|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Can you believe it? Damascus Nancy gets a ringing endorsement from Jimmy Carter, the man who couldn't bring the hostages back from Iran despite being convinced that diplomacy would work. Forthwith excerpts with running commentary:
| Quote: |
Carter backs Pelosi's trip, despite Bush's rebuke
By Dugald McConnell
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter expressed his support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, rejecting White House criticism of the visit. "I was glad that she went," Carter said Wednesday. "When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem." [Gee, Jimmy, never thought of that before; how incisive]...Carter, however, said there was "no threat" that the Democratic speaker's visit would dilute the United States' ability to speak to Syria with one voice. [If you say so, we can all rest assured]...Pelosi defended her visit, saying her talks with Al-Assad focused only on topics on which she and Bush agree. [So why was the trip necessary, Nance? Are you a media ho?]Syrian cabinet minister Buthayna Sha'ban expressed his support for the visit and said, "Syria stands for freedom and for peace, and so does Nancy Pelosi."... [I'm trying not to gag].
The simple act of visiting the country and capitalizing on a photo opportunity could undermine the Bush administration's effort to isolate Syria for its behavior, according to Ken Pollack, of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution [a liberal think tank, by the way]. The Bush administration charges that Syria allows insurgents to cross its borders and attack targets in Iraq -- an allegation Syria denies.
While Syria admits it financially supports Hamas and Hezbollah, it denies U.S. accusations that it provides them with weapons. [Oh, well, that makes a big difference]...
Carter said he recently wanted to visit Syria, in connection with a Palestinian election, but "for the only time in my life, as a former president, I was ordered by the White House not to go." [Well, gee, Jimmy, sorry they wouldn't let you keep playing president. Try retiring.] |
|
Steve it seems more than coincidence to me, though unproven, that there was a deal between some Republicans and the Iranians and the hostages were released as soon as Ronnie Reagan got into office. Considering the fact that certain elements in GOP have had many members who were willing to go against Congress by funding the Contras who were engaged in horrific acts, and were getting Saudi Arabia to help them as well, shows you that it is very possible, and I wouldn't put it past them that they wanted the hostages to stay there until Reagan was elected. I believe Oliver North and Albert Hakkim were in the administration and alleged to have helped the GOP against Carter. Even some people who worked for Reagan claimed that. Without a doubt, fellows like North felt they knew what's better for America, not the Congress, and they didn't look to be accountable to the American people.
We have the same type of administration in power. They have arrogantly felt they know best. There have been abuses of power during this administration. Those who say negotiations don't work at all may have said that about Egypt and Israel who signed a peace agreement in 1979. The moderates on the Left and the Right are fine with me, but the radicals are a serious problem. I would work with a republican, democratic who is moderate not those supporting extreme views.
I can't prove October Surprise, no one can, but the Iran Contra thing definitely happened and makes one take a long pause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer:
| Quote: |
| Steve it seems more than coincidence to me, though unproven, that there was a deal between some Republicans and the Iranians and the hostages were released as soon as Ronnie Reagan got into office. |
Nice try. No deal was made. The Iranians exploited the election results hoping to get a break from the next administration, which of course never materialized. They also wanted to embarrass Carter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Adventurer:
| Quote: |
| Steve it seems more than coincidence to me, though unproven, that there was a deal between some Republicans and the Iranians and the hostages were released as soon as Ronnie Reagan got into office. |
Nice try. No deal was made. The Iranians exploited the election results hoping to get a break from the next administration, which of course never materialized. They also wanted to embarrass Carter. |
Yeah, I have to agree with Steve on this one. Correlation is not causation. There is no reason to believe that Pelosi's shuttle diplomacy could have carried the necessary executive weight to negotiate the release of those captives. As I've said before on this board, Iran has backchannels through which to discuss these issues with both the US and the UK. Pelosi was in Syria and Lebanon focusing on Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian relations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Adventurer:
| Quote: |
| Steve it seems more than coincidence to me, though unproven, that there was a deal between some Republicans and the Iranians and the hostages were released as soon as Ronnie Reagan got into office. |
Nice try. No deal was made. The Iranians exploited the election results hoping to get a break from the next administration, which of course never materialized. They also wanted to embarrass Carter. |
Yeah, I have to agree with Steve on this one. Correlation is not causation. There is no reason to believe that Pelosi's shuttle diplomacy could have carried the necessary executive weight to negotiate the release of those captives. As I've said before on this board, Iran has backchannels through which to discuss these issues with both the US and the UK. Pelosi was in Syria and Lebanon focusing on Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian relations. |
We are talking about the hostages in Iran who were Americans who somehow got released after Reagan was elected. Israel agreed to sell weapons to the Iranians. So they did get something.
According to the Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair issued in November 1987, the sale of U.S. arms to Iran through Israel began in the summer of 1985, after receiving the approval of President Reagan. The report shows that Israel's involvement was stimulated by separate overtures in 1985 from Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar and National Security Council (NSC) consultant Michael Ledeen, the latter working for National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. When Ledeen asked Prime Minister Shimon Peres for assistance, the Israeli leader agreed to sell weapons to Iran at America's behest, providing the sale had high-level U.S. approval.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Iran_Contra_Affair.html
I only bring this up, because you slam Carter about the hostages. It wasn't his fault, and the role Reagan and Bush played has many question marks in the minds of many people. There is no denying what happened with the Contras, Israel agreeing to provide weapons to Iran as a favour during the Reagan Administration. It seems like it was more than coincidence, though no one could really be indicted based on the circumstancial evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer persisted:
Stop sniffing Cuban cigars and clear your senses. My parents were there in Tehran for two years just prior to the hostage crisis. Their subsequent military connections (and even the mainstream liberal media) always acknowledged that Carter was done it by a power move that backfired when Reagan dug in against the Islamic revolutionaries even deeper. You're beginning to sound like an Andrew Young staffer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Adventurer:
| Quote: |
| Steve it seems more than coincidence to me, though unproven, that there was a deal between some Republicans and the Iranians and the hostages were released as soon as Ronnie Reagan got into office. |
Nice try. No deal was made. The Iranians exploited the election results hoping to get a break from the next administration, which of course never materialized. They also wanted to embarrass Carter. |
Yeah, I have to agree with Steve on this one. Correlation is not causation. There is no reason to believe that Pelosi's shuttle diplomacy could have carried the necessary executive weight to negotiate the release of those captives. As I've said before on this board, Iran has backchannels through which to discuss these issues with both the US and the UK. Pelosi was in Syria and Lebanon focusing on Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian relations. |
We are talking about the hostages in Iran who were Americans who somehow got released after Reagan was elected. Israel agreed to sell weapons to the Iranians. So they did get something. |
Heh. How embarrassing. Carry on...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Adventurer persisted:
Stop sniffing Cuban cigars and clear your senses. My parents were there in Tehran for two years just prior to the hostage crisis. Their subsequent military connections (and even the mainstream liberal media) always acknowledged that Carter was done it by a power move that backfired when Reagan dug in against the Islamic revolutionaries even deeper. You're beginning to sound like an Andrew Young staffer. |
Will you clarify what you mean in terms of the power move and what you feel Carter could have done more to get those hostages released besides pulverizing Iran? I think using the hostage crisis to paint Carter as a diplomatic failure is disingenuous. You forget Camp David. Anyway, Bush makes Carter look like a brilliant president, and you don't seem to mention Bush as a failed president. Bush has no Camp David, no major achievement, unless doing the exact same thing as Clinton in respect to North Korea is the achievement. I think most Americans are not outraged with Pelosi. They are outraged with the Bush Administration. I don't feel that the American public is upset with Pelosi having gone there and neither are the Israelis, and Waxman who was with her is extremely pro-Israeli and so is Tom Lantos. Lantos would never go there if his Israeli
political friends wouldn't have approved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
