World leaders on 'President Trump'

USFREEDOM911 said:
I firmly believe that at one time a lot of possible world conflicts were curtailed; because participants were worried about the US getting involved and them getting spanked, good and proper.
The Politicians got involved and after Korea and Vietnam, other countries began to view us as a country that was willing to "compromise" and settle for something less then victory.
It now appears that those with evil intent are no longer worried about being "spanked"; because they are of the opinion that they only have to hold out long enough, for "public opinion" to decide the course.

We need to go into the next conflict with the idea of kicking ass and taking names. Let the Military do what it's trained for and leave the peace conferences and rebuilding to the Politicians to be involved in, after the other guy cries UNCLE.

What's the world going to do, think more harshly about us; because if they do, I don't give a flying fuck.
Click to expand...

But we can't because of liberalism. They want to fight PC wars, and win "hearts and minds." Its a failed strategy from the 1st shot fired.
 
Celticguy said:
So they hated Carter but we're ok with Reagan ?
I'm sure they respected Reagan more and knew that their game was over.
Click to expand...

They hated Reagan just as much after awhile. In '80, all he represented to them was "not Carter."

Were you around then? They waited to release the hostages to stick it to Carter. That's all.
 
Thing1 said:
They hated Reagan just as much after awhile. In '80, all he represented to them was "not Carter."

Were you around then? They waited to release the hostages to stick it to Carter. That's all.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was around. They hated all Americans. Some things never change. They are cowards and so, risk averse. The jig was up.
 
J Craft said:
I hope Trump runs a conservative VP on his ticket. If/when he's impeached this could be important.
Click to expand...

It would be nice but he is better off with milquetoast. Anyone hard line won't do or you risk the mushy middle.
Christy had his job interview but Jersey is too close to NY, need some sort of geographic balance.
 
Irish said:
But we can't because of liberalism. They want to fight PC wars, and win "hearts and minds." Its a failed strategy from the 1st shot fired.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, the 1st shot fired can be through the forehead of an enemy combatant and the last one also.
 
Thing1 said:
Because it was so universally known.

Like I said - hundreds of articles if you search it. The Iranians hated Carter. You call those articles "opinion," but at a certain point, the facts are obvious.

I see you're still terrified to articulate your own position.
Click to expand...

He's a complete moron.

rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif


Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of "peace through strength" is why "the Iranians released the hostages on the same day and at the same hour that Reagan was sworn in."
— Mitt Romney on Tuesday, March 6th, 2012 in a speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee


"Iran contacted the Carter administration in September 1980 with a proposal to end the hostage crisis," said Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor who has written two books about the Iran hostage crisis. "The U.S. made a proposal. Iran responded with an unacceptable offer just a day or two before the election. Afterwards, they nominated the Algerians to act as intermediaries. Those valuable discussions went on until literally the day or two before the inauguration, and they were settled by the Iranians caving in on a number of issues that were extremely costly to them. By my calculations, the Iranians ended up paying about $300,000 per hostage per day of incarceration."

The agreement that led to the release, as described by the New York Times 11 days after it occurred, revolved around $11 billion to $12 billion in Iranian assets that Carter had frozen 10 days after the seizure of the U.S. embassy. It had been negotiated over the course of several months before Reagan's inauguration...

...Carter informed Reagan at 8:31 a.m. that the release of the hostages was imminent, "but the onetime bitter rivals for the presidency told reporters as they entered the speaker's area separately, to the flourish of trumpets, that the hostages had not yet taken off from Tehran. The President got his first chance to announce the news at 2:15 p.m. at a luncheon with Congressional leaders in Statuary Hall in the Capitol." So Reagan, not Carter, got to bask in the glow of the hostages’ safe return. However, we contacted seven scholars of the period, and their consensus was that neither Reagan nor his philosophy played any significant role in freeing the hostages.

"Well before Reagan became president, the deal for releasing the hostages had already been worked out by the Carter administration's State Department and the Iranians, ably assisted by Algerian diplomats," said David Farber, a Temple University historian and author of Taken Hostage: The Iranian Hostage Crisis and America's First Encounter with Radical Islam.

"No Reagan administration officials participated in the successful negotiations," Farber added. "The Iranian government waited to officially release the Americans until Carter had left the presidency as a final insult to Carter, whom they despised. They believed Carter had betrayed the Iranian revolution by allowing the self-exiled Shah to receive medical attention in the United States and then had threatened their new government by attempting, unsuccessfully, to use military force in April 1980 to free the hostages."

(Continued)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-iran-released-hostages-1981-becau/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top