|
Post by dlifeson on May 14, 2007 21:21:57 GMT -5
Mark, the next topic I would like to discuss is Carter, I was in the 6th grade during the hostage crisis. I have heard you and others say that he had no balls. In reality what was he to do? Surely any military action would have gotten the hostages killed. What would Reagen have done if they weren't released? Seems to me that even now with all this technology it would be a huge crisis. Would it be fair to say that Bush has no balls because he did nothing against Iran when they took the British soldiers and they are our closest allie?
|
|
|
Post by mark on May 14, 2007 21:33:09 GMT -5
I voted for Carter (my mistake, everyone is entitled to one). He sent Delta Force, and in the last minute recalled them resulting in a disaster really, and IMO prolonged the hostage situation. He should have followed through with that mission. Anyone going overseas on a US Mission knows that their lives are in jeopardy. The best thing to have done (again my opinion) was to destroy the problem and show them that we won't sit still for such junk. In truth? The hostages would have probably been killed at the worst, and rescued at the best, who would know, that can only be speculation. Thankfully Iran recognized Reagans strength as much as they recognized Carter's weakness and it all ended well. Judging from Reagans record though, had the Ayatolla not released the hostages there would have been one Ayatolla in the "hurt locker". Probably some dead hostages, but that is what you pay when you get paid the big bucks. It is just part of the risks. Actually I think Bush has muchas grandes cajones (very big balls) in that he is not only willing to face a known enemy with a great demonstration of strength, but he has also basically told the Pelosi crowd to go suck the big one. Remember, that was the Brits problem, remember too that Bush said that "he" would back any decision they made. That is the proper thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by dlifeson on May 14, 2007 21:34:57 GMT -5
Isn't Blair resigning due the unpopularity of this war?
|
|
|
Post by mark on May 14, 2007 21:34:59 GMT -5
can't you come up with something better than this?
|
|
|
Post by dlifeson on May 14, 2007 21:39:34 GMT -5
Actally I can but Carter, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry keep coming up in discussions where they don't belong so I am trying to get a better understanding of how you feel about each one so I will know why you mention each one in discussions. Seems to me that among the presidents in my lifetime, Reagan was the most popular among right and left wingers.
|
|
|
Post by mark on May 14, 2007 21:47:48 GMT -5
Actally I can but Carter, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry keep coming up in discussions where they don't belong so I am trying to get a better understanding of how you feel about each one so I will know why you mention each one in discussions. Seems to me that among the presidents in my lifetime, Reagan was the most popular among right and left wingers. First of all, I would say that Blair is just tired. I don't believe he is retiring due to this war alone. Maybe he is just tired of fencing with dummies, who knows? That is Brittish Politics. He has been a great friend to us, and a man of great integrity from what I have seen. How do Carter (who really is the basis of this problem with his lack of action in Iran), KKKlinton (with his lack of action altogether), Gore and Kerry who are both full of crap and phonies (remember, I have known Gore all my life) not have anything to do with a discussion here. Kerry was a US Senator during this entire thing, all the way back by the way, and Gore was the VP under KKKlinton. All three are very much part of the equation regardless of what you might think.
|
|
|
Post by geezerman on May 14, 2007 22:03:52 GMT -5
HUmanitarians make bad presidents. Carter is a good person, just not a president.
And for the record, Reagen was probably the best president in the last 100 years. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but he was a diplomat that would use force if needed and people knew that and respected that. Thats a big bargining chip.
|
|
|
Post by mark on May 14, 2007 22:26:54 GMT -5
HUmanitarians make bad presidents. Carter is a good person, just not a president. And for the record, Reagen was probably the best president in the last 100 years. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but he was a diplomat that would use force if needed and people knew that and respected that. Thats a big bargining chip. I agree with that 100%. I liked Carter the man, not Carter the President. He sucked basically. There is no doubt that Reagan will be judge as one of (if not THE) strongest president of our time bar none. Roosevelt was great, but had his problems, Truman was ballsy as heck, Ike was just there, Kennedy didn't last long enough, Johnson shepherded an unpopular war and left alone Nixon could have ended it in victory. Ford was a weak link, but was faced with too many domestic issues to accomplish anything globally, and Carter was just a "get Ford/Nixon out" excuse. That is what I based my vote on, but heck, I was an 18 year old kid listening to my very wrong parents. Reagan did more for me than any other President, and Bush 41 carried it on, and I was proud to be "playing Army". KKKlinton destroyed my Army, and fortunately I retired during his term. I would have liked to have served under this president and actually volunteered to return.
|
|