The Ronald Reagan On Everything Thread

So, in other words, if the British Government gave the Democratic Party of the USA a couple of million dollars it just happened to have lying around, you would not say that it was interfering in US politics.


Crap, it would be, and you'd be right to complain. Just like we did when the Tory's interfered to help the US election machinery on the side of the Republicans...just before Clinton was elected...it was none of the Tories business....esp as they were the British Government at the time, and would have to work with whoever won :angry:


The fact that just about every major Corporation interfers in this way via the Republican Party does not alter the fact....at least they can claim they're american, whereas the British Government couldnt.

Can't we ever stay with the same subject?

I might decide to raise the ugly spectre of the evil Neville Chamberlain and his responsibility for WWII again, however facetiously. :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2004 - 18:40
Reagan entered office with teeth that prompted the Iranians to free the hostages within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, and please don't raise any BS about a "prearrangement". The Iranians were scared.

i dissagree with your opinion on this and i also suspect that you would never have that opinion if it had been a democrat in office in the same circumstances.

[i][color=blue]Not my opinion, vid: FACT.

Are you denying it happened?

---

Iran finally agreed to release the hostages after the US said it would release assets frozen in American and other banks, including the Bank of England, since the embassy was seized.

Iran was at war with iraq and needed money. they did not hand over the hostages "because they were scared" of reagan. my point (probably not well put) was that had it been a democrat president releasing these funds you would be saying he caved in to demands (probably..... just a theory from reading your posts about anything democratic)
sorry for the delay in answering (darn school vacation times) :helpsmile:

Quote:

---

Soviet Communism was pretty aggressively expansionist

---

And American capitalism isn't ? where were the soviets invading?..i know afganistan, but the government there at the time i believe had a communist leaning and asked for help against the rebels.... ahh but rebels are ok as long as they follow our way of thinking, that makes them freedom fighters..... then we get to American funding of the like of bin laden who was considered a freedom fighter back then (vicious circle thread heading this way :lol: )

QUOTE (j2k4 @ 16 June 2004 - 18:40)
Reagan entered office with teeth that prompted the Iranians to free the hostages within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, and please don't raise any BS about a "prearrangement". The Iranians were scared.

i dissagree with your opinion on this and i also suspect that you would never have that opinion if it had been a democrat in office in the same circumstances.

Not my opinion, vid: FACT.

Are you denying it happened?

Iran finally agreed to release the hostages after the US said it would release assets frozen in American and other banks, including the Bank of England, since the embassy was seized.

Iran was at war with iraq and needed money. they did not hand over the hostages "because they were scared" of reagan. my point (probably not well put) was that had it been a democrat president releasing these funds you would be saying he caved in to demands (probably..... just a theory from reading your posts about anything democratic)
sorry for the delay in answering (darn school vacation times)

Now that's odd.

I could have sworn we favored Iraq in that conflict... :huh:


QUOTE
Soviet Communism was pretty aggressively expansionist

And American capitalism isn't ? where were the soviets invading?..i know afganistan, but the government there at the time i believe had a communist leaning and asked for help against the rebels.... ahh but rebels are ok as long as they follow our way of thinking, that makes them freedom fighters..... then we get to American funding of the like of bin laden who was considered a freedom fighter back then (vicious circle thread heading this way )

Oh, yes-of course, you're right-I had forgotten how the U.S. totally subdued the entire Eastern Bloc for 40 years by vicious application of Capitalism; I particularly remember Hungary in 1956....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2004 - 14:29

Iran finally agreed to release the hostages after the US said it would release assets frozen in American and other banks, including the Bank of England, since the embassy was seized.

Iran was at war with iraq and needed money. they did not hand over the hostages "because they were scared" of reagan. my point (probably not well put) was that had it been a democrat president releasing these funds you would be saying he caved in to demands (probably..... just a theory from reading your posts about anything democratic)
sorry for the delay in answering (darn school vacation times)

Now that's odd.

I could have sworn we favored Iraq in that conflict... :huh:

---

the release of funds was not in support of iran of the war, it was to secure the release of the hostages. The USA was "supposed" to be neutral in that conflict. Had Iran not been at war i am not sure that the hostage situation would have ended as it did because the original demands were for the return of the shah which didn't happen.

Quote:

---

Oh, yes-of course, you're right-I had forgotten how the U.S. totally subdued the entire Eastern Bloc for 40 years by vicious application of Capitalism; I particularly remember Hungary in 1956....

---

And the US hasnt had a part to play in any way in making a country not lean to the left, of course...

Both countries were as bad as each other, fighting a war via 3rd party countries, instead of letting them decide there own future in their own way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 15:56
Both countries were as bad as each other, fighting a war via 3rd party countries, instead of letting them decide there own future in their own way.

---

While I'd still regard this as taking wild license with reality, I also note that it constitutes quite a concession on your part, Rat.

Hey, everybody!

Rat said the Soviets were just as bad as the U.S.!

Pass it on! :D

BTW-How would you describe the U.K.'s current relationship with Russia?

I really have no clue; hadn't even thought about it. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+17 June 2004 - 15:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 17 June 2004 - 15:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 June 2004 - 14:29

Iran finally agreed to release the hostages after the US said it would release assets frozen in American and other banks, including the Bank of England, since the embassy was seized.

Iran was at war with iraq and needed money. they did not hand over the hostages "because they were scared" of reagan. my point (probably not well put) was that had it been a democrat president releasing these funds you would be saying he caved in to demands (probably..... just a theory from reading your posts about anything democratic)
sorry for the delay in answering (darn school vacation times)&nbsp;

Now that&#39;s odd.

I could have sworn we favored Iraq in that conflict...&nbsp; :huh:

---

the release of funds was not in support of iran of the war, it was to secure the release of the hostages. The USA was "supposed" to be neutral in that conflict. Had Iran not been at war i am not sure that the hostage situation would have ended as it did because the original demands were for the return of the shah which didn&#39;t happen.[/b][/quote]
Okay, vid-

The release took place about 30 minutes after Reagan was sworn in.

Do you believe the Ayatollah would commit to such a schedule and knuckle under to Reagan&#39;s political mores so the latter could make an impression of toughness that didn&#39;t exist?

I think not; the last thing Khomeini would have done would have been to allow Reagan to show him up as a political favor.

Not in a million years.

Without the added stimulation of Reagan&#39;s being Reagan, I believe the Ayatollah would have negotiated a slight delay to allow himself to save a bit of face; I&#39;m sure the offer of access to the heretofore "frozen" funds came with implied...um...implications.

The fact of the timing leaves no other conclusion.

In my opinion, of course. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+17 June 2004 - 23:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 17 June 2004 - 23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 15:56
Both countries were as bad as each other, fighting a war via 3rd party countries, instead of letting them decide there own future in their own way.

---

While I&#39;d still regard this as taking wild license with reality, I also note that it constitutes quite a concession on your part, Rat.

Hey, everybody&#33;

Rat said the Soviets were just as bad as the U.S.&#33;

Pass it on&#33; :D

BTW-How would you describe the U.K.&#39;s current relationship with Russia?

I really have no clue; hadn&#39;t even thought about it. :huh: [/b][/quote]
Hows that a concession?

Ive always maintained that extreme of Left and Right Wings are equaly bad :P



Its just we havent had many "Socialists" in here claiming Russia/China were the best thing since sliced bread....which is of course, also utter crap.

Any country/system that relies on the "goodness" of human nature to succeed will fail, even if they try to force said "goodness", which is self defeating.

Any country that goes the opposite route and decides that those that are unable to look after themselves deserve what they get.. deserves to and will fail, although it will last longer, due to the suppresion of Rights and the people taking that much longer to manifest themselves.

The end results are the same, collection of money and power within a small circle of elite causing disaffection amongst the populace as a whole.


Companies must be given freedom and incentive to grow, but made to face their responsibilities towards the country as a whole.


The only reason the USA still exists today, is because the Republicans dont stay in power long enough to destroy the country from within....in my opinion, of course ;)

:P

J2
the timing was more a snub for Carter as i recollect. They could have been released earlier.

The hostage ordeal began in November 1979 when a group of radical Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran. Everyone inside was taken captive.

The students were angered by American support for the Shah, who fled into exile in January 1979 and arrived in the United States in October for cancer treatment. They demanded the Shah&#39;s return to stand trial for alleged crimes in office.

They had the backing of the Iranian government, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. But their demands for the Shah&#39;s extradition were foiled when he fled to Cairo.

The students still refused to release their hostages, however, until President Carter was defeated in the US elections. This paved the way for fresh negotiations with the Algerians acting as intermediaries

President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigned after the mission&#39;s failure.

In 1980, the death of the shah in Egypt and the invasion of Iran by Iraq made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis. In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan&#39;s defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan&#39;s inauguration, the United States released almost &#036;8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.