About Us

iBoaterer[_3_]

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:09:39 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

It is ironic that the news is touting this as the first time a US
president has talked to Iran since 1979. Remember how that worked out.

What would have been the outcome if the talks had not occurred?

The Shah may have ended up swinging from a light pole in Tehran

"may".... There are thousands of different scenarios that "may" have
happened, and a lot of them worse than what did.

The conversation was with Carter, right before he left.

I know that, what's your point?

F.O.A.D.

On 9/29/13 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:22:21 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:09:39 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

It is ironic that the news is touting this as the first time a US
president has talked to Iran since 1979. Remember how that worked out.

What would have been the outcome if the talks had not occurred?

The Shah may have ended up swinging from a light pole in Tehran

"may".... There are thousands of different scenarios that "may" have
happened, and a lot of them worse than what did.

I can't think of what would have been worse than what happened. I
suppose they could have killed all of the hostages. The Iranians tip
toed down the line, ****ing Carter every way they could for a year and
a half. Minutes after Reagan was sworn in they turned the hostages
loose and shut the hell up.

The conversation was with Carter, right before he left.

I know that, what's your point?

It has very little to do with talking to the Ayatollah or one of his
representatives. I am not sure why they even make the connection.

Indeed, Reagan promised them bribes in the form of arms sales, mainly
missiles, and he delivered. It was against the law, but, hey, it was
Reagan. There were lots of indictments, but Reagan walked.

iBoaterer[_3_]

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:22:21 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:09:39 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

It is ironic that the news is touting this as the first time a US
president has talked to Iran since 1979. Remember how that worked out.

What would have been the outcome if the talks had not occurred?

The Shah may have ended up swinging from a light pole in Tehran

"may".... There are thousands of different scenarios that "may" have
happened, and a lot of them worse than what did.

I can't think of what would have been worse than what happened. I
suppose they could have killed all of the hostages. The Iranians tip
toed down the line, ****ing Carter every way they could for a year and
a half. Minutes after Reagan was sworn in they turned the hostages
loose and shut the hell up.

The conversation was with Carter, right before he left.

I know that, what's your point?

It has very little to do with talking to the Ayatollah or one of his
representatives. I am not sure why they even make the connection.

Really??

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iran	Bob Crantz	ASA	0	March 14th 06 02:24 PM
D-Day for Iran	Skipper	General	5	January 15th 06 02:44 PM
OT--Iran says "Bring it on"	Don White	General	14	February 11th 05 05:12 PM
OT--Hee-haw. Let's get Iran now!	NOYB	General	8	September 17th 03 12:48 PM

Menu

About Us