Obamagate

Status
Not open for further replies.
kochman said:
Ummmm, you're now saying, Carter arranged it and for it to happen on Reagan's inauguration day.
Carter failed at it.
Click to expand...

It was Carter's administration, negotiated during Carter's presidency. Reagan had literally no input whatsoever. The release date is irrelevant. They got the agreement they wanted on the day before Reagan's inauguration. What are you expecting them to do, not accept it because it would mean the hostages would be released during another president's tenure?

You want to try Reagan for getting US hostages released? It was breaking the law? Too little too late. He did a good job, give the man credit where credit is due for crying out loud. You won't have to turn your communist party membership card in (will you?).
Click to expand...

He did literally no job. He had no input on the process. He only gets credit for it because they were released during his presidency, and because it would pain conservatives and Reagan fanbois so much to give Carter credit for absolutely anything.

This is not hard. Reagan did not get the hostages released, Carter did. End of story.

I mean really, read the link I posted.

Which is it? Carter did it?
Or Reagan broke the law?
Click to expand...

I never said Reagan did it, Cutlass did. I said had Reagan done it, he would have been breaking the law. I'm willing to give the Gipper the benefit of the doubt here and say that he didn't negotiate on behalf of a government he was not a part of.

Or both? Carter made it happen, and Reagan somehow convinced them to hold off until his inaug?
Click to expand...

Carter made it happen on the last day of his presidency, after his first option, one of the ballsiest operations ever, failed. Once again, Reagan did nothing, and could do nothing; he had no input whatsoever.

If you care to try and prove otherwise, feel welcome to, but you will be proving that Reagan broke the law.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
It was Carter's administration, negotiated during Carter's presidency. Reagan had literally no input whatsoever. The release date is irrelevant. They got the agreement they wanted on the day before Reagan's inauguration. What are you expecting them to do, not accept it because it would mean the hostages would be released during another president's tenure?



He did literally no job. He had no input on the process. He only gets credit for it because they were released during his presidency, and because it would pain conservatives and Reagan fanbois so much to give Carter credit for absolutely anything.

This is not hard. Reagan did not get the hostages released, Carter did. End of story.

I mean really, read the link I posted.



I never said Reagan did it, Cutlass did. I said had Reagan done it, he would have been breaking the law. I'm willing to give the Gipper the benefit of the doubt here and say that he didn't negotiate on behalf of a government he was not a part of.

Carter made it happen on the last day of his presidency, after his first option, one of the ballsiest operations ever, failed. Once again, Reagan did nothing, and could do nothing; he had no input whatsoever.

If you care to try and prove otherwise, feel welcome to, but you will be proving that Reagan broke the law.
Click to expand...
I'm going to disagree with you, as is Cutlass, apparently. The fact that the release was right after he got inaugurated was not a coincidence. I know wikipedia tells you it was all WC, and you are welcome to believe that...
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Maybe Carter did it as a sort of a "I'm not bitter, here's a nice gift to start off your Presidency" gesture?:mischief: (Devil's advocate;))
Click to expand...
Recent theories say that the Iranians did it like that because it was "anyone BUT Carter" can take the credit for this. After all, he gave the Shah refuge.
 
kochman said:
I'm going to disagree with you, as is Cutlass, apparently. The fact that the release was right after he got inaugurated was not a coincidence. I know wikipedia tells you it was all WC, and you are welcome to believe that...
Click to expand...

This is always your answer: I link to wikipedia because it's useful and handy, not because it's my sole source that's convinced me of something. I have something called an education, and it focused on Middle Eastern history and politics. But we already know you think literally nothing of this fact, because you already know everything about that area of the world, and indeed, all of history. If you actually care about the truth of something, then feel free to find more sources about it since you don't like wikipedia. I'm not going to provide them to you, because I feel no compulsion to help such an incredibly snide person as yourself to stop looking like an ass.
Moderator Action: No insults please.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
This is always your answer: I link to wikipedia because it's useful and handy, not because it's my sole source that's convinced me of something. I have something called an education, and it focused on Middle Eastern history and politics. But we already know you think literally nothing of this fact, because you already know everything about that area of the world, and indeed, all of history. If you actually care about the truth of something, then feel free to find more sources about it since you don't like wikipedia. I'm not going to provide them to you, because I feel no compulsion to help such an incredibly snide person as yourself to stop looking like an ass.
Click to expand...
Didn't you say you have an AA in history? I didn't know AAs focused on regions. BAs don't... so I figured AAs don't.
Well, Wiki... it's not a very good source. You want to use laziness as a defense, fine, but when history proves you wrong... don't say you weren't told Wiki isn't a good source.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russiantext.html

In Madrid and Paris, the representatives of Ronald Reagan and the Iranian leadership discussed the question of possibly delaying the release of 52 hostages from the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, taken hostage by Iranian "students" and members of the "Corps of Defense of the Islamic Revolution" on 4 November 1979 until after the elections that took place in November 1980. In exchange for this, the American representatives promised to supply arms to Iran. This was asserted, in particular, by a former Israeli intelligence agent, Ari Ben-Menash, a Jew born in Iran and arrested in 1989 in the U.S. for supplying arms to Iran (arrested in California on charges of exporting contraband C-130 aircraft from the U.S. to Iran and who was in prison for 11 months and then freed). According to his calculation, the total value of the arms illegally delivered to Iran reached 82 billion dollars.

Data on attempts by the R. Reagan team to temporarily block the release of American hostages in Teheran are also contained in official statements of several Iranian figures, including Minister of Foreign Affairs Gotb-Zade in September 1980.
...
After the victory of R. Reagan in the election, in early 1981 a secret agreement was reached in London in accord with which Iran released the American hostages, and the U.S. continued to supply arms, spares and military supplies for the Iranian army.
Click to expand...
Per Secretary of the Committee, People's Deputy of the RF N. Kuznetsov, the Russians seem to think Reagan interfered.
This was all linked to what? The Iran-Contra Affair or something like that...
 
kochman said:
Didn't you say you have an AA in history? I didn't know AAs focused on regions. BAs don't... so I figured AAs don't.
Well, Wiki... it's not a very good source. You want to use laziness as a defense, fine, but when history proves you wrong... don't say you weren't told Wiki isn't a good source.
Click to expand...

It's a BA with honors, thanks.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russiantext.html


Per Secretary of the Committee, People's Deputy of the RF N. Kuznetsov, the Russians seem to think Reagan interfered.
Click to expand...

If you want to use a Soviet source (omg, Commies?) to argue that Reagan both broke the law, as well as arranged for American citizens to remain hostages of a hostile government for longer than necessary in order to score political points, then feel free.

By the way, per your bolded part, I already said the negotiations took place in mid-January, which is after Reagan's election, but before he took office.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
It's a BA with honors, thanks.
Click to expand...
Still no focus in a BA, no official focus anyhow. That just means you had a few more classes in that area. Not a masters, brother.

If you want to use a Soviet source (omg, Commies?) to argue that Reagan both broke the law, as well as arranged for American citizens to remain hostages of a hostile government for longer than necessary in order to score political points, then feel free.

By the way, per your bolded part, I already said the negotiations took place in mid-January, which is after Reagan's election, but before he took office.
Click to expand...
I understand...
I have always said it was after the election, and he arranged, basically by outbidding Carter, to have the date be his inauguration day.

WC may have signed the open deal, but the real deal... that went to Ronnie.

Moderator Action: The others pointed it out: Stop acting like an ass.
 
Well, frankly Kochman, unless you were at each of Cheesy's classes, you can't possibly know what he did or didn't study. If he says he focussed on a particular subject, I will take him at his word, rather than waiting for your approval or otherwise.
 
kochman said:
Why must your make this about me right now?
How does this help you?
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting you act civil, instead of being a condescending ass.
Moderator Action: I think you know that flaming is not allowed here.

EDIT: Also, what Arakhor said.
 
Arakhor said:
Well, frankly Kochman, unless you were at each of Cheesy's classes, you can't possibly know what he did or didn't study. If he says he focussed on a particular subject, I will take him at his word, rather than waiting for your approval or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Arakhor, in the US, undergrad degrees do not have an official focus.
That's my point.

I don't really care what he studied, I'm just saying, he shouldn't make it out like it's some kind of post-grad degree when it isn't.

It used to be something like 5 AAs, but that seems to have changed in the last year... interestingly.
 
kochman said:
Still no focus in a BA, no official focus anyhow. That just means you had a few more classes in that area. Not a masters, brother.
Click to expand...

Thanks for telling me how my own degree track worked.

kochman said:
It used to be something like 5 AAs, but that seems to have changed in the last year... interestingly.
Click to expand...

If you want to call me a liar, then do it. I've had my BA for years, and have said so before.
 
Just wanted to clarify for those who didn't know. It could easily have been misunderstood. I know you know how it works, but how it was written didn't make that clear to those who don't know how US history majors work.
Congrats on the BA, Cheezy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom