superstring01
Moderator
Well, duh!
Of COURSE the NYT would say that... being a mouth piece for the right-wing authoritarian American government and all.
~String
Was Nixon so bad?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
- Status
Well, duh!
Of COURSE the NYT would say that... being a mouth piece for the right-wing authoritarian American government and all.
~String
Yeah, that was pure treason, plain and simple.
Nah, although I forgot that. W still beat that by invading Iraq, and Clinton with boycotting Iraq probably caused more death.
The funny part is that Nixon didn't get the bad rep for bombing Laos, he got it for a little break-in...
Last edited:
countezero
Registered Senior Member
It never happened. And even if it did, I doubt it would meet the Constitutional requirement of treason.
The hostages were releases as a result of the Algerian Accords, which can be found here. . .
http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf
However, the real reason the Iranians decided to release them after more than year of negotiations and dithering has more to do with String said. They knew Reagan would not play around with them the way Carter had.
You don't know much about American history. Nixon was elected, partly, because he promised to end the war and get the troops home. When he started bombing the North and expanded the war to two more countries, there were plenty of people who were enraged.
The hostages were releases as a result of the Algerian Accords, which can be found here. . .
http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf
However, the real reason the Iranians decided to release them after more than year of negotiations and dithering has more to do with String said. They knew Reagan would not play around with them the way Carter had.
You don't know much about American history. Nixon was elected, partly, because he promised to end the war and get the troops home. When he started bombing the North and expanded the war to two more countries, there were plenty of people who were enraged.
Last edited:
Reagan (his "people") handled them similarly, betraying his country for domestic political gain and corporate power. I don't see why we can't lump them.string said:
Reagan didn't have to wait for election to have "people" negotiating with the Iranians on his behalf - he had powerful support in the US military and corporate world.string said:
Maybe it's the influence of Christmas, and reading stories to kids, but I have this image of all the little righty nutters to be sitting in a circle on the floor hearing about manly Reagan telling the bad guys how tough he was going to be if they didn't shape up. Like Clint Eastwood cowing the disorderly - only that was just a movie, you know, and this was the Real Thing, just like the movies Reagan was continually confusing with his own life. How does the bedtime story handle the cut and run from Lebanon? The moral cowardice and venal dishonesty of Star Wars?
And I am pointing out that the judgment depends on the actual motives involved, and your imputation of innocent high mindedness on the part of Casey and Reagan's crew in the White House basement is more than a little naive.count said:
Benedict Arnold, for example, was motivated at least in part by a genuine hatred for the French and desire to protect his own people from alliances with them - call it "anti-Francommunism" or something, if the parallel is difficult.
Arnold did not even directly betray his principles or "his country", or a political system he had sworn to uphold, as Reagan and North and Casey did. You could argue that he was right, a truer patriot than Washington's thug squads of Indian haters and slave traders- that the Colonies would have been better served by the victory of his new allegiance; certainly slavery would have been earlier ended.
I think Arnold was a traitor. I think Reagan was, as well. And I saw North convicted of betraying his country in the service of a corporate and fascistic elite, and walk the streets a hero of Reagan's right, forgiven (or even praised) to this day simply because he wasn't in it for the money - or not just for the money, anyway.
Nixon's image problem, like Agnew's, was his short horizon and petty focus - he was in business for himself. Reagan was fronting for others; working off a better script, a better movie role for a hero to play, and fronting for the ugliest scum in the Western Hemisphere. He did more damage.
The Contras were terrorists in the service of drug cartels and thug corporate interests.count said:
You best me in silly opinion and hyperbole once again. America traces its current collapse directly to the damage Reagan did to the foundation, and the consequences were already becoming visible by the end of his second term - the world's foremost creditor nation having become the world's foremost debtor nation, for example. The economy having been irrevocably focused around the military. The beginning of the transfer of the the nation's housing equity and other accumulated wealth into the control of the upper class. The elevation of the neo-nut economists to positions of influence.count said:
He did serious harm, curbed only by lack of power. And his administration populated W's, which had no such curbs, and which utterly trashed the place.
I deleted my earlier post because I wanted the research the topic better first. Here there are pro and contra evidences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html
I tend to believe that Reagan's people were involved, although String might be right about the threat thing, although it was a second covert op and not bombing them into the stoneage:
"an expanded and ramped-up covert special ops mission for a second rescue attempt culminated with a poised force on the eve of President Reagan's inauguration. Their gear was packed and ready to go, mission personnel were on alert for short-notice deployment, and most believed that Reagan had planned the second attempt with Carter's blessing to launch if the hostages were not released shortly after the inauguration."
Otherwise :
""It is now very clear that there were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms. We have published documents which show that US arms were shipped, via Israel, in March, about 2 months after Reagan became president."
—Former Iranian President Bani-Sadr "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html
I tend to believe that Reagan's people were involved, although String might be right about the threat thing, although it was a second covert op and not bombing them into the stoneage:
"an expanded and ramped-up covert special ops mission for a second rescue attempt culminated with a poised force on the eve of President Reagan's inauguration. Their gear was packed and ready to go, mission personnel were on alert for short-notice deployment, and most believed that Reagan had planned the second attempt with Carter's blessing to launch if the hostages were not released shortly after the inauguration."
Otherwise :
""It is now very clear that there were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms. We have published documents which show that US arms were shipped, via Israel, in March, about 2 months after Reagan became president."
—Former Iranian President Bani-Sadr "
Last edited:
Let's take a look at your claims, since mine have the advantage of obvious circumstantial support and are common in the discussions.
You claim that Reagan was sufficiently impressive to Iranians, who could parse subtle social cues in US culture and tell the difference between the real thing way over the ocean in America - an ex-actor from Hollywood with no military experience to speak of bar reading scripts - and a wimp, a command-qualified submarine officer who had already launched one rescue attempt and was known to be setting up another
and that they feared the threat of the studly Reagan and the suddenly rehabilitated US military, no longer the inept Carter forces they had recently seen in action and made better provision against since.
That assumes the marketing efforts of the US political campaigns carry over into foreign countries - that the Iranians buy the same shit the same way people like you sucker in the US. Have you any evidence of that?
It also assumes that the Iranians were remarkably compliant in timing their cooperation, on their own, for maximum PR benefit to the incoming President. As though they wished him well, and were careful not to undermine his power by giving up the hostages to his predecessor.
Then, a couple of years later, these same cowed Iranians are suddenly hard bargainers - with half a dozen hostages, in the middle of a bad war with Iraq, they are suddenly much more defiant than they were with five dozen hostages scattered all over. No more bowing in fear of the US military - now they want to deal. And for these half dozen hostages they get some serious weaponry, where before they were giving up dozens and dozens for free.
Further, their allies are blowing up Marine Corps barracks, setting bombs, etc, without apparent fear of Reagan's displeasure.
Do you have an explanation for this transformation?
You claim that Reagan was sufficiently impressive to Iranians, who could parse subtle social cues in US culture and tell the difference between the real thing way over the ocean in America - an ex-actor from Hollywood with no military experience to speak of bar reading scripts - and a wimp, a command-qualified submarine officer who had already launched one rescue attempt and was known to be setting up another
and that they feared the threat of the studly Reagan and the suddenly rehabilitated US military, no longer the inept Carter forces they had recently seen in action and made better provision against since.
That assumes the marketing efforts of the US political campaigns carry over into foreign countries - that the Iranians buy the same shit the same way people like you sucker in the US. Have you any evidence of that?
It also assumes that the Iranians were remarkably compliant in timing their cooperation, on their own, for maximum PR benefit to the incoming President. As though they wished him well, and were careful not to undermine his power by giving up the hostages to his predecessor.
Then, a couple of years later, these same cowed Iranians are suddenly hard bargainers - with half a dozen hostages, in the middle of a bad war with Iraq, they are suddenly much more defiant than they were with five dozen hostages scattered all over. No more bowing in fear of the US military - now they want to deal. And for these half dozen hostages they get some serious weaponry, where before they were giving up dozens and dozens for free.
Further, their allies are blowing up Marine Corps barracks, setting bombs, etc, without apparent fear of Reagan's displeasure.
Do you have an explanation for this transformation?
Last edited:
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Like Ice, you're confusing two things. You were speaking about Iran-Contra. Now, because it's obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you've tried to attach the 1981 release to Iran-Contra. It's desperate debate tactics. Nothing more.
superstring01
Moderator
I don't presume to know what they were thinking: that's you. I was stating the obvious, you were the moron who was confusing one affair for the other and in a desperate attempt not to look stupid, has spun the whole thing to be the same matter by inventing some sub rosa agreement between Reagan and the Iranians to time the release of the hostages.
Again, I ask you for proof, not speculation. This is the third time I've asked you for it and since then you've done nothing but blather on in your typical way with absolutely ZERO evidence. And while I know that you think that your speculations are considered proof, for the rest of us on planet earth, we need something a little more credible than someone who has a history of puking up conspiracy theories (Building 7?)
God you're dense. The reason why they wouldn't say a word to Carter is the obviuos: he attempted and failed. Reagan was threatening outright invasion with everything the USA had. There's a difference. In your zeal to hate Reagan and defend the idiot Carter, you have painted a totally different rationale, but have provided NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence. Typical.
Yeah. I'm the sucker, Ice. I'm the one who makes wild speculations about presidents, provides little evidence about them and then sells that bullshit as evidence.
I know it hurts your little heart to think this: But yeah, the Iranians AND THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD was listening to the election and while they hate any American president, I'm certain they saw the winds of change coming (and they did, for all intents and purposes) and found the most advantageous time to release them. They wanted to save their own skin. Reagan never hesitated to use the military to achieve his goals. The Iranians saw this coming.
No. They were scared of him and his nonstop statements that he'd destroy them and invade them. The president of a nuclear superpower has just that ability to scare the shit out of people.
None. I don't presume to know the internal workings of Tehran. Do you? OH, wait, of course you do: You can blindly speculate and then post that as fact.
How about you stop asking me to back up my claims which really amount to little more than the obvious, and explain who was involved in these secret negotiations that you've stated?
~String
But in fact Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon, talked big and backed off in several situations, talked tough to those impressed by tough talk while confining his walk to support of terrorism abroad and bankruptcy level spending on military contracting at home, and was (for example) caught as flatfooted as anyone on the planet by the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union.string said:
Is that what the Iranians saw coming?
Beyond the presumption that the Reagan crowd had no dealings with Iran prior to the six minutes between his inauguration and the release of the hostages, and your cute but fact-free scenario of people all over the world quaking in fear of American campaign bluster, what reason do you have to think that the Iranians of the entire subsequent Reagan tenure had radically changed their perceptions of the US and Reagan in the year after his ascension to the Presidency? In your story, they went from panicky emergency hostage release to save their skin to contemptuous defiance and hard-line backdoor dealing through somehow long-established channels (during a war, mind - Saddam knocking on that door) in a couple of months flat.
Were the Iranians initially taken in by American campaign rhetoric, by the Hollywood campaign tough talk, as apparently so many of the Americans it was aimed at were and still are? Or did they simply deal with Reagan consistently throughout his term, through his actual representatives and diplomatic realities, much as they had dealt with Carter, much as they dealt with Bush and Clinton and W, cutting deals to their advantage and using their leverage as they obtained it?
You might want to separate that kind of u-turn by more than a couple of sentences, in the future. Less chance of whiplash.string said:
Last edited:
superstring01
Moderator
I'm sorry, I was lost on the lack of evidence you provided and still laughing at your Alzheimers at confusing two different hostage situations.
So, if you could provide some evidence as to Reagan's involvement with the Iranians during his campaign, as you have stated.
Talk to me, then, about whiplash.
~String
Well, if the simple fact that the hostages were released mere minutes after Reagan took office sort of blows over your head, and the pattern of Reagan's dealings with Iran throughout his tenure in office - including well-established treasonous backdoor dealings through people many years connected with (or even comprising) Reagan's longtime supporters - fails to impress, there is always the Bani-Sadr quote already posted by Syz to tweak your curiosity in the real world.string said:
But I think I'll postpone running all over the internet at your behest until after you have posted the slightest bit of evidence or argument that the Iranians were more fearful of Ronald Reagan than any other US President, or took his campaign bluster as seriously as you guys seem to have.
You have, I hope, noticed that the preparations Reagan was allegedly making (before taking office, so anything that happened quickly would have been Carter's organization and planning) were woefully inadequate to the brags and threats, right? The US was months of serious preparation away from invading an alerted and militarily readied (they were at war) Iran, even had Reagan wanted to hand Saddam such a prize, for example.
Reagan's administration was a long panoply of criminal dealings, embarrassingly juvenile economics, and muddled PR motivated nonsense like Grenada (its unencumbered reincarnation under W being even worse). Nixon's was more competent, when it was actually bent toward governance - kind of like the stereotype of mafia oversight. One does not have to downplay Nixon's evils to conclude that overall he was not as bad for the US as a country.
superstring01
Moderator
Let me get this straight, your entire blatherings have been about a conspiracy about Reagan negotiating with the Iranians first and you're escape route from the debate is based on cornering me about the issue that the Iranians feared Reagan more.
Okay. They didn't fear him. You're right. I'm wrong. I was basing my statements on an assumption with little more proof than conjecture which was based upon the fact that they released them directly after he was elected. I based this upon the fact that the Iranians were insanely pissed off at Carter for the botched invasion and just wanted to thumb their noses at him, while reacting to Reagan's sour statements that Tehran would be bombed. Seemed like a good thought. I also base my statements on the fact that Warren Christopher (Carter's Dep. Sec of State) to this day, and in his many writings (specifically in his book, "Chances of a Lifetime"), has said that the combination of his back-room dealings and Reagan's warmongering triggered the Iranians to rethink the logic of holding the 52 hostages. I could be wrong and am open to your statements, which statements, I happen to think are an outright lie or exaggeration. Mine are based upon actual readings. Yours, up till now, are nothing but conspiracy bunk based upon "observations" which you think count as fact.
Now. Please provide proof that Reagan was dealing with them. I didn't ask you to go all around the internet, I was assuming that you'd actually have the content of character to either admit you're wrong or--GASP--actually have proof.
Now, please provide proof to your claim.
~String
Okay. They didn't fear him. You're right. I'm wrong. I was basing my statements on an assumption with little more proof than conjecture which was based upon the fact that they released them directly after he was elected. I based this upon the fact that the Iranians were insanely pissed off at Carter for the botched invasion and just wanted to thumb their noses at him, while reacting to Reagan's sour statements that Tehran would be bombed. Seemed like a good thought. I also base my statements on the fact that Warren Christopher (Carter's Dep. Sec of State) to this day, and in his many writings (specifically in his book, "Chances of a Lifetime"), has said that the combination of his back-room dealings and Reagan's warmongering triggered the Iranians to rethink the logic of holding the 52 hostages. I could be wrong and am open to your statements, which statements, I happen to think are an outright lie or exaggeration. Mine are based upon actual readings. Yours, up till now, are nothing but conspiracy bunk based upon "observations" which you think count as fact.
Now. Please provide proof that Reagan was dealing with them. I didn't ask you to go all around the internet, I was assuming that you'd actually have the content of character to either admit you're wrong or--GASP--actually have proof.
Now, please provide proof to your claim.
~String
Last edited:
Here are the statements you made:string said:
As you can see, your newly alleged "basis" for them does not support their language or claims.string said:
My presumption is that you were, in typical fashion, accepting the quite radically distorted image of Reagan presented by the US media to Americans as having reality among other people not directly targeted by such marketing. I pointed out that no events subsequent to the Carter hostage crisis support such a perception of Reagan among the Iranians, many contradict it, and even simply back-projecting verified, legally established patterns of behavior a couple of years to Reagan's campaign and first year is reasonable argument, perfectly in agreement with all evidence.
You are claiming that some radical change in Reagan/Iran relations took place sometime very early in Reagan's first year of office. I am claiming that both Reagan and Iran acted consistently throughout his tenure. Once quietly dropping such nonsense as assertions that Reagan's supporters were unable for some reason to establish backdoor relations with Iran before the election (do you really believe that?), and after weighing such likely factors as anger at Carter's rescue try and simple exhaustion of benefit from what had never been intended as such a standoff, against Reagan's saber-rattling and showcased belligerent preparations;
we are left with the assumption of treasonous backdoor dealings as the default, the one that fits, that requires the fewest coincidences or unlikely readings of foreign minds, that has at least some evidence behind it.
And in comparison with Nixon, that pattern - established in court documents for Reagan's later tenure, the default presumption for earlier events - is a new kind of low, a more significant betrayal with lasting effects.
superstring01
Moderator
You know nothing of my opinion about Reagan. I have no fond opinion about Reagan, unlike my friend Counte. He was a social conservative Christian fundamental. He increased the federal deficit to ridiculous proportions while not bringing, or attempting to bring, the tax code in line with those expenditures. So stop assuming. You look even more stupid.
All I'm saying is that Reagan is capable of some good. His election, and saber rattling during the election, in conjunction with efforts from the Carter administration before then, ended the hostage situation. So says, Christopher, and you'll pardon me if I take his statements as more factual than your idiotic, unsupported ramblings. And no, claiming to be "back projecting" proves nothing. You implied that the proof existed. Cough it up.
Remember, I'm not the idiot that confused two separate hostage situations and is now currently avoiding--like a little coward--demonstrating any verifiable evidence.
You stated that Reagan was engaged in some sort of back-room dealings before elected. You implied that such evidence was available somewhere. You are now avoiding that commitment by saying that the facts are obvious, in and of themselves, which they are not.
Reagan had no back room dealings. The people in power at the time say otherwise. I'm still waiting for you to cough up the proof.
Happy hunting.
~String
All I'm saying is that Reagan is capable of some good. His election, and saber rattling during the election, in conjunction with efforts from the Carter administration before then, ended the hostage situation. So says, Christopher, and you'll pardon me if I take his statements as more factual than your idiotic, unsupported ramblings. And no, claiming to be "back projecting" proves nothing. You implied that the proof existed. Cough it up.
Remember, I'm not the idiot that confused two separate hostage situations and is now currently avoiding--like a little coward--demonstrating any verifiable evidence.
You stated that Reagan was engaged in some sort of back-room dealings before elected. You implied that such evidence was available somewhere. You are now avoiding that commitment by saying that the facts are obvious, in and of themselves, which they are not.
Reagan had no back room dealings. The people in power at the time say otherwise. I'm still waiting for you to cough up the proof.
Happy hunting.
~String
The evidence already presented here is of course obvious, if you are willing to look at it.string said:
Proof, of course, you will not find anywhere. Merely evidence, circumstance, etc. You find that presented here unpersuasive, so totally unworthy of consideration that even self-interested and implausible assertions from one or two "people in authority at the time" - who were not in a position to know, actually - are more persuasive. I take such indications into consideration, when budgeting my time - digging out all that crap again, all of it inevitably circumstantial and so forth, doesn't look worthwhile, in the present circumstances. I pass.
But I leave the last word to this quote:
That is what the people who think Reagan was a better President than Nixon believe.string said:
Proof is what keeps some families alive, but divulging that proof is what makes em dead. Those people can talk and talk all they want as long as they don't show that proof because then you just have a bunch of people that won't believe it because they think the world is an honest place when it's actually the other way around, a corrupt place where people fight for power and will do anything for survival. And besides, even the truth can easily be disproved, even though, it's well, hardcore fact. When you have one person, or even a few more, with proof who is or was a part of whatever it may be, yet dozens of more powerful paid-off minions hiding it, part of the cherry-picked committee to investigate whatever it may be, who are you gonna believe? Not every conspiracy nut is a kook, some actually know what they're talking about and were apart of whatever it may have been but it's very easy to character assassinate or literally assassinate them with a local paid off gang hit who just happened to be caught in the crossfire, burn their house down through some accident, etc. So when you hear things that aren't very convincing, they're not spilling all the beans for a reason, but they at least want to try and open your eyes to reality and be on guard, even if nothing happens to those bad guys. Apathy and all.
There's a reason why most higher-ups never get caught. Money and power really can buy you anything. The world really is a small place and conspiracies aren't left to just a couple people because it takes many to run things (although think of the line from Dune, "I see plots within plots"), but when all of those involved are corrupt, you don't have to worry about anyone talking out about it because everyone has dirt on everyone, and that's exactly why it's so easy to character assassinate someone and have the whole thing dismissed and swept under the rug. My favorite piece of irony is when proof is brought forward of a conspiracy but then the whole thing gets spun around into there being a conspiracy of saying there was a conspiracy in trying to character assassinate the powerful people, go figure. Things aren't really complicated, big crime is pretty simple, it just all boils down to convincement, not proof.
If you're always wanting proof to every little thing in life in which you weren't personally a part of, you're not gonna learn much because not everything can be proven, and even when things can or do get proven, people still won't believe it all because of that one word: conspiracy, which pretty much makes most people automatically toss the whole thing out thinking things always have to be complicated when they're not. The real truth can always easily be disproved. Proof is not always truth, it can be used to defend one's corrupt self. It's all about who can convince who the most. One little person or group of people vs the rest of the whole conspiracy? Good luck winning that one. It's why bad shit always happens and will continue to happen with no retribution to those in charge. And when someone does get caught, it's for a reason, but not how and why you'd think. Those people get caught for the same reason why whistle-blowers get killed, due to people associated with the crime intentially making it happen for reasons such as lack of loyalty, getting sloppy, etc, etc. They sacrifice a small guy making most people think that's all there was to the crime and well, case closed.
That's a little dose of reality for ya, but hey, just as you can't cure sickness with one shot, nor can you wake someone up to reality with one post. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, just at least listen to the words.
- N
Nixon wasn't so bad, but he wasn't very good either...just like all politicians!
superstring01
Moderator
What the hell is this BS? Stop trying to look smart by typing nauseatingly long posts about nothing and acting like you're so well informed.
If you have something to say, it can well be said without all the excess baggage.
Yeah. Counte's ignorant for calling you out on your bullshit. Right.
~String
- Status