Please accept my sincere apology for not responding to your post in a timely manner.
With that said:
I have to agree with you have said here, for the most part. As I recall Chernobyl did it’s share of fallout. So much for world outrage over this accident. Apples and oranges I suppose.
Like I stated in my other posts on this subject, perhaps if we had attacked Iran at that time and settled it, some of the catastrophic events that have plagued us, might have not taken place. A gross misunderstanding of the middle east and it’s culture has been an embarrasing ignorant stance on the part of most Americans. This has to change and is changing rapidly. I have several books that I am reading on the history of the cultures and of the region. It has always been U.S. policy it seems, to go the negotiation route right up to the very end, before we strike. Good guys do that you know. We were still negotiating with the Japanese during the attack on Pearl Harbor. The boys on the Arizona would have appreciated a pre-emptive strike on Tokyo on Dec. 6, 1941. I feel this approach in the world we have today, could very well spell our demise. It does no good to be a good guy, after you are dead.
It seems there are no quick and easy answers that will satisfy everyone.
I did come close to losing my mind while watching the WTC towers fall on 9/11. Me, along with millions of other Americans, were ready to turn the whole middle east into glass. We kept our heads. As far as the nuclear threat was concerned, I have all the confidence in the world, that Tehran, in 1980, could not have released the hostages fast enough, had the threat of complete destruction been real. Instead, they figured on Jimmy Carter, and they were right. We lose some airmen and a couple of aircraft, and we high tail it for home. Hell of an impression made by a world super power!! The threat would have been all that was needed. Maybe a Japanese envoy should have been sent to Tehran to impress on them that the Americans can often get very serious about attacks on their country. Believe this, the taking of hostages in 1941 would have been considered an act of war.
The CIA arming terrorists? Of course!! War does produce strange bed fellows. We all make mistakes and sometimes big ones. The cold war produced many relationships that we are sorry for today. So what? Blaming never solved anything. Why don’t you go all to the way back to the beginning of time to satisfy your apparent distaste for the causes for everything?
Nuking Iran would have been egregious overkill, and not necessary. There is a whole spectrum of responses between 'nuke ‘em all’ and ‘do nothing’.
Like I said, a naval blockade would have been a good alternative. Completely cut Iran off from the sea. Theaten countries that ship goods to Iran with economic embargoes. If that doesn’t work, establish no-fly and no-drive zones along the border, and enforce them. Choke that country until it coughs up the hostages.
These are acts of war, but they don’t involve the deaths of innocents. What they would have done is let Iran and the rest of the world know that U.S. citizens were not to be messed with.
Remember what happened after Abbas hijacked the Achille Lauro? The hijackers demanded a jet to take them to safety. The minute that jet was in international airspace, it was intercepted by F-14’s and forced to land at a NATO base, where the terrorists were taken into custody. That was how Reagan responded to them, and it was exactly right.
Unfortunately, the Spanish government released the terrorists.
Come on. Of course everybody wanted the hostages home alive (and a stronger response would not have guaranteed their deaths). Nobody wanted them dead, however to say the release of the hostages were the absolutely only thing at stake is being overly simplistic. When you negotiate with and pay blackmailers you may get the current batch of hostages released but only at the expense of paving the road for further blackmails down the road.
Everything comes at a price. What do you think the price of such high brow idealism is?
But that’s exactly what Reagan did. He negotiated with the terrorists and agreed to unfreeze Iranian assets in return for the reliease of the hostages.
This “kill 'em all” mentality is rather persistent, isn’t it?
TLC1:
I’m not seeing how the use of such disproportionate force would have meant a reduction in the incidents of terrorism elsewhere. How would nuking Iran have stopped Palestinian terrorists from engaging in terrorism? The US certainly couldn’t use nuclear weapons in the vicinity of Israel and Jordan without a tremendous negative repercussion. So if not, then would you agree that there are subtle nuances in every International situation which merit a much more reasoned response? If so, then perhaps there are similar such reasons why the U.S. could not respond with such overwhelming force in Iran.
I don’t think overwhelming force is ever going to teach anyone any “lessons.” It will only embitter those who were previously magnanimous. You kill my sister or brother who had nothing to do with anything isn’t going to make me say “I better think twice about hurting those strong Americans.” It’s going to make me want some Yankee’s scalp. How much of a “lesson” did 9/11 teach Americans? Did it make them back away from the Middle East or to get angry as hell and attack harder than ever before?
I think you agree with the gist of what I’m saying here based on your response to Wake up Call’s post to you…
I think that goes both ways. It just depends on who’s on the receiving end of the force.
And keep in mind that the idea of a military confrontation with Iran was a quite unpleasant thought due to Iran’s military strength at the time (think Israel, but no nukes). The U.S. didn’t have anywhere near the presence it does today back then. The whole concept of a military response would have been a far too costly one.
Secondly, I do not agree with the assertion that the hostage situation was in any way terrorism. The Iranians weren’t running through the streets kidnapping Americans and lobbing their heads off. They weren’t attacking Americans throughout the country. There was no concerted effort to “terrorize” Americans. Nor was so much as a single hair on the heads of the hostages hurt. In fact, a few of the hostages were released early on. While I agree that taking hostages is not an acceptable way for a government to act , the problem is the government in Iran at the time was hardly a government at all. The people who attacked the embassy weren’t under orders from the government. To kill millions of other people who were in no way responsible for the act is a far bigger crime than taking hostages.
You mentioned:
Well, no one is suggesting going back to the dawn of time, but to ignore the direct causes of something is to ignore the obvious. Every action has a reaction. In politics, it’s called blowback. It is wiser to look at the whole equation rather than just the reaction if you truly want to stop it from happening again. If the U.S. arms and trains wackos, then they better clean up their mess afterwards or else that toxic sludge will seep into the water supply in the form of bin Laden and show up at your doorstep in the form of 9/11.
The hostage taking was blowback from the U.S.'s actions in '53 and by letting the Shah back into the U.S. and refusing to turn him over.
Which brings me to another point. Why do all these folks who are so pro to the idea of toppling a dictator like Saddam Hussein so silent when it comes to the Shah? He was certainly no less of a repressive, undemocratic dictator who bullied his neighbors. Yet, not one person, many of whom I’ve seen vehemently defending the action in Iraq in other threads, says they agree with the idea of returning the Shah. Is it because psychopathic dictators aren’t so bad unless they slip the lease and become a thorn in the U.S.'s ass?
I apologize for the delay in responding. I didn’t notice your post until now.
As do I with yours, but allow me to quibble with your quibble (sounds kinky).
I don’t think the idea of looking at a purely military standpoint has much use outside of a debate. At some point, the shooting stops and then what?
Could the U.S. have flattened Iran’s army? Undoubtedly. But then what? How far would the escalation of hostilities gone? How much would it have wound up costing the U.S.? And after all that, would the hostages been released unharmed?
So while I agree that Iran, regadless of strength, was no match fo the U.S., I don’t think that mattered much. There is never a situation where it’s just raw power versus raw power. There’s always a before and after.
And what is your point? That you think Reagan was wise in that?
Unfortunately ours is a species where leniency and compassion will be understood as weakness. And weakness not incite leniency and compassion but seen as an opportunity to be merciless exploited. Peace is only attainable if defended from a position of might, the weak never have any peace.
Since what happened in Iran was a clear violation of international laws perhaps an apt historical comparison could be the attack on Pearl Habour (though of course of much more damaging). Undoubtedly many hundred of thousand innocent victims, millions perhaps, could have been spared if the US government had tried to negotiate a settlement with Japan & diligently avoid any future confrontation instead of answering with military might.
Is there anyone who questions whether the embassy invasion and hostage taking was an act of war? Or that negotiated settlement and backing down is a proportional response to war?
Yes. And I think he should have gone further in mending fences with the Iranians. I don’t agree with selling them weapons, however.
Absolutely wrong. In fact, standing up for the rule of law and justice have shown to be exactly the correct way to move the world towards peace. Attacks which kill large numbers of civilians have been shown to merely solidify opposition against the attackers.
Time and time again, this has proven true. But the only people who seem to have learned the lesson are the left-wing, right-wingers are too concerned with dick-waving contests and showing how “strong” they are to notice that it’s exactly the wrong policy to pursue.
Ridiculous. This sort of idiotic comparison is why I have difficulty taking you seriously. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a military attack that killed over 2,117 soldiers and was followed by an official declaration of war, followed by attacks on other US military bases and airfields. They did this to remove American opposition to expanding their empire and subjugating other countries.
The Iran hostage situation resulted in no American deaths, was not accompanied by a declaration of war, did not involve attacks on other American bases, and was done in order to pressure the US into allowing them to prosecute a brutal tyrant who had oppressed them for 20 years.
It was clearly the wrong way to go about things and illegal. But bombing them and killing large numbers of civilians would have just resulted in the US being the target of even more terrorist attacks than it already is.