Author Topic: Terrorist enjoy the Phillipines cowardice (Read 1831 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #45 on:** July 21, 2004, 09:41:45 PM »

need to "chip" everyone who enters Iraq, both military and non

pay them triple with the understanding that if they are kidnapped, whatever structure the gps gives as their location will be a 30ft deep crater within the hour

Halo · « **Reply #46 on:** July 21, 2004, 10:03:41 PM »

Good idea, Eagler, but soon as chip plan is discovered, terrorists will just carve chip chunks out of their captives.

Fishu · « **Reply #47 on:** July 21, 2004, 10:44:09 PM »

USA shouldn't been in the first place REQUIRING these unwilling countries to join their wars, which for these unwilling countries had a little support besides their administration.

Was it so silly decision from the french to stay away from the war after all?

(Prior to the war Bush during a speech literally called the french decision "silly"!)

Torque · « **Reply #48 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:29:52 PM »

Didn't Iran take a bunch of American hostages, what happen there?

Dago · « **Reply #49 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:32:28 PM »

Quote

USA shouldn't been in the first place REQUIRING these unwilling countries to join their wars,

I must admit I am not sure how the USA "required" any country to join the war.

I would be interested to hear how that happened. I would assume by your statement that we must have threatened these poor countries with something incredibly terrible to force them to go to war. What did we do, threaten them with nuclear annihilation? What else would be so terrible as to force an unwilling nation to put it's soldiers in mortal danger against the nations will?

Anxious to hear,

dago

Fishu · « **Reply #50 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:34:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Torque
Didn't Iran take a bunch of American hostages, what happen there?

Are you talking about the british soldiers who were captured, with their boats and equiptment confiscated, but few days later released?

or you talking of the very old hostage case?

Nash · « **Reply #51 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:35:20 PM »

Those hostages made Carter look just awful.

Bush Sr., the VP candidate, flew to Paris to meet with Iranian officials. A deal was struck whereby the hostages wouldn't be released under Carter.

The same exact hour that Reagan was getting sworn in, the hostages were released.

Dago · « **Reply #52 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:36:42 PM »

Quick review for Torque.

1) Iran took hostages
2) A rescue attempt failed due to the collision between a C130 and Helicopter in the desert.
3) A Republican President who it was understood wouldn't put up with any crap was elected, they released the hostages the day of the Inauguration.
4) We should have followed up the release with an attack, but that wouldnt have been PC. Now I don't think we will worry about PC anymore when our citizens are harmed.

dago

NUKE · « **Reply #53 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:40:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Those hostages made Carter look just awful.

Bush Sr., the VP candidate, flew to Paris to meet with Iranian officials. A deal was struck whereby the hostages wouldn't be released under Carter.

The same exact hour that Reagan was getting sworn in, the hostages were released.

I saw an interview with Alexander Haig (Reagan's Sec. of State) in which he said flat out that he (Haig) delivered the message to Iran that if the hostages were not released by the time Reagan took office, there was going to be a new game in town.

He made very clear to the Iranians that the game was over when Reagan took over.

Nash · « **Reply #54 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:41:50 PM »

Wotev. Negotiated with terrorists. Struck a deal. Both got what they wanted, and I'm sure terrorists took a lesson from it. Relationship further refined and grew into other such transactions such as hostages for arms.

NUKE · « **Reply #55 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:43:44 PM »

Nash what do you mean negotiated with them?

Nash · « **Reply #56 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:49:25 PM »

I mean the face to face negotiation of terms with Iran regarding American hostages, quite possibly extending their incarceration, in order to gain advantage in a Presidential race, all behind a sitting President's back.

That kind.

Torque · « **Reply #57 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:49:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Wotev. Negotiated with terrorists. Struck a deal. Both got what they wanted, and I'm sure terrorists took a lesson from it. Relationship further refined and grew into other such transactions such as hostages for arms.

Get outta here!:eek:

NUKE · « **Reply #58 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:52:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Torque
Get outta here!:eek:

Better yet, why not tell us what negotiations took place? What deal was struck in order to secure the release of the Americans held by Iran?

Nash · « **Reply #59 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:58:22 PM »

Been done.... lots.... olden.

Go dig it up, find something wrong with what I'm saying then come back and tell me why.

It'll be a total retread, but I'm feeling charitable.