson learned here, not of any undefeatable omniprecent insurgents, but our failure in policies, the failure of politics.
Yes, the Somalis didn't have to face Abrams tanks or Spectre gunships in 1993, but the Iranians in 1980 wouldn't have had to face them either. The US Defense Department under Jimmy Carter had a lot of wonderful things in the planning and development stages, but in 1980 the US would have gone to war with Vietnam era tanks and planes.
I just finished reading Walter F. Mondale, The Good Fight, and reading about that long hostage crisis in Iran, I got a clearer idea of what all went on during that 444 days, all the Options they faced, and wonder how Reagan, Clinton, The Bush's, Obama or Trump would have dealt with this, or had been any more effective than Carter?
What do you think?
Carter was a disaster. Any of the presidents you named would do a better job. I would rank them this way in success.
Reagan
Bush 1
Bush 2
Clinton
Trump
Obama
Yeah, probably, but one has to realize that the way the USSR did may not be the way the US could do it.
Legend has it that the reason why Soviet citizens were not kidnapped in Beirut is because they once were. The KGB located the right figure and killed a few of his family members. THEN they started talking. "We want our people back."
"But I don't have anything to do with this," the man defended.
"We are not interested. We want them back within a day or we are going to do more than just this.". The Soviet citizens were released........and that is why Soviet citizens were not kidnapped anymore in Beirut.
Is the story accurate? I don't know, I heard it when I was in intelligence in the service.
Two things. First, the actions a country does can follow it around for decades. Those not in the know often say to torture the enemy because he would do the same to use but they don't realize that such actions may be used, may be the justification years down the line for another enemy to torture our POWs. It may be a device that an enemy uses to turn our troops in brain washing. When you are suppose to be the good guys and yet you have a history of being very bad, it does make it harder to keep one's facts straight especially in sleep depraved conditions.
Secondly, keep in mind who were the people in the above story. What is more important to the KGB, that they got their people back safely.....or that they are feared? I suspect that if the assassination measure did not work and their hostages did get killed, the KGB wouldn't have been that upset.
What I heard they did during that Russian kidnapping was Russian agents took the brother of the main figure, cut off his penis, put it in his mouth then shot him in the head, then mailed him back. Next day the Russians were released. Now thats brutal, but that's sometimes what it takes.
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.
