Iranians at it again

[Catfish]

^ hmm, i do not agree with this Wikipedia article, also read the "talk" section of this.. Saddam Hussein never did anything without informing the USA first. It is just that the last time the US response to his announcement could be read like Pythia's oracle.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ hmm, i do not agree with this Wikipedia article, also read the "talk" section of this.. Saddam Hussein never did anything without informing the USA first. It is just that the last time the US response to his announcement could be read like Pythia's oracle.

Believe what you want, you will anyways, but remember this is the Carter White House you're talking about here. He could barely order our own people into harms way at Desert One to rescue our hostages let alone order another country to start a huge war with it's neighbor.

[eddie]

I don't want us to get into a war with Iran, but in a case like this, a small mistake on either sides part could lead to much bigger problems.

Originally Posted by August

Believe what you want, you will anyways, but remember this is the Carter White House you're talking about here. He could barely order our own people into harms way at Desert One to rescue our hostages let alone order another country to start a huge war with it's neighbor.

An interesting viewpoint.
Now forgive me if my memory is fuzzy but wasn't the order to cancel the messed up operation made by your president at the request of his military commanders?
So are you saying that your president was so hawkish that he had difficulty cancelling the operation after the military had said it was somewhat screwed at Desert One?

[August]

Originally Posted by orla trees

An interesting viewpoint.
Now forgive me if my memory is fuzzy but wasn't the order to cancel the messed up operation made by your president at the request of his military commanders?
So are you saying that your president was so hawkish that he had difficulty cancelling the operation after the military had said it was somewhat screwed at Desert One?

That's quite a strawman you've built new guy but sorry no, I am not saying that at all. Hawkishness is certainly not the only reason for someone needing to be prompted into action and if you are familiar with "my" president then you'd know what those reasons might be. Hint, they're the same reasons that the operation fell apart in the first place.

Edit: BTW if you or anyone else is interested in this subject I found a rather well written article from July of 1980 that gives a good account of the incident. http://spectator.org/articles/34807/why-rescue-failed

Originally Posted by August

That's quite a strawman you've built new guy but sorry no, I am not saying that at all. Hawkishness is certainly not the only reason for someone needing to be prompted into action and if you are familiar with "my" president then you'd know what those reasons might be. Hint, they're the same reasons that the operation fell apart in the first place.

Edit: BTW if you or anyone else is interested in this subject I found a rather well written article from July of 1980 that gives a good account of the incident. http://spectator.org/articles/34807/why-rescue-failed

I see. So your president was extremely reluctant to order a mission which your military was most probably incapable of achieving.
So should he be praised for his reluctance in ordering a near imposible mission, or praised for attempting the long shot, or praised for scrubbing the mission when it fell apart?

[August]

Originally Posted by orla trees

I see. So your president was extremely reluctant to order a mission which your military was most probably incapable of achieving.
So should he be praised for his reluctance in ordering a near imposible mission, or praised for attempting the long shot, or praised for scrubbing the mission when it fell apart?

Obviously you didn't read the article that I linked so...

Originally Posted by August

Obviously you didn't read the article that I linked so...

Do you know the meaning of the word "obviously"?
I am seriously struggling to see your point.
It strikes me that you will just condemn your president regardless of the actions he took or the outcome.
Is it perhaps a party political issue you have? As in he is simply of the wrong party for you.
Your article states that the problems with the military capabilities available date from the era of the Vietnam fiasco. That puts the problem back to a decade before that President took office,
So how is he to blame for the long running problem stemming from a failed adventure launched on false information?

But I do like the soviet comparrison in your article. Not really relevant though is it, as firstly there were already soviet troops on the ground, they also had local allies on the ground in large numbers, and most importantly there was no evacuation or rescue planned with the airborne assault element of the invasion.
So in essence it is an entirely irrelevant attempt at a comparrison.
But as a bonus it was written before the Soviet adventure ended in the forgone conclusion of a humiliating military and poltical defeat.

So in conclusion it remains as, does your initial post have any validity at all?
or is just ya boo party political posturing?