Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[MR. Wood]

That reagan's camp and the Republicans negoitiated adeal with Teheran not to release the hostages before Reagan got elected, is long since known now. Must not be commented

You are right sir Reagan made it know to Iran that as soon as he is sworn in that the bombs would rain down untill they were released

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MR. Wood

You are right sir Reagan made it know to Iran that as soon as he is sworn in that the bombs would rain down untill they were released

According to the first Iranian president after the revolution, Bani-Sadr, the Republicans approached him with an offer to arrange a favourable deal for Iran (who later got delivered fighterbombers via Israel - gotta love history's irony), pointing out that they had the influence inside the CIA to change the activities of the CIA in Iran for the better or worse, and at the same time made clear their threat to assassinate him personally if Iran would not play ball to delay the release of the hostage until Reagan had won for sure. Parts of the Iranian government were sympathetic to the idea anyway, since Carter for them was a hate-figure with whom they thought to have some business to settle after Carter willed the armed rescue attempt that unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, failed.

the whole "october surprise" story is controversial, one has to admit that, yes. However, it is not true that there is consistent, uniform evidence that it all is just conspiration theory, and that everybody dismissed it as nonsens. at least as many witnesses and directly affected parties - I would say: even more - claim directly - or by the details of their part in the whole story give strong indication - that it all is a true story indeed. Also, if considering the political realities that later formed up, it makes much more sense to assume the Republican conspiracy took place indeed.

The Senate Committee examining the accusations and coming to conclusions of that nothing had been proven, means not much if remembering that political multi-party committees wage positional wars against each other in such committees, turning them into a domestic party-warground. Political observers in Germany for example say that the past 6-8 years have seen a record high of examining committees of the Bundestag, but I cannot remember that any of these many committees ever came to a clear and useful conclusion. Party interests blocked each other effectively, enforcing a result so much watered down that everybody could read everything into it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Let me help unravel all the tin hat Reagan conspiracies here.

The Iranians were not sure who would win. If they gave up the hostages before the election, and Carter won, they had no bargaining chips and had lost leverage for no reason. If they didn't give up the hostages, and Carter won, then they still had a tool to use. If Reagan won, he had been making it clear that the hostages would be home, or ELSE. So the Iranians did the smart, sensible thing. They waited to see what happened.

Reagan won, they realized he wasn't bluffing, and said "ok here ya go, we are letting them go." Its just plain ole common sense. Something many seem to lose when they talk politics.

[TDK1044]

The only thing that would now give the Nobel Peace Prize real credibility, would be to have it presented at the United Nations. That way, a meaningless and useless prize could be handed over at the home of the meaningless and useless.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Let me help unravel all the tin hat Reagan conspiracies here.

The Iranians were not sure who would win. If they gave up the hostages before the election, and Carter won, they had no bargaining chips and had lost leverage for no reason. If they didn't give up the hostages, and Carter won, then they still had a tool to use. If Reagan won, he had been making it clear that the hostages would be home, or ELSE. So the Iranians did the smart, sensible thing. They waited to see what happened.

Reagan won, they realized he wasn't bluffing, and said "ok here ya go, we are letting them go." Its just plain ole common sense. Something many seem to lose when they talk politics.

The hostages were released within hours after announcement of Reagan'S victory. You do not know much about Iranian mentality, hm? To release them so quicikly without being rewarded for themn, equals a desastrous loss of face and gives the impression of being afraid. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan or the US (as if the hostage taking hasn't shown that). Plus your "explanation" leaves out several other details, like the timed delivery of fighter bombers.

You are right. Common sense some people seem to lose when talking about politics.

Okay, enough thread-hijackin for one day. We all seem to agree that the Peace Nobel for Obama rewards desires, hopes and wishful thinking only, and regarding the man's actual acchievements is undeserved. I leave it to that.

[Onkel Neal]

That's the way I saw it too. And reading numerous books, most reflected the same attitude. The Iranians were really paranois about the US and CIA, a big part of what led to taking the students hostage. They were seriously worried about Reagan taking office.

Now, that's my kind of president

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Let me help unravel all the tin hat Reagan conspiracies here.

The Iranians were not sure who would win. If they gave up the hostages before the election, and Carter won, they had no bargaining chips and had lost leverage for no reason. If they didn't give up the hostages, and Carter won, then they still had a tool to use. If Reagan won, he had been making it clear that the hostages would be home, or ELSE. So the Iranians did the smart, sensible thing. They waited to see what happened.

Reagan won, they realized he wasn't bluffing, and said "ok here ya go, we are letting them go." Its just plain ole common sense. Something many seem to lose when they talk politics.

Yeah, that's the story. I vaguely remember the October Surprise theories from back in the day, but they just seem to be your typical evil Republican conspiracy theories.

That's the way I saw it too. And reading numerous books, most reflected the same attitude. The Iranians were really paranois about the US and CIA, a big part of what led to taking the students hostage. They were seriously worried about Reagan taking office.

Now, that's my kind of president

Indeed.

Btw, Skybird, I wasn't trying to be glib about not finding links to it during a quick search. I was genuinely looking for references to what you were talking about as to educate myself further on the subject.

Oh, and isn't it interesting the way some threads turn here on Subsim?

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - am not trying to nitpick, but I do want to correct something you said. The hostages were NOT released hours after Reagan won the election. Presidential elections are held November 5th in the US. The hostages were released 6 minutes after Reagan was SWORN IN - which always occurs on January 20th. This is roughly 75 days after Reagan won the election.

The timing actually SUPPORTS the idea that there was no negotiations between Iran and any US group over the election. Between the election and being sworn in, Reagan still had no ability to order an action. The moment his oath was done, he could act.

In fact, sources indicate that there was a plan approved of by Reagan to immediately deal with the Iranians and the hostages, that was waiting for the go word. It is also indicated that the "transition team" as it is called, let the Iranians know that hell would break lose if the problem wasn't immediately dealt with.

The Iranians - aka Komeine, feared that US action wouldn't stop with a simple hostage recovery, but rather a restoral of the Shah. Lose something - or lose everything was the choice they faced.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Skybird - am not trying to nitpick, but I do want to correct something you said. The hostages were NOT released hours after Reagan won the election. Presidential elections are held November 5th in the US. The hostages were released 6 minutes after Reagan was SWORN IN - which always occurs on January 20th. This is roughly 75 days after Reagan won the election.

The timing actually SUPPORTS the idea that there was no negotiations between Iran and any US group over the election. Between the election and being sworn in, Reagan still had no ability to order an action. The moment his oath was done, he could act.

In fact, sources indicate that there was a plan approved of by Reagan to immediately deal with the Iranians and the hostages, that was waiting for the go word. It is also indicated that the "transition team" as it is called, let the Iranians know that hell would break lose if the problem wasn't immediately dealt with.

The Iranians - aka Komeine, feared that US action wouldn't stop with a simple hostage recovery, but rather a restoral of the Shah. Lose something - or lose everything was the choice they faced.

With the timing you are right. However, it was not without american favours in return, the freezed Iranian financial assets of Iran were released one day later.

Regarding Khomenei, I remember it differently, and one of the links above supports what I said on Bani-Sadr and Khomenei.

The story is not to be explained one way or the other, with all certainity, one can only take the many hints and observations and statements from different sources and different people, assess the one against the other, and then see which pan of the scale goes up and which goes down. I think the pan with the "conspiration theory" weighs heavier, and quite many being in better knowledge of the events also say so: more speaks for the theory than speaks against it.

For that practical reason I base on it being true.

[CaptainHaplo]

I agree on we each have our own opinion after weighing facts.

My view on the asset freeze removal is te whole "reward good behavior, punish bad behavior". It also could be seen as a "reset" like our current president is so fond of talking about.

I am looking into the fighter/bomber thing. Always good to look at it from all sides.