Posted on 07/21/2015 5:10:59 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
Just a bit of historical trivia, and a thought, in the wake of the Obama/Kerry HISTORIC. NUCLEAR. DEAL. with Iran.
Obama has come under criticism that he left four American hostages in Iran; and his excuse was that "if we pressed for the release of the hostages, the Iranians would have demanded more concessions."
Oh, really?
Does anyone remember the last time a dimwit Democrat tried to deal with an Iranian hostage crisis?
Yes, it's the return of Dhimmi...err, Jimmy Carter.
Except I'm no longer so sure that Obama is merely a Dhimmi.
Remember this little gem before Obama's first election?
Yes, the Obama fist-bump cover.
(Has anyone heard a peep out of Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett lately?)
Well, think back even further, to the *first* hostage crisis.
Remember the novelty song based on the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann"?
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
Someone needs to do a new YouTube video, with an updated version, to reflect what Obama and Kerry really did with this deal.
"Bombs bombs bombs, bombs FOR Iran..."
Any takers?
...oh, and never forget. Last time, Iran released ALL the hostages within hours of Reagan's being sworn in. I guess they were afraid of what Mr. Nuclear Warmonger might do. Being a real man, instead of a scrawny metrosexual, has its advantages. Especially when you're President.
*PING*
A Modest Proposal on Iran?
Drop about 200 MOABs on their nuke sights. Then we will talk.
What a real American President should say: “Return our people or Tehran ceases to exist. You have 24 hours.”
Of course, since Obama cares more for Iran than the US, this wont happen until/unless he is out of power and the White House is the residence of someone who cares about America...
The Iranians learned their lesson from Carter. Fleece the Democrat for whatever you can, but get the deal inked BEFORE the election!
+1000
A Modest Proposal on Iran
Thanks, grey_whiskers.
[”if we pressed for the release of the hostages, the Iranians would have demanded more concessions.”]
What more concessions could he make, give the mullahs outright ownership of the USA?
Yeah, but jug-ears got an Army deserter back. How much more can we stand?
There has been too much attention to Iran’s nuke deal, hostages, Terrorism, Sanctions, etc.. all very salient points, yet symptoms of a much larger problem.
Let’s review briefly:
1) Carter supported Khomeinist/Islamic movement in the late 1979.
2) Reagan came to power and hostages were released, yet the same regime that took hostages continued to retain power.
3) GHWB didn’t do anything about the regime in Iran.
4) Bill Clinton slapped sanctions on the regime in Iran, yet praised the same regime as being the most democratic in the M.E. and Islamic world for holding x number of elections since its conception. Meantime, certain key Iranian regime figures continued to do trade with the West, namely Rafsanjani (ex regime president), and became rich.
5) GWB labelled Iran the “Axis of Evil”, then proceeded to negotiate with the Mullahs’ regime, among other reasons, to stabilize post-invasion Iraq. The regime in Iran stayed in power.
6) Obama.. well, the latest nuke deal speaks for itself..
Sanctions on Islamic regime in Iran have not worked to overthrow the regime.
Point is, if we don’t want a nuke deal, and we don’t want a terrorist regime, then make sure there isn’t a terrorist regime in power, in the first place!
One or two methods to get rid of the terrorist regime in Iran, without bills, treaties, applying sanctions, or using nukes. It really doesn’t have to be made complicated.
But when president after president (40 yrs on) continues to argue, applies non-effective measures, and refuses to address the CAUSE of the problem, there has to be at least one reason that is not president-specific.
Meant to say: late 1970s re Carter.
1979 was when Khomeini actually seized power in Iran.
“What a real American President should say: “Return our people or Tehran ceases to exist. You have 24 hours.” “
Perdicarus alive, or Raisouli dead.
I got your “larger problem” right HERE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2276493/posts
Next time Hillary bleats about a “war on women...”
What’s she doing serving as secretary of state under a President who ate luxury ice cream while this was going on?
+1000 /doubt even many FReepers catch the reference
Hmmm...both more and less apt than first glance.
Perdicarus had abandoned his US citizenship; and indeed talked as though he were suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
On the other hand, Europe was fickle as always, with England and France declining to make common cause with the United States...(see also, re-imposition of sanctions).
Feed their babies to Michael Moore?
>>”Next time Hillary bleats about a “war on women...””<<
Two things:
1) Hillary is by No means an advocate of ‘war on women..’ — not for those who understand, see and know the reality of the situation, in this instance, in Iran.
Besides, in practice & ideology, ‘war on women..’, or some say ‘feminism’, is very different in the M.E. (muslim world) than the West - it’s not comparable. Vastly different stage of maturity & development.
Hillary, since she happens to be a female, uses/has used that narrative for own political purpose. OR, her grasp of the situation in the M.E. vis a vis the West is pathetic.
2) Neda’s murder was a very tragic event. But not an isolated one in Iran. Seemingly, some sniper very publicly shot her; I believe it was done deliberately too. Otherwise, Neda was a political nobody.
I supported the 2009 “green revolution”, at first. Until it became very apparent that although non-Islamic Iranian groups joined the movement, the movement or so-called ‘ green revolution’ clearly belonged to the Islamic Reformists in Iran.
The Islamic Reformists, back then at least (2009), were part & parcel of the Khomeinist regime; to the extent that they actively went on a physical offensive when they saw another Iranian group carrying a traditional, PRE-Khomeini flag of Iran - that alone said volumes.
The Islamic Reformists are a faction of the overall Islamic Republic Regime, who, in 2009, wanted more freedom, and disputed Ahmadi-Nejad’s election - IOW, the Islamic reformists faction were against the Islamic hardline faction.
Personally, I don’t want a ‘milder’ Islamic group running the country of Iran. And, if anyone thought they could use the Islamic Reformists as a springboard to a more secular gov’t in Iran, they are very much mistaken.
Right. When Hillary bleats about the "War on Women" we shove this down her throat.
I knew you'd get to my point eventually. Thanks. 2) Neda’s murder was a very tragic event. But not an isolated one in Iran. Seemingly, some sniper very publicly shot her; I believe it was done deliberately too. Otherwise, Neda was a political nobody.
How often do most totalitarian states *lead off* by shooting down women like dogs? Very bad PR optics.
Personally, I don’t want a ‘milder’ Islamic group running the country of Iran. And, if anyone thought they could use the Islamic Reformists as a springboard to a more secular gov’t in Iran, they are very much mistaken.
I got the impression that *everyone* had a dog in the fight -- supposed "the youth" were secular, westernized, and would have welcomed representative government : recall that even Egypt didn't go fully Islamic. A word of encouragement, of tacit support, under-the-table behind the scenes effort, would have done wonders. But Obama went to vacation in Martha's Vineyard or some such while civilians were being shot by snipers. Deliberate neglect: kind of like the GOP-e do to conservatives: but Obama didn't even mouth the correct platitudes. And now he's given the Mullahs a green light to the bomb.
My original point in #10 was that the regime in Iran has not been a priority for any U.S. president so far, beside ‘attempted containment’; why? there has to be at minimum one reason for that, if not more.
Otherwise, none of the issues in #10, for instance terrorism, nukes, hostages are new ones regarding the Islamic Regime in Iran. I even recall as far back as mid 1980s there were reports that Iran was close to building nuclear weapons.
A last note from me on this discussion, to state a bit of the obvious & leave it at that: “Egypt is not Iran in domestic, world or regional matters.” Egypt is also a very unstable place as we speak.
But, consider that since Carter, and more contemporary times too, we’ve witnessed a distinct shift to Islamism around the world, especially in the M.E. & North Africa. Sorry, I don’t buy little bit less Islamic; it’s more like a bit more Islamic each year, or we’re sold “Islam is not so bad, if...”. We are given conflicting messages.
Obama’s presidency is almost over. Let’s see what the next president will do regarding Iran. Thanks for the discussion.
What about the nation that currently has the “islamic nuclear bomb” — Pakistan? How about bombing them first?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
