John F. Kennedy for promising not to invade Cuba if missiles were withdrawn by Russia

Dwight D. Eisenhower for inviting Khrushchev to the United States

Ronald Reagan for reaching arms control agreement with Gorbachev

Obama for even suggeting talking with our foes

“Appeasers” who have not caught hell from the far right:

George W. Bush for talking and negotiating with Libya, North Korea and Iran

it’s possible, perhaps likely, that the weapons we’ve sold to *numerous* countries over the decades, legitimately or otherwise, and know to us or otherwise, are not currently killing our troops. fair enough. but i don’t think it negates the point that Namtillaku might have been trying to make, which is that we were dealing with these people, often illicitly, often supplying them with weapons when it served our political purposes, and then denounce them when *that* serves our political purposes. same reason the mujahedeen fell out of love with us.

Ever since Khomeni and the ‘79 revolution, Americans and Israelis have been as obsessed with Iran as mother would be with a two-headed baby.

America’s self-rightous indignation with Iran is highly suspicious. It comes off more as a spoiled child who’s been disciplined and now has sworn revenge, to get even.

Iran has a s much right to have a peaceful nuclear industry as any other country. They are entitled to that right by the United Nations. Only the Israelis and Americans don’t like it. Both countries are warmongering to give us an excuse to attack Iran. They don’t need approval, just an excuse.

I’m fully expecting another false flag operation like 9/11. I hope elements within our military are ready to seize control..to get rid of Bush and friends…if such an attack occurs.

Americans will not accept another con job from George W. Bush.

I hope this issue divides Americans from Israel, as it should.

There were hostages taken in Tehran and released 444 days later when Reagan took the oath of office. But there were also hostages taken working in Beirut at later dates. The official story is the arms-for-hostages trading was for the Beirut group. But the airplane parts shipments from Israel to Iran began before the Tehran group were released. And weapons shipments happened early in RR’s presidency, before the Beirut ones were taken. Once again, read OCTOBER SURPRISE by Gary Sick (NSC under Ford, Carter, and Reagan).

Some of us think Reagan was hasty in putting the Marines in but made the right decision to pull them back out. Where do you stand on that issue John McCain?

I’m sure this is mentioned up thread, but the hostages were released long before the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran. Your post implies that you believe that Reagan administration officials managed to sell arms to Iran in the minutes which elapsed between the inauguration and the release.

I guess you’re just pulling this out of your ***, is this just some foggy recollection of yours? I guess this is just one more thing where the facts have a liberal bias eh? But facts are not something that interests republicans. The only things that turn your crank are hate, intolerance, war, bigotry, power, and money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

As CEO of Halliburton, Mr. Cheney lobbied the Clinton administration to ease sanctions on Libya and Iran, according to various news reports. “I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions [on Iran], didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies .. trying to do business there,” Cheney told an Australian television interviewer in April 1998.3

According to the Financial Times, before he was elected (but after he resigned from Halliburton) Cheney “has said the company is allowed to operate legally in Iran through its foreign subsidiaries.”4 “What we do with respect to Iran and Libya is done through foreign subsidiaries, totally in compliance with US law,” Cheney told ABC Television’s Sam Donaldson. When Donaldson suggested, “it’s a way around US law,” Cheney replied: “No, no, it’s provided for us specifically with respect to Iran and Libya.”5 If you’re a big multinational that’s able to incorporate around the world, you don’t have to worry…

http://halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/iran.html

To the uninitiated, this means that principals in the matters under violent dispute were required to sidt down, face to face, with their ‘enemies’, their antagonists.

Has there been a single non-negotiated peace in the last 100–or eve 500–years? I don’t think so.

But to know anything about that, you’d have had to have studied history a little, and considerably more than the amount of history students are taught in school below the graduate level in university.

anyway, i can see how it could…

And,unfortunately, the Pukes are in the position to manipulate events and perceptions of them in ways that accentuate those ‘issues’ in ways that support their agenda.

that is to say, it could work