Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (8850)	9/2/2006 1:31:04 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217734

>>Reagan let Iran know that his offer of armaments to Iran was valid only if the hostages from the American Embassy in Iran were released after Reagan was sworn in as President.<< You are conflating two separate hostage incidents. The "arms for hostages" affair happened several years after the Iran Embassy hostages were released.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (8850)	9/2/2006 5:45:17 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 217734

Elroy, thanks for the url, but I read right through it and it had nothing to do with the Tehran hostages and what transpired before the hostages were released on Raygun's inauguration. There was obviously quite a bit going on, though I've never seen actual information other than the public stuff that Carter was negotiating as best he could, unsuccessfully. I have never seen the reasons why the USA hostages were released from Tehran. I merely guessed. Just as King George II attacked Saddam, and it was obvious that he was gung ho to have a go [WMDs, inspectors and so on or not], Ronald Raygun would have given Iran what-oh if they hadn't released the hostages forthwith [I guess]. I doubt that they wanted to take on an obviously unreasonable person. Similarly, I think you'll find that when push comes to shove, the current president will be too unreasonable for them to resist. Gadaffi gave it up as not worth the risk. They can play diplomatic games with France, Germany and Britain and they'll happily go along with it for a long time, if not permanently. Bush II is not so given to fiddly long-run negotiating. Despite the current woes in Iraq, I do not think he's will to see Iran get nukes or get very far in that direction. Garden variety megalomaniac North Korea is one thing, Iranian Islamic Jihad acquiring nukes having threatened already to obliterate Israel on martyrdom principles, is quite another. I am curious and always have been about what actually did cause the release of the hostages. My own conjectures are fun, and often correct [such as I didn't believe there were WMDs in Iraq], and that the USA should have backed Gorby and not Osama, but I do like to see actual facts at some stage. Just why DID Iran release the hostages on Raygun's inauguration? While other theories are also interesting, I prefer to have just the facts if possible. Voters didn't know that Iran would release them if Raygun was voted in, so I don't think it was an electoral advantage to Raygun first time around, though perhaps good in the second election [which he said wouldn't happen as he would be a one term president by choice]. Mqurice