Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Obama Administration: Re-Elected! 332-206 (Probably)

12526283031102

Posts

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    Anyhow, I usually ignore most campaign ads, but I have been noticing a trend. Romneys and his supporters are running ads that attack Obaman. They do not run ads that show Romneys accomplishments. Obamas camp seems to be doing the opposite, mostly running ads highlighting his successes (with some attacks thrown in).

    I find that interesting, but what exactly has Romney accomplished anyhow that he can run on?

    He signed Massachusetts' health care reform bill. Unfortunately, he can't really run on that because he's criticizing Obama for doing the same thing on a national level.

  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    Anyhow, I usually ignore most campaign ads, but I have been noticing a trend. Romneys and his supporters are running ads that attack Obaman. They do not run ads that show Romneys accomplishments. Obamas camp seems to be doing the opposite, mostly running ads highlighting his successes (with some attacks thrown in).

    I find that interesting, but what exactly has Romney accomplished anyhow that he can run on?

    He signed Massachusetts' health care reform bill. Unfortunately, he can't really run on that because he's criticizing Obama for doing the same thing on a national level.

    Yeah, he can't even go with the nuanced position of "Well, it was right for Massachusetts, but not the rest of the country." "Why?" "...because...uh..."

    ...Y'know, I've heard him say that "not the rest of the country" thing a lot of times, but I haven't noticed: has anyone ever asked him why, and has he ever given a straight answer?

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    Anyhow, I usually ignore most campaign ads, but I have been noticing a trend. Romneys and his supporters are running ads that attack Obaman. They do not run ads that show Romneys accomplishments. Obamas camp seems to be doing the opposite, mostly running ads highlighting his successes (with some attacks thrown in).

    I find that interesting, but what exactly has Romney accomplished anyhow that he can run on?

    He signed Massachusetts' health care reform bill. Unfortunately, he can't really run on that because he's criticizing Obama for doing the same thing on a national level.

    Yeah, he can't even go with the nuanced position of "Well, it was right for Massachusetts, but not the rest of the country." "Why?" "...because...uh..."

    ...Y'know, I've heard him say that "not the rest of the country" thing a lot of times, but I haven't noticed: has anyone ever asked him why, and has he ever given a straight answer?

    Because Real Americans worship at the altar of States' Rights, where The States can oppress the people as much as they like but if Washington steps in to help them it's tyranny.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    He lied under oath.

    About something which frankly was none of our business

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    He lied under oath.

    Wasnt his lie "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? Do blowies really count? Does getting a blowie, but not getting vaginal (or anal) penetration mean youre no longer a virgin?

    Thats not to say I think his answer was honest, I just dont think it was an outright lie.

    Also, from what I remember, most people only seemed to care about the blow job thing but I was also 12 in 1999 so...

    camo_sig2.png
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    Anyhow, I usually ignore most campaign ads, but I have been noticing a trend. Romneys and his supporters are running ads that attack Obaman. They do not run ads that show Romneys accomplishments. Obamas camp seems to be doing the opposite, mostly running ads highlighting his successes (with some attacks thrown in).

    I find that interesting, but what exactly has Romney accomplished anyhow that he can run on?

    He signed Massachusetts' health care reform bill. Unfortunately, he can't really run on that because he's criticizing Obama for doing the same thing on a national level.

    Yeah, he can't even go with the nuanced position of "Well, it was right for Massachusetts, but not the rest of the country." "Why?" "...because...uh..."

    ...Y'know, I've heard him say that "not the rest of the country" thing a lot of times, but I haven't noticed: has anyone ever asked him why, and has he ever given a straight answer?

    The one time I heard him try it was states rights something something...so, no, he's never given a good reason to my knowledge.

    As for the Clinton thing, I was pretty young at the time but I was old enough that I remember thinking "why doesn't he just tell them yes, he did her, and be done with it?" and beyond that, "Who cares? Why does this even matter?"

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating

    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.

    camo_sig2.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    Thanatos on
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then give those weapons to narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    Hey, if it weren't for that, Ollie North wouldn't have gotten his own show on Fox News so... you know... socialism.

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    The best part is, when it comes to defending Reagan from these sorts of accusations, the most common line of argument always seems to be some variation on "Now really, look at this guy, look at the way he managed his staff...do you really think he knew what was going on?"

    Edd on
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating

    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.

    Thanatos has it covered, but yes, and now a jaunty tune about it

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    Oh okay, just "normal" Iran-Contra stuff. I thought there was an added pre-election thing where Reagan paid Iran to not release the hostages until after he was elected sort of thing (thats what the google search implied anyway).

    camo_sig2.png
  • Handsome CostanzaHandsome Costanza We sell products... ...and get in ROBOTS!Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Woops wrong thread

    Handsome Costanza on
    We sell fights and get into products.
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    Anyhow, I usually ignore most campaign ads, but I have been noticing a trend. Romneys and his supporters are running ads that attack Obaman. They do not run ads that show Romneys accomplishments. Obamas camp seems to be doing the opposite, mostly running ads highlighting his successes (with some attacks thrown in).

    I find that interesting, but what exactly has Romney accomplished anyhow that he can run on?

    He signed Massachusetts' health care reform bill. Unfortunately, he can't really run on that because he's criticizing Obama for doing the same thing on a national level.

    Yeah, I'm aware of the Romneycare and venture parasite article.

    So he seriously has accomplished nothing posative that he's not ashamed of?

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    Oh okay, just "normal" Iran-Contra stuff. I thought there was an added pre-election thing where Reagan paid Iran to not release the hostages until after he was elected sort of thing (thats what the google search implied anyway).

    Um...wow. I think Reagan is in hell right now, as Huey Freeman suggested.

    steam_sig.png
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    Oh okay, just "normal" Iran-Contra stuff. I thought there was an added pre-election thing where Reagan paid Iran to not release the hostages until after he was elected sort of thing (thats what the google search implied anyway).

    Um...wow. I think Reagan is in hell right now, as Huey Freeman suggested.

    Well his name does bear the mark of the beast.

    camo_sig2.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    You're conflating the October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    Oh okay, just "normal" Iran-Contra stuff. I thought there was an added pre-election thing where Reagan paid Iran to not release the hostages until after he was elected sort of thing (thats what the google search implied anyway).

    There's some non-trivial to believe this but nothing that strong. And considering Iran-Contra was treason anyway you don't really need it.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    Oh okay, just "normal" Iran-Contra stuff. I thought there was an added pre-election thing where Reagan paid Iran to not release the hostages until after he was elected sort of thing (thats what the google search implied anyway).

    There's some non-trivial to believe this but nothing that strong. And considering Iran-Contra was treason anyway you don't really need it.

    How was it treason? Certainly illegal, but Im not sure its treasonous. But again, Im not fully informed so.

    camo_sig2.png
  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    Where we officially enemies with Iran or something? Selling weapons to your countries enemies is usually kinda treasonous.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Krieghund wrote: »
    Where we officially enemies with Iran or something? Selling weapons to your countries enemies is usually kinda treasonous.

    Certainly, but we werent. If Reagan actively tried to prevent the hostages from being released that would be treason, but selling weapons to a country youre not at war with, even if relations are strained, isnt treason.

    camo_sig2.png
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Tenek wrote: »
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    Anyhow, I usually ignore most campaign ads, but I have been noticing a trend. Romneys and his supporters are running ads that attack Obaman. They do not run ads that show Romneys accomplishments. Obamas camp seems to be doing the opposite, mostly running ads highlighting his successes (with some attacks thrown in).

    I find that interesting, but what exactly has Romney accomplished anyhow that he can run on?

    He signed Massachusetts' health care reform bill. Unfortunately, he can't really run on that because he's criticizing Obama for doing the same thing on a national level.

    Yeah, I'm aware of the Romneycare and venture parasite article.

    So he seriously has accomplished nothing posative that he's not ashamed of?

    He's the least offensive of a group of also-rans running to become the nominee of frothing GOP. His actual political record is barely serving a term as governor of Massachusetts, where he ran a super-vanilla campaign to get elected. Before this he tried to run as an independent senator against Ted Kennedy (and obviously failed). Outside of this he has run a firm that specialized in gutting major manufacturing companies (and pocketing peoples' retirement and benefits funds), and partially helping some mediocre minimum-wage based firms (Staples etc.). I mean, i guess he also worked as a mormon missionary abroad trying to convert people to start wearing magic underwear.

    There was maybe a kernel of a solid campaign he could have potentially run on (maybe). Honestly though his two-facedness and backtracking is hardly surprising (it even makes sense in a way), if you really look into who he is.

    CptKemzik on
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    CptKemzik wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    Anyhow, I usually ignore most campaign ads, but I have been noticing a trend. Romneys and his supporters are running ads that attack Obaman. They do not run ads that show Romneys accomplishments. Obamas camp seems to be doing the opposite, mostly running ads highlighting his successes (with some attacks thrown in).

    I find that interesting, but what exactly has Romney accomplished anyhow that he can run on?

    He signed Massachusetts' health care reform bill. Unfortunately, he can't really run on that because he's criticizing Obama for doing the same thing on a national level.

    Yeah, I'm aware of the Romneycare and venture parasite article.

    So he seriously has accomplished nothing posative that he's not ashamed of?

    He's the least offensive of a group of also-rans running to become the nominee of frothing GOP. His actual political record is barely serving a term as governor of Massachusetts, where he ran a super-vanilla campaign to get elected. Before this he tried to run as an independent senator against Ted Kennedy (and obviously failed). Outside of this he has run a firm that specialized in gutting major manufacturing companies (and pocketing peoples' retirement and benefits funds), and partially helping some mediocre minimum-wage based firms (Staples etc.). I mean, i guess he also worked as a mormon missionary abroad trying to convert people to start wearing magic underwear.

    There was maybe a kernel of a solid campaign he could have potentially run on (maybe). Honestly though his two-facedness and backtracking is hardly surprising (it even makes sense in a way), if you really look into who he is.

    I just realized I spelled 'positive' wrong. Damn iPhone breaks some things and doesn't fix others. /shrug

    Thank you for that though. I've been doing my best to keep up with this election. I try to stay positive despite my more cynical side just saying "whatever", but some times this shit is depressing.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Krieghund wrote: »
    Where we officially enemies with Iran or something? Selling weapons to your countries enemies is usually kinda treasonous.

    Certainly, but we werent. If Reagan actively tried to prevent the hostages from being released that would be treason, but selling weapons to a country youre not at war with, even if relations are strained, isnt treason.

    I think "they have taken hostages" is a little more severe than "strained".

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    That's completely false and sladerous!
    Spoiler:

    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.

    You're conflating the October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

    Would it be a stretch to say that IC was Reagan's end of the deal?

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Zython wrote: »
    You're conflating the October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

    Would it be a stretch to say that IC was Reagan's end of the deal?

    Actually, yes. They're two very separate events.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Zython wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    It's kind of ridiculous given what Republican Jesus did

    Treason is just as bad as lying about cheating
    He did what now? A quick google says he paid Iran to not release the hostages. Is...is that true? Because if so thats super fucked.
    Iran was under an arms embargo. Reagan got them to hold onto the hostages until he went into office, at which point he sold them a bunch of weapons in exchange for letting them go (in violation of an arms embargo). The plan was to then use that off-books money to fund narcoterrorists in Columbia.

    It was just the classiest of classy plans.

    EDIT: Wrong phrasing.
    That's completely false and sladerous!
    Spoiler:
    You're right, it was Nicaragua.

    Sorry, I was, like, seven at the time.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Bill Clinton was a thing-doing badass after his first term, too, but in ways less observable, since that was before the advent of social media and near-ubiquitous internet access.

    Also in that he totally fucked over lots of people because Dick Morris said he should.

    Clinton was a shit President outside of his SCOTUS nominees and first budget.

    Clinton was a distinctly mediocre President that didn't get much of an opportunity to do anything. Newt was pretty much running the country for four of Clinton's eight years.

    sig.png
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    I was in high school when all that Lewenski shit went down. I remember asking what the huge fucking deal was and why I should care who the President is sticking his dick into. It's not like he was the first.

    The same reason people care who the Secret Service is paying for BJ's; it opens the leader of the United States up to situations you'd rather they not be involved in.

    I had a teacher who loved Clinton because he was slick as hell; he admired Clintons ability to compartmentalize many of the fires his office was putting out during his presidency. We got weekly (sometimes daily) updates on his handling of the Presidency.

    This will always be one of my favorite Slick Willy moments:

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Zython wrote: »
    You're conflating the October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

    Would it be a stretch to say that IC was Reagan's end of the deal?

    Actually, yes. They're two very separate events.

    So why DID the Iranians play ball? What did they have to gain? Serious question.

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Krieghund wrote: »
    Where we officially enemies with Iran or something? Selling weapons to your countries enemies is usually kinda treasonous.

    Certainly, but we werent. If Reagan actively tried to prevent the hostages from being released that would be treason, but selling weapons to a country youre not at war with, even if relations are strained, isnt treason.

    I think "they have taken hostages" is a little more severe than "strained".

    True, but still not "war were declared" bad.

    And didnt Iran-Contra start like 5 years after the hostages?

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Zython wrote: »
    Zython wrote: »
    You're conflating the October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

    Would it be a stretch to say that IC was Reagan's end of the deal?

    Actually, yes. They're two very separate events.

    So why DID the Iranians play ball? What did they have to gain? Serious question.

    They got to humiliate Carter, which played well domestically in Iran.

    Remember Carter had been played up inside Iran as the leader of the great Satan. By denying him the chance to be the one that got the hostages released, they got one last jab at him in a manner that gave them maximum propaganda effect. The Iranian leaders got to say "we showed that Demon Carter".

    Remember that taking the hostages was a technical act of war, the longer Iran held on to them, the more likely America would attack in force. The hostages where a casus beli for war, the Iranians didn't really want to hold on to them if they couldn't get concessions from America. Carter had refused to yield, Reagan had run on a even more hard-line response. The deal got the Iranians a chance to end it on a high note for Iran.

    Reagan got a prime campaign issue.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Zython wrote: »
    Zython wrote: »
    You're conflating the October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

    Would it be a stretch to say that IC was Reagan's end of the deal?

    Actually, yes. They're two very separate events.

    So why DID the Iranians play ball? What did they have to gain? Serious question.

    They got to humiliate Carter, which played well domestically in Iran.

    Remember Carter had been played up inside Iran as the leader of the great Satan. By denying him the chance to be the one that got the hostages released, they got one last jab at him in a manner that gave them maximum propaganda effect. The Iranian leaders got to say "we showed that Demon Carter".

    Remember that taking the hostages was a technical act of war, the longer Iran held on to them, the more likely America would attack in force. The hostages where a casus beli for war, the Iranians didn't really want to hold on to them if they couldn't get concessions from America. Carter had refused to yield, Reagan had run on a even more hard-line response. The deal got the Iranians a chance to end it on a high note for Iran.

    Reagan got a prime campaign issue.

    Except that Carter had the Iranians by the financial short and curlies. The US had frozen all US-housed Iranian financial assets, which were considerable.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Zython wrote: »
    Zython wrote: »
    You're conflating the October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

    Would it be a stretch to say that IC was Reagan's end of the deal?

    Actually, yes. They're two very separate events.

    So why DID the Iranians play ball? What did they have to gain? Serious question.

    They got to humiliate Carter, which played well domestically in Iran.

    Remember Carter had been played up inside Iran as the leader of the great Satan. By denying him the chance to be the one that got the hostages released, they got one last jab at him in a manner that gave them maximum propaganda effect. The Iranian leaders got to say "we showed that Demon Carter".

    Remember that taking the hostages was a technical act of war, the longer Iran held on to them, the more likely America would attack in force. The hostages where a casus beli for war, the Iranians didn't really want to hold on to them if they couldn't get concessions from America. Carter had refused to yield, Reagan had run on a even more hard-line response. The deal got the Iranians a chance to end it on a high note for Iran.

    Reagan got a prime campaign issue.

    Except that Carter had the Iranians by the financial short and curlies. The US had frozen all US-housed Iranian financial assets, which were considerable.

    This is the point where I point out that financial sanctions are very bad at getting what we want and also that this isn't the Iran-Contra Thread, but instead my hastily constructed Obama thread.

    You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Afghan war sort of ending (soonish), speech tonight at 7:30 eastern.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Afghan war sort of ending (soonish), speech tonight at 7:30 eastern.

    I won't be able to watch it, but I'm curious.

    I deploy again soon.

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    will the speech be streamed on the news sites do you think?

    It's almost 730 and I'll actually be able to watch it.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I've heard this speech before. Insert Iraq for Afghanistan and insurgency for Taliban.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    yeah.

    but the Right is going to be going insane. He said the bad R word "Respect"

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
This discussion has been closed.