OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
OGG said:
Whoa! Hold up.

I have to weigh in on the Carter thing.

1. The "Failed rescue attempt" wasn't his failure, just a failure. Shit went south. It was a massively and ballsy move, that few would have risked.
Click to expand...

hold up there. one of the prime reasons shit went south was because of Carter's INSISTENCE that multiple departments of the armed forces be involved, while NONE of them were even using the same radio frequencies, let alone had the same operating procedures. he was STRONGLY advised against this by the joint chiefs and other generals.
we had both the seals and green berets up and trained and ready for that precise mission. whether it would have been successful, is an unknown now, but if he would have let one group do the job, they sure wouldn't have gone cluster fuck AT THE LANDING site.
so, yea, Carter definitely had a good hand in that mission never going well. i was in the USAF when that shit storm started and remember how it was handled and i still don't approve.
 
mongooz said:
hold up there. one of the prime reasons shit went south was because of Carter's INSISTENCE that multiple departments of the armed forces be involved, while NONE of them were even using the same radio frequencies, let alone had the same operating procedures. he was STRONGLY advised against this by the joint chiefs and other generals.
we had both the seals and green berets up and trained and ready for that precise mission. whether it would have been successful, is an unknown now, but if he would have let one group do the job, they sure wouldn't have gone cluster fuck AT THE LANDING site.
so, yea, Carter definitely had a good hand in that mission never going well. i was in the USAF when that shit storm started and remember how it was handled and i still don't approve.
Click to expand...
I'll grant you leeway on the logistical side. That is true.

The single biggest problem with that mission was the CH-53 and its complete inability to operate in a desert. This point got driven home much more clearly in Desert Storm. The Stallion is/was a shitburger and a woefully unreliable aircraft.
 
OGG said:
I'll grant you leeway on the logistical side. That is true.

The single biggest problem with that mission was the CH-53 and its complete inability to operate in a desert. This point got driven home much more clearly in Desert Storm. The Stallion is/was a shitburger and a woefully unreliable aircraft.
Click to expand...

and to the Reagan crazy cowboy thing. that is exactly why iran gave up the hostages on the day Reagan was being inagurated. because the day after that, there'd have been bombers in the skys over iran, and rightfully so.
that was the problem with jimmy, he wanted to negotiate everything. sometimes a brutal ass kicking is what is needed.
fuck me once, my fault. fuck me twice and you fucking die!! and carter could NEVER do that.
(sorry, i still have some issues concerning that particular event)
 
mongooz said:
and to the Reagan crazy cowboy thing. that is exactly why iran gave up the hostages on the day Reagan was being inagurated. because the day after that, there'd have been bombers in the skys over iran, and rightfully so.
that was the problem with jimmy, he wanted to negotiate everything. sometimes a brutal ass kicking is what is needed.
fuck me once, my fault. fuck me twice and you fucking die!! and carter could NEVER do that.
(sorry, i still have some issues concerning that particular event)
Click to expand...


That might be part of it, but I tend to think it was more likely a last fuck you to Carter and also a way to kiss up to the new president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
mongooz said:
and to the Reagan crazy cowboy thing. that is exactly why iran gave up the hostages on the day Reagan was being inagurated. because the day after that, there'd have been bombers in the skys over iran, and rightfully so.
that was the problem with jimmy, he wanted to negotiate everything. sometimes a brutal ass kicking is what is needed.
fuck me once, my fault. fuck me twice and you fucking die!! and carter could NEVER do that.
(sorry, i still have some issues concerning that particular event)
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that bombers would have been airborne the next day.

I also have no doubt that the hostages would all be dead along with untold hundreds or thousands of innocent Iranian civilians.

I also have no doubt that it would have triggered the USSR into getting involved militarily, and turning into a global conflict with the possibility of Human Extinction on the line.

At the very least, it would have hastened the uprising of those groups we now face but can't find.

Sometimes, a good old fashioned ass kicking turns into a gang fight, which turns into a riot, which turns into a whole lot of bodies.
 
OGG said:
I have no doubt that bombers would have been airborne the next day.

I also have no doubt that the hostages would all be dead along with untold hundreds or thousands of innocent Iranian civilians.

I also have no doubt that it would have triggered the USSR into getting involved militarily, and turning into a global conflict with the possibility of Human Extinction on the line.

At the very least, it would have hastened the uprising of those groups we now face but can't find.

Sometimes, a good old fashioned ass kicking turns into a gang fight, which turns into a riot, which turns into a whole lot of bodies.
Click to expand...

on the other hand, since iran has been one of the main funders and instigators behind the scenes in all of this, perhaps knocking their revolution on it's ass back then might have precluded what we have now.
 
Flamencology said:
Yes. Because the Munich Olympics are a textbook example of how to resolve a hostage crisis.
Click to expand...
that crisis didn't last 444 days.
and it is an example of how to deal with those who take hostages. all who were involved were killed by mosaad.
and that example didn't involve a government taking the hostages.
and Grenada is a great example of how to solve a hostage crisis.

edit: and oh yea.....that "hostage crisis" wasn't just a hostage crisis, it was an act of war.
munich was not.
 
Last edited:
mongooz said:
and to the Reagan crazy cowboy thing. that is exactly why iran gave up the hostages on the day Reagan was being inagurated. because the day after that, there'd have been bombers in the skys over iran, and rightfully so.
that was the problem with jimmy, he wanted to negotiate everything. sometimes a brutal ass kicking is what is needed.
fuck me once, my fault. fuck me twice and you fucking die!! and carter could NEVER do that.
(sorry, i still have some issues concerning that particular event)
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. In fact, just a few years later Reagan was selling arms to Iran. But, ya know, Saint Ronnie and all that...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
 
335clone said:
I still think Bernie can beat her fair and square. Of course that pits a capitalist against a "socialist" which isn't going to go over well with the great unwashed.

Fuck it, we're screwed no matter who wins the nomination on either side.
Click to expand...

Capitalists, socialists, and the great unwashed have nothing to do with Sanders' not having the slightest chance. The super delegates in the Democratic party will decide, and the vast majority of them have said they'll cast their ballot for Clinton from day 1. I love rooting for Bernie, and I think it is great he's getting the younger generation interested, but ultimately, he never had a shot.
 
mongooz said:
on the other hand, since iran has been one of the main funders and instigators behind the scenes in all of this, perhaps knocking their revolution on it's ass back then might have precluded what we have now.
Click to expand...


Funny how Reagan's administration turned tail and ran when Iranian-backed terrorists blew up a Marine compound in Beirut. I guess they later showed those Iranians what's-what by selling them arms to fund an illegal contra army in Nicaragua...
 
mongooz said:
i wasn't saying saint ronnie. i was saying carter spent too much time kissing their ass instead of kicking it.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that the hostage takers were not (at least officially) Government agents, or sanctioned by such. Sure, the Ayatollah gave no fucks, but in terms of international law etc, it was not an act of war. It was a terrorist act perpetrated by civilians. That fact complicated the issue immensely. This can not be understated. It would have been no different if British Revolutionary nutbags took hostages at our Embassy in England. We certainly wouldn't bomb London...

That whole situation was ugly beyond description, and hopelessly complex. To imply that military action would have stunted the Iranian revolution and the fundamentalists splinter factions that became public enemy number one, is seriously asinine. These whackjobs are motivated by precisely that sort of thing. Our meddling in the Middle East in any form, is what drives the animosity and perpetuates this madness. How many examples of this fact do we need?

And yes, Reagan turned around and armed the Iranian military with our State of the Art hardware, all while handing bags of cash and ship loads of weapons to Osama Bin Laden.

So who's the real pussy? Carter for his hand wringing over a hopelessly fucked situation, or Reagan for his capitulation to the Ayatollah and his funding of a Saudi psycho who stuck it in ol' Ronnie's cornhole and broke it off?

Every "threat" the Western world faces today, is an extension and the inevitable outcome of the Reagan/Bush/Bush policies and failures.
 
OGG said:
You have to remember that the hostage takers were not (at least officially) Government agents, or sanctioned by such. Sure, the Ayatollah gave no fucks, but in terms of international law etc, it was not an act of war. It was a terrorist act perpetrated by civilians. That fact complicated the issue immensely. This can not be understated. It would have been no different if British Revolutionary nutbags took hostages at our Embassy in England. We certainly wouldn't bomb London...

That whole situation was ugly beyond description, and hopelessly complex. To imply that military action would have stunted the Iranian revolution and the fundamentalists splinter factions that became public enemy number one, is seriously asinine. These whackjobs are motivated by precisely that sort of thing. Our meddling in the Middle East in any form, is what drives the animosity and perpetuates this madness. How many examples of this fact do we need?

And yes, Reagan turned around and armed the Iranian military with our State of the Art hardware, all while handing bags of cash and ship loads of weapons to Osama Bin Laden.

So who's the real pussy? Carter for his hand wringing over a hopelessly fucked situation, or Reagan for his capitulation to the Ayatollah and his funding of a Saudi psycho who stuck it in ol' Ronnie's cornhole and broke it off?

Every "threat" the Western world faces today, is an extension and the inevitable outcome of the Reagan/Bush/Bush policies and failures.
Click to expand...

if we had gotten to the embassy front door, we would have been met (probably long before that) by the iranian miltary, defending the hostage takers.
if british terrorist were to attack and take our embassy in london, we wouldn't have time to do anything about it, because the british troops would already be in there. unlike the iranian army.
i'm not defending reagan or any of the bushs. i'm just saying carter could have done more than talk.
and as far as every threat to the western world. i'm pretty sure you can trace that back to the discovery of oil. if that part of the world didn't have oil.....well.....sand doesn't spend that well.
 
And Carter had the vision to say "suck it up, you guys, you're going to have a rough few years while we develop alternate energy sources and evolve past our dependency on oil."

America needs leadership that can say "grow up, you can't have everything that you want." The big picture is bigger than a few years of discomfort.
 
Flamencology said:
And Carter had the vision to say "suck it up, you guys, you're going to have a rough few years while we develop alternate energy sources and evolve past our dependency on oil."

America needs leadership that can say "grow up, you can't have everything that you want." The big picture is bigger than a few years of discomfort.
Click to expand...
and......3 or 4 GENERATIONS later.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top