Amhadinejad's visit to U.S.

[skier1]

mahnarch said:

Remember, you're only 13.

Wow, you must really have no evidence if you're trying to use age as a basis for argument.

Carter was/is a player behind the scenes with terror minded individuals. Always has been.
He parades around like a choir boy but, a set of horns holds up his halo.

Ayatola held U.S. citizens hostage (like Phil said) for over 400 (442, I believe?) days during Jimmy's term in office and he "couldn't do anything about it."

Reagan took office and those citizens where home for Valentine's Day that year.

What you failed to mention is that the Ayatollah released the prisoners the second Carter was out of office (literally). It had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan, and implying it did is very misinformed.

[Phil]

There's much more to what Mahnarch is saying than 'you're only 13.'
That could come across to you as condescending but there is a difference in some of this between condescending and pointing out that a 31 year old Mahnarch and a 36 year old me actually remember the hostage situation vs reading about it.

So what? Well, the country was in the worst state of moral after the Carter administration. That administration got slapped around by the 3rd world and the soviet union at absolutely every turn. Moral was on the weak side already as Richard Nixon scandles disgraced the face of America and yes Nixon was a republican by the way its not just partizen here.

So the Vietnam situation was mishandled by 3 presidents, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Less so by Ford though. Nothing to with Carter.

But Carter's weakness did not help matters at all.
But Iran had 2 things. 1. They saw Carter's weakness and could abuse it. 2. There was no beef with Reagan so they could let the hostages go but also almost nobody else would be that weak.

That's why I said that not just GOP rah rah rah.

But being older and remembering that has something you don't get from reading of it. Not to be condescending just a thought. I was not born when President Kennedy was shot I don't really know how America felt.

[thunderbird]

I remember that too.

I thought it was more of a the idea that the hostages had no value once Reagan was president.
The Ayatollah wanted the Shah Mohamid Paolavi. I have no idea how you spell that.

Long before the actual election the Shah was admitted to a hospital in Egypt after leaving New York. The Ayatollah could hold the hostages to spite Carter and make it less likely he would get relected which I think he would not have anyway for the reasons other people have said. My father squaked at interest rates during those years.

Well anyway not releasing the hostages to Carter might have been just as much the Ayatollah's gag as much as anything else by that point.

While I am a republican also, I don't think that perticular thing had much to do with Reagan as it did to spite Carter further.

If this matters and it might not, but Egypt's president was Anwar Sadat at that time. About a year or so later he was assasinated.

Not because of the Shah though. There is so much hatred toward American lifestyle and other countries who try to mimic it. I don't know if peaceful solutions could ever be reached. I spent some time in Kuwait during operation Desert Storm at the time I was 21 years old. That was scary and enlightning to see just how badly some people in that part of the world just hate Americans. I could talk about that some time if you want.

[Kevin]

mahnarch said:

Carter visits people like Chavez for tea.
He gave the middle east weapons.

What about the weapons provided to both Iran and Afghanistan under Reagan?

[thunderbird]

I would agree that Iran was a dicey thing.

Afganistan at that time was at least seemingly a victem of a Russian invasion. So that would be the why there. That would fall under the "Lend Lease act" that was started by Roosevelt and continuted by most if not all presidents after.

The idea being that instead of getting in the war you would "lend" ( I know that really means give ) weapons.

[Kevin]

I don't care what the conditions were. Mahnarch criticized Carter for "giving away" weapons to the Middle East. How was this any different?

[Slayzie]

skier1 said:

mahnarch said:

Remember, you're only 13.

Wow, you must really have no evidence if you're trying to use age as a basis for argument.

And I'm pretty sure Skier ain't 13. He's at least 15, and I suspect older, because he's been a member here for two and a half years, and the minimum registration age is 13.

[Demona]

thunderbird said:

I remember that too.

I thought it was more of a the idea that the hostages had no value once Reagan was president.
The Ayatollah wanted the Shah Mohamid Paolavi. I have no idea how you spell that.

Long before the actual election the Shah was admitted to a hospital in Egypt after leaving New York. The Ayatollah could hold the hostages to spite Carter and make it less likely he would get relected which I think he would not have anyway for the reasons other people have said. My father squaked at interest rates during those years.

Well anyway not releasing the hostages to Carter might have been just as much the Ayatollah's gag as much as anything else by that point.

While I am a republican also, I don't think that perticular thing had much to do with Reagan as it did to spite Carter further.

If this matters and it might not, but Egypt's president was Anwar Sadat at that time. About a year or so later he was assasinated.

Not because of the Shah though. There is so much hatred toward American lifestyle and other countries who try to mimic it. I don't know if peaceful solutions could ever be reached. I spent some time in Kuwait during operation Desert Storm at the time I was 21 years old. That was scary and enlightning to see just how badly some people in that part of the world just hate Americans. I could talk about that some time if you want.

Sadat was killed by fundamentalists who were pissed that he had the nerve to make peace with Israel and supposedly "betray" the Arabs. Some of those countries were happy about it, likely including Iran. Libya even tried taking credit I think....but it wasn't. What I don't understand completely is why hate an entire country and people you don't know just because of a way of life your country does not live. I don't know much about the Ayatollah but I know the first one's dead and they've got another one, who's not so cool either.

About Reagan, I was alive during his reign but not long enough to remember anything, all I know is he didn't take any sh*t from anyone, but did go too far in a particular situation hastily deciding on bombing a country just to kill a leader that was more of a nuissance than anything.

And to Mahnarch, Ahmadinejad did have a right to speak his mind and answer the questions and make as much of a hind end of himself as he wanted to. He was a guest.

[Classicblast]

I think Mahnarch said that to __________ who according to his profile is 13.

Demona Firebrand, you're right Libya has taken credit in almost so many terms.

Sadat's vice president became president upon Sadat's death. Hasni Mubarak. They must not have term limitations because he keeps getting re-elected. He was wounded in the attack that killed Sadat. Mubarak has been wounded in at least one other assassination attempt since then too.

[Demona]

classicblast said:

I think Mahnarch said that to __________ who according to his profile is 13.

Demona Firebrand, you're right Libya has taken credit in almost so many terms.

Sadat's vice president became president upon Sadat's death. Hasni Mubarak. They must not have term limitations because he keeps getting re-elected. He was wounded in the attack that killed Sadat. Mubarak has been wounded in at least one other assassination attempt since then too.

Mubarak isn't so popular though. Not like Sadat. I think there was some shady stuff going on with him being re-elected too. He was in the World's Worst Dictators list in Parade magazine...I'll have to try and look that up. It's funny though about Mubarak, he's sort of two faced I think. He puts on like he's good friends with Qaddafi but when one of his 7 sons tried some sort of coup attempt, Mubarak was said to be behind it. Those Arabs just can't seem to get along with eachother though alot of them stand firm on the Israel opinion, maybe the one big thing they have in common.

[skier1]

rammsteindragon said:

Sadat was killed by fundamentalists who were pissed that he had the nerve to make peace with Israel and supposedly "betray" the Arabs. Some of those countries were happy about it, likely including Iran.

Incorrect. Iran is not an Arabic country, as it is comprised mainly of Persians who speak Farsi.

[Mahnarch]

Phil hit it right on the head:

Living it and reading about it are two different things. You get to personally hear the snippets and read the newspapers (or get them read to you by your loudly berating grandfather) and not just what history books tell you.

I didn't live in the Civil War. I didn't hear the cannonfire in the distance and I didn't hear my parents talking about it with neighbors.

We will all remember September 11 but, a child born a year of two after than - and from then on - will only read what's presented to them in print.
They'll never see then entire "Live" broadcasts that followed the 2 weeks afterward.
They'll never be drowned with the memories of the Red Cross Donation causes.
They'll simply look it up on Wikipedia 5000., via voice activated internet connections on their sunglass-computers.

***

Reagan loaned weapons to Afgahnistan to defend themselves so we wouldn't have to.
Carter gave them as a "Hi. Hope you guys like me, now!" type of situation but, Thunderbird already covered that.

It's like lending a friend a car to go to the store and come right back. (Reagan)
To, buying a cute girl a car so she'll go on a date with you. (Carter)

***

Forgot about this part:

What you failed to mention is that the Ayatollah released the prisoners the second Carter was out of office (literally). It had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan, and implying it did is very misinformed.

Carter was a known wuss. He was the class nerd who everyone pushed around.

Reagan was an up-and-comer with brass. He had a reputation and Ayatollah knew that.
He was the massively built new kid that no one messed with.

[Demona]

skier1 said:

rammsteindragon said:

Sadat was killed by fundamentalists who were pissed that he had the nerve to make peace with Israel and supposedly "betray" the Arabs. Some of those countries were happy about it, likely including Iran.

Incorrect. Iran is not an Arabic country, as it is comprised mainly of Persians who speak Farsi.

I Didn't say they were Arabs, I meant they didn't like Sadat...not the Ayatollah and his supporters anyhow.

[Slayzie]

Living it and reading about it are two different things. You get to personally hear the snippets and read the newspapers (or get them read to you by your loudly berating grandfather) and not just what history books tell you.

I didn't live in the Civil War. I didn't hear the cannonfire in the distance and I didn't hear my parents talking about it with neighbors.

We will all remember September 11 but, a child born a year of two after than - and from then on - will only read what's presented to them in print.
They'll never see then entire "Live" broadcasts that followed the 2 weeks afterward.
They'll never be drowned with the memories of the Red Cross Donation causes.
They'll simply look it up on Wikipedia 5000., via voice activated internet connections on their sunglass-computers.

I would suggest that that's probably a good thing. It means you can take an informed, objective view on the situation. If you're actually involved in something like that, then the inclination would be to say 'omg theyer all basteds' and take it all very personally, rather than looking at it from an objective perspective and be able to see what all sides did right, and what they did wrong.

[Mahnarch]

You're wiser than your years, SlayerX.
I give you that.

But, listening or reading about something later takes away from national pride.
Why don't Turks care about the American Revolution?
Why don't American's care about the drought in China?
Why doesn't anyone, other than Australians, care about vemomous spiders that kill within hours?

It's the 'here and now' and national pride that decides what's right and wrong.
If some Aussie drunk were to drive into your yard and do doughnuts on your lawn, would you rather have an experience of it, or would you rather read about it a few weeks later via email from your mother while you were on vacation?

Living it means more to you.
Getting an email, you'd probably just blow it off, even though the end result is the same - the yard is torn up.

[skier1]

Why don't American's care about the drought in China?

Speak for yourself.

Why doesn't anyone, other than Australians, care about vemomous spiders that kill within hours?

We get Brown Recluse here. If you're bitten by one, and aren't treated fast, whichever limb was bitten falls off.

[Mahnarch]

skier1 said:

Why don't American's care about the drought in China?

Speak for yourself.

Why doesn't anyone, other than Australians, care about vemomous spiders that kill within hours?

We get Brown Recluse here. If you're bitten by one, and aren't treated fast, whichever limb was bitten falls off.

You can't tell me that you care about the Chinese.
Don't even pretend, louse.

I've seen the Brown Recluse, and it's dirty work.
Yow! and Ouch.
I'm glad I only have the Black Widow here.

Nothing, compared to that.

[skier1]

You can't tell me that you care about the Chinese.
Don't even pretend, louse.

Please don't insult me. I've been to China twice now, and I genuinely care about the people there. I haven't met a single rude person there, no one's forced their opinions on me, and everyone was willing to teach you something if you were willing to learn. People did things as a community, which truly fascinated me. And for such a pleasant culture, China's had a very unfortunate past. When it wasn't being slaughtered by foreigners, China's been torn apart by civil wars or poor leadership. The people have been through a lot, and the fact that they're still willing to be kind and generous with foreigners is amazing.

Just because most US citizens don't care doesn't mean all US citizens don't care.