Story Comments
Posted by: BB64 1 year, 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've got to be kidding. Carter stripped the military and then couldn't understand why there wasn't a single military unit that could handle a hostage rescue. He's also the "relevant" one who ordered no military response from the Marines when they stormed the embassy and also ordered all heavy weapons out prior. Great move. Marines that can't fire and all but a few round to fight with had he actually given the order. What a joke.
Had Carter acted like the President instead of a socialistic peace-nick, we might not face the dangers we do today from this area. Had we gone into Afghanistan on 15-Feb-1979 and hunted down the group that sponsored the killing of our ambassador, radical Islam wouldn't have had the b-lls to attack our embassy in Iran. To bad he didn't react when our embassy was taken. That is an act of war in the civilized world. Had we taken Sadr and his people out then, Iran wouldn't be the problem they are today.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Carter stripped the military and then couldn't understand why there wasn't a single military unit that could handle a hostage rescue. He's also the "relevant" one who ordered no military response from the Marines when they stormed the embassy and also ordered all heavy weapons out prior."
What are you talking about?
Three things here.
1. Carter did NOT, contrary to popular belief "strip the military, just as Clinton did not strip the military. That is a baldfaced LIE. In fact, Carter, in his 1979 budget request, requested that military spending be increased substantially.
2. I can find no reputable source that suggests that when the attack took place (in a matter of minutes, by the way) that President Carter ordered no military response from the Marines.
3. What "heavy weapons"? 50 cals? Rockets? Tanks? What?
Cont.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> I can find no reputable source that suggests that when the attack took place (in a matter of minutes, by the way) that President Carter ordered no military response from the Marines.
No wonder. You're supposed to look for evidence about the response he DID order.
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What? In that terrible rescue the Navy used helicopters that were 20 years old designed for Vietnam not desert duty. It was all they had. On the cutbacks, perhaps you should talk to or at least research your heroes before they lie to you. His budget request submitted in 1979 was an increase, that's because was for the 1980 fiscal year and he already knew we were short. Most of what we were using was Vietnam left overs, way past their prime. Even the cam wasn't useful. The year before he bragged about cutting over $6 billion from the budget the year before.
On the orders, I know that was something that Kevin Hermening talked about. I've searched everything I have but can't find the reference. I know it was in the old Milwaukee Sentinel not the Journal. I know it was after he left the military but before I left for the military, so that would put it around 1981-2. Sorry that's as close as I can get on short notice.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On heavy weapons, most embassies have extra equipment. Shot Guns anti-tank/anti car bomb weapons, M60's in some cases and even Stingers at times. After the Marines in Beirut, they installed most of them on/in/around the White House grounds. Concrete barriers, M15&M16's for the uniformed Secret Service. Things drastically changed after Carter left office.
Reply -
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And that was Carter's fault? That's like blaming President Bush for the fact that he sent troops to Iraq in Humvees that were not designed or armored for the role in which they found themselves.
And don't give me any of that crap about 20 year old equipment. We still fly the B-52's, right? When did the last one of them come off the assembly line?
He raised the budget request after he realized the Soviets weren't going to abide by the treaties they had signed.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where to begin. There wasn't a treaty signed by Carter with the USSR they didn't break and he never "raised" budgets. He slashed the Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines and Coast Guard by $ 6,000,000,000. In 1970's money, that's a lot. On the Humvees, you don't remember the vehicle they were replacing do you? They were supposed to replace the venerable Jeep. canvas/cloth doors, no roll bar, no protection, armor or other urban assault protection. In fact it didn't even have a roof in combat conditions. The Humvee was a great improvement and has a bullet proof wind screen and other armor additions. It's not the best answer but was much better then the Jeep. BTW, this was another Carter slash, he thought the Jeep was fine.
On the B-52, it's a flying antique. Still capable but in a real war against an enemy with SAM's or other anti-aircraft weapons, would be sorely placed in direct combat rolls. See B2 bombers, http://www.airforce.com
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I never insulted the men lost in Carter's attempts to play hero. He sent men into a battle with old equipment not designed for desert duty. There were to many branches involved with this and they never did have a chance to train together in prep for the assault. If that wasn't bad enough, he tied the hands of the CIA and replaced many key people with political appointees. He also pulled many of the field operatives and restricted working with other nations. His contestant anti-Israel spin prevented the Mossad from sharing information and status of the hostages.
If anyone denigrated our people,the blood is on Carter's hands.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Had we gone into Afghanistan on 15-Feb-1979 and hunted down the group that sponsored the killing of our ambassador, radical Islam wouldn't have had the b-lls to attack our embassy in Iran."
What ARE you talking about? The attack on the US embassy in Iran was all about Iranians. They took the US embassy because of American interference inside of Iran. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan at all.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They took the US embassy because of American interference inside of Iran. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan at all."
Mostly it was the US support of the Shah since 1953 that did it. It was a Bush/CIA President-Carter Conflict that developed in Iran. You see Carter forced Bush to resign as the CIA chief when he became President. Then the CIA reported to Carter that all was well in Iran and they expected the Shah's regime to continue well into the next decade. They lied. Of course they knew he had cancer and wouldn't live to the next decade, much less continue his iron grip on Iran. There are many rumors about how it all played out too. But one thing is certain, after Carter, a Bush has been in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, drawing on Bani-Sadr's open discussions, it was clear the murder of Ambassador Dubs became the catalyst for the "student" lead attack on our embassy. The Shah's return might have been the excuse but they were pretty sure the US military would not attack. They felt that Carter was a weak leader and as hours turn to days, days to weeks, they were sure eventually, their demands would be met. They also knew about the press and played up to them during the election again expecting Carter to cave in. Didn't work exactly right did it? Never got the Shah back did they.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On your claims of the CIA, you're way off, where to begin? First on Bush, to be the director of the CIA, he resigned from the GOP and broke all ties with them. He really followed the non-partisan policy and did a rather good job. Carter, who seems to lie, I mean claim he wants to work with all people promptly fired Bush the same day he took office. Which is his right but it was a little funny how he did it. Typical for a farmer, not a President.
As to informing Carter of problems in Iran and Afghanistan, that actually is credited to Nassiri, Chief of Savak. He personally delivered a message to President Carter from the Shah advising him of the impending revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan late summer early fall, 1978. Carter ignored both thinking it was an attempt to get US troops into Iran. How things would have been different had Carter actually listened. He permitted radical Islam to grow nice job peanut boy.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well skippy that's the difference between you and me. I can read. The first attack by fundamentalist/radical Islam wasn't in Iran, it was in Afghanistan. On February 14, 1979, shortly after eight in the morning, Ambassador Dubs, was kidnapped and murdered by radical Islamic terrorists. Evidence produced over the years points to connections with elements of the KGB and other terrorist supporting nations.
Another Carter error. While other nations increased protections in the embassies, Carter was concerned that it would appear hostile so he left the embassies less protected.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, pal, I never said that it was. So, maybe your reading comprehension isn't as good as you think it is.
Dubs was killed in a shootout when the Soviet supported Afghan military and Soviet advisers stormed the rooms in the Kabul hotel where Dubs was being held.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, from my posting, I believe that's what I said. There was KGB involvement, on both sides. Does it surprise you really? Play both sides, make sure the person you want dead is dead. Carter's reaction was a minor protest. As always, restraint, fear, and hiding in the White House.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
NemoShiZniT
vidman04
tanglang
Codi6934
memestryker
DropkickaLib
Scrimshaw
Ciera-Marie
Eagle_Eye
Neophile
djn3nunez3
bamababy
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.