Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Iran deal has never looked better...
Kaepsknee
Member Posts: 14,913
in Tug Tavern
While the country has been focused on the Texas floods and other issues, we have this.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has dismissed US demands for the UN's nuclear watchdog to inspect Iran's military sites, saying in a televised interview that "we will not accept anything by force."
His comments Tuesday were a response to demands by US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley for the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect military as well as nonmilitary sites in Iran, to check the country's compliance with a deal that curbs Iran's nuclear weapons program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.
So Obama and Biden give them over a Billion dollars back, release 5 of their most dangerous terrorists and this is what we are left with.
But how was Obama a bad president?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has dismissed US demands for the UN's nuclear watchdog to inspect Iran's military sites, saying in a televised interview that "we will not accept anything by force."
His comments Tuesday were a response to demands by US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley for the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect military as well as nonmilitary sites in Iran, to check the country's compliance with a deal that curbs Iran's nuclear weapons program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.
So Obama and Biden give them over a Billion dollars back, release 5 of their most dangerous terrorists and this is what we are left with.
But how was Obama a bad president?
Tagged:
Comments
-
I enjoy that tag.
-
They don't have a choice. They will accept what we tell them to accept and like it, or DIE.
-
-
Trump certified the agreement. Twice.salemcoog said:While the country has been focused on the Texas floods and other issues, we have this.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has dismissed US demands for the UN's nuclear watchdog to inspect Iran's military sites, saying in a televised interview that "we will not accept anything by force."
His comments Tuesday were a response to demands by US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley for the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect military as well as nonmilitary sites in Iran, to check the country's compliance with a deal that curbs Iran's nuclear weapons program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.
So Obama and Biden give them over a Billion dollars back, release 5 of their most dangerous terrorists and this is what we are left with.
But how was Obama a bad president?
HTH -
We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
I love how Trump gets credit for everything good happening now but none of the blame for everything bad.
-
Agree. Just one problem.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
He wasn't the one who dropped the ball. You can blame Clinton, Bush and Obama for that.TierbsHsotBoobs said:I love how Trump gets credit for everything good happening now but none of the blame for everything bad.
-
And Carter, Reagan, and the first Bushoregonblitzkrieg said:
He wasn't the one who dropped the ball. You can blame Clinton, Bush and Obama for that.TierbsHsotBoobs said:I love how Trump gets credit for everything good happening now but none of the blame for everything bad.
-
Flagged for not including Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and FordTierbsHsotBoobs said:
And Carter, Reagan, and the first Bushoregonblitzkrieg said:
He wasn't the one who dropped the ball. You can blame Clinton, Bush and Obama for that.TierbsHsotBoobs said:I love how Trump gets credit for everything good happening now but none of the blame for everything bad.
-
Thanks, Taftoregonblitzkrieg said:
Flagged for not including Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and FordTierbsHsotBoobs said:
And Carter, Reagan, and the first Bushoregonblitzkrieg said:
He wasn't the one who dropped the ball. You can blame Clinton, Bush and Obama for that.TierbsHsotBoobs said:I love how Trump gets credit for everything good happening now but none of the blame for everything bad.
-
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Yes. Everybody's talking about the media coddling that Trump is the beneficiary of.TierbsHsotBoobs said:I love how Trump gets credit for everything good happening now but none of the blame for everything bad.
-
Send them the laser guided missile of love!
-
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
-
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Agree. And Bush 43 and his administration's fucktardedness begat Black Carter. No Iraq War, then no Hope and Change. Simple as that.salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Philanthropist yes, but tend to side more with @Southerndawg on the shitty statesman position- e.g., N. Korea in 1994. The hostage crisis was an egregious act that merited a harsh military response, but you are correct in the observation that post Vietnam we were in a crummy position to act. As shitty of a deal as the nuke agreement with Iran was, I'm not sure any administration could have gotten us a much better one. Iran had a lot more leverage knowing that the US electorate didn't have the stomach for another major war in the Middle East . Simply put, we chose the wrong county with which to have a reckoning and should have kept our powder dry for fucking up Iran if need be.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Speaking of the monies and interest rates and what not, some people forget that it was Carter who appointed Paul Volcker. Reagan had balls and gave him the necessary political cover. Hard to imagine that happening with today's pols.salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
No idea how that happened, must've been a mis-click. I certainly wouldn't purposely upvote any poast in this rancid afterbirth of a thread. Thanks you for bringing it to my attention so I could correct it in some whey.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Pics?BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
PressingYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
A infamous non UW poster here once told me that do to over use "pressing" is now pressing. Seems legit.BearsWiin said:
PressingYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
DISAGREEYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
Instant classic gifs this belongs.dnc said:
DISAGREEYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
