The Taliban have WON in Afghanistan... (really?)

I don't give a rats ass who got credit. Ultimately the Iranian govt was responsible for the hostages.

 

Just checked Bibliothek "online" service. Not a single book by James Bacque to be found.

 

As I said, my main concern is for a correct recitation of the historical facts, not the judgments you may wish to draw from them. I mentioned that they were not subjected to physical "torture" and that is true. But even leaving aside the spin and propaganda, many of the actions against them would still contitute psychological torture. I just didn't want anyone to be misled. Otherwise, lets be clear, in the long running, low-level war, between Iran and the US, there have been Americans who have been physically tortured (e.g. CIA Beirut station chief, William Buckley), killed (e.g. Karbala headquarters operation, where 5 American marines were abducted and were killed), killed in rather large numbers (e.g., 241 Marines died in the bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut which followed the earlier bombing of the US embassy there), and a lot more. In comparison, what happened in this early episode was, literally, child's play. If your intention is to rile up emotions against Iran, and didn't care to recount what was happening on the other side of the ledger, you could find much better and more pertinent examples than the one you have chosen.

 

FIRST of all the Iranian government was NOT responsible for the hostage-taking. SECONDLY, the U.S. played a game of "flinch" while the hostages languished. They could have ended it immediately but did not.

 

The Iranian government my not have authorized taking the hostages but they could have effected their release at any time they chose to which they eventually did.

 

My intention is simply to be honest as to what took place. I have not said at any time that the Iranian government was responsible for the attack and taking of the hostages, just that they had the power to release them at will.

 

Interesting term you have used, since my biggest gripe with the American government is the propaganda, lies, and dishonesty that pervades their actions and accounts of things. In the particular issue we are discussing, I didn't dispute that Ayatollah Khomeini could have ended the affair (if he had chosen to alienate his most excited supporters and didn't have the political acumen to use the affair to further his agenda in terms of the kind of government and policies he favored). But there were other things you were saying that I felt required a clearer recitation of the facts. Ultimately, however, I personally didn't support the seizure of the US embassy and how that issue was handled. Even though, with the benefit of hindsight, I have to give Ayatollah Khomeini even more credit for his political acumen and resoluteness in bringing to fruition his vision of the kind of government and policies he preferred. After all, long before the revolution, in his writings, Ayatollah Khomeini had basically said that he didn't think Iran and the US should have any diplomatic or other type of relations whatsover. What happened allowed him to realize what he wanted, while also purging the system and government of the kind of figures ("liberal" is an even worse term in post revolutionary Iranian politics than it is in US politics) he didn't feel (with great justification) were committed to his vision.

 

How many times must I tell you? The U.S. government could have effected the hostage release at any time they chose.

 

How could they have done that?

 

OMG. You are here on this thread spouting off like a fountain but you don't know what the hostage-takers wanted in return for their captives?

 

Yes I do but would never expect the US to give him to them.

 

That's weird. look here, there are several books by him...
https://www.jamesbacque.com/

Amazon has the book for sale...
https://www.amazon.ca/Other-Losses-James-Bacque/dp/1559581735

Very interesting to read is this reader's comment:
E.D.
5.0 out of 5 stars Other Losses; November 25, 2011 - Published on Amazon.com
Verified Purchase
"In May 1945 I turned 10...."

I had turned 10 already in January. My brother's fate was very similar. He would turn 19 that coming September. He weighed 43 kg at a height of 6'2". when the Americans were done with him. He was given a choice to either go to England or France for slave labor. He chose France. For several years we didn't know whether he was dead or alive. At the same time, Fall of 1945, my other brother came back a skeleton from Siberia. Stalin released some of the sick and too weak to work. My brother was lucky to be chosen.
The "little sister" was happy and learned to count in Russian and some commands the guards would shout to the prisoners, like "dawei, dawei!"
It was either the British or Americans who received them at the border near Luebeck and put them through a delousing and shower facility!

 

Who won, if not the Taliban? We are throwing in the towel and pulling out, so we can't claim victory.

 

The Shah was a criminal to his own people, murdering .... at least a thousand by his own estimation. He should have been brought to trial in Iran. You say that you never expected the U.S. to give him up - I say I never expected the people of Iran to give up the Americans. So, between you wanting the U.S. to harbour a mass murderer and I wanting the Iranians to keep a few Americans it looks like "my guys" were more humane than "your guys".

 

Yes, I see it can be purchased on-line. Dawei! "Give it to me".

19 is a young age to go to war. I was also 19 when I was sent to Vietnam. In fact, there was a song about it.

 

Even if we don't pull out - we have been there 18 years and things have only gotten worse. How that is not losing - I don't know. We have lost lives, treasure - and gotten nothing in return for our investment.

 

Not a nice song. I like the German march songs; here is a nice one:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...7F11EF3BA685BEBF788E7&&mmscn=vwrc&FORM=VDRVRV

Dawei meant hurry up, quick, work faster!!

My brother went to the front at age 17! in France, I think. Fall 1943.
We only saw him again five years later, fall 1948.

One of my grandsons joined the Cadets. I told him, a soldier's job is to kill innocent people. Think about that!

 

There is one I like better - a high-spirited soldier's Lied but I have no idea what it is called. Something to do with "... an der Rand ... "

Dawei means, "Give" (Give it to me)

I agree.

 

I found it:

 

We got Bin Laden, and drove Al Qaeda into the caves. Its not much, but its something. I am sure we hoped for more, but 90% of the time we were not even trying.

 

I have to wonder which death tally would be the highest, Shah or Ayatollah.

 

Neither are particularly high.

 

It doesn't matter. You Americans are mass-murdering your own people "at home" by the thousands. If you add them all up are you satisfied that they were murdered by your own wackos or would you b'itch more if they were killed by foreign terrorists? The Shah was Washington's puppet and the thousands he killed was with the benevolent eye of the U.S. He was America's man, not a man of the Iranian people. The Ayatollah was the peoples' choice and that makes all the difference in the world.

 

It does matter. How many Iranians did the 'peoples choice' murder and torture. For Iranians it was out of the frying pan into the fire.

I don't think the Shah or the Ayatollahs have been involved in the shootings we see in America today and we were discussing Shah/Ayatollahs and their effect on Iran. Granted, our inner cities are a cesspool, you might recall our President made mention of that fact recently and the screams of racism have yet to fade. Seems to be a ticklish issue.

 

Everything goes right over your head, huh.