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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (340157)	6/12/2007 12:00:24 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577917

And those embassies were held for over a YEAR? Seized from a world superpower? How would I know......look them up....remember my post only gave a sampling. Carter was a despicable wimp at the time. A terrible President, only elevated by the current occupant. Right. He should have invaded Iran like Bush invaded Iraq. Maybe we did get the right man for president afterall.

To: bentway who wrote (340157)	6/12/2007 12:21:38 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577917

J. Chris....The easiest and most "popular" thing Carter could have done at that time was threaten Iran with War or a blockade. The MORE aggressive he had been the more popular he would have become. It could have assured his reelection. ALL the hostages would have been killed and we would have probably gotten into a War that got at least 10,000 of our guys killed. The "Jihadist Movement" would probably have started 10 years earlier than it did. The way Carter played it left Iran isolated and weakened for almost 30 years until this latest President turned things around with his "toughness" and got Fundamentalism back to the fore there. I too, would have liked to see Carter charge ahead at that time and show the Iranians that they couldn't screw around with the U.S., but with age I'm not so sure that what he did didn't require more courage than the alternative.