Ronald Reagan

ahem, as Enoch asked, "Allowed"?

let's make it "he had a weak stance" and was undecisive

Caught me as I was just about to hit the sack, haha

Wasn't sure if you were pointing at that, orrrrrrrrr... so I wanted to make sure.

A rarely heard take on it was that on account of the Shah getting a bit too assertive, convincing OPEC to take advantage of the need and raise oil prices and whatnot, his use as a US puppet was expiring, so the goverment figured letting Khoemeni return and ousting the Shah will make him all thankful and compliant to us, thus Carter getting the Shah to let him return from exile in France.

However, having been tortured by SAVAK and them killing his father as well made the Ayatollah not exceedingly open to being an AyaToolah (sorry, I hadda), and well, we all know the rest of that backfiring.

So, a soft coup, if you will, and that puts that one on Carter & Co.

Heard this on an excellent multi-part documentary that showed on PBS round the late 80s called the "History of Black Gold" or something like that.

The Shah wasn't even part of OPEC, if I remember correctly, but he started approaching them with the idea of jacking up prices, setting off the Energy Crisis.

Be back in a few hours...
Goodnight/morning,,,

You're right he did...because at the time Iraq and Saddam Hussein were the bigger threat to the region. The problem with selling arms, is that these f**kers tend to change sides and then use your own shit against you.

Nope. Reagan had cut a deal with Khoemeni to hold the hostages till he got elected in exchange for weapons.

Meanwhile, Hussein was a US puppet, and Reagan played BOTH sides, supplying Iraq with intel and weapons - including chemical, which he later used on Iraqi Kurds.
THAT'S how Bush knew Iraq had WMDs - because Reagan GAVE them to him as well as helped construct plants to make them.

Uh...I've heard of the October Surprise, but I've also heard that it is a conspiracy theory. The rest of that doesn't sound credible either. But I guess it's all possible.

What October surprise? The hostage crisis began in 1979, the election was a year after. The hostages were released upon Reagan's inauguration.

The rest is not theory, conjecture, or whatever, it's simply what happened.

If you really haven't heard of any this in your life, I suggest you look it up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory

I don't do links.
And isn't wiki fake nooze or something?

Not really fake, but sometimes users slip in questionable lines onto a page. Undergrads used to try to use to for their "research" papers. The bottom of the pages however do cite sources, online or print, from which the material from the page is drawn. In a paper I wouldn't use it as a primary source, but have used it as a way to get to primary sources. Sort of an index.

As for the article, it basically says that there is a conspiracy theory that Reagan's campaign contacted the Iranians to set up an arms for hostage deal prioor to the election, to prevent Carter from making a deal in October as a last boost to win the election.

This is separate from Iran-Contra.

The article cites people from both sides, even some from Reagan's WH. However, while some of them say that some form of pre-election deal did happen, none of them were ever able to produce anything to back up their claims, and some were debunked. In the end, just like now, there is reason to suspect just about everybody and nothing to prove anybody's story. So believe or disbelieve, dependent upon your political bent.

When you share a common enemy and must work with the lesser of the two evils to defeat said enemy....

Which helps explain why Trump was elected

Nonfeasance is not the same as Malfeasance. And, your example does not even rise to the level of nonfeasance. I didn't kill Charles Manson when he lived a few miles friom me and many people died. Using your logic, I am responsible for the Tate and La Bianca murders. Your guy actually did sell missiles to Iran. That was an illegal act, at the time.

Clinton was president in the 1990s. If you do the research, you can easily find a timeline on the development of the North Korean nuclear program. The biggest strides they made toward becoming a nuclear power were during the Reagan-Bush years and the W Bush years. In 1993 Clinton kept the North Koreans from withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He also had an agreement from them to suspend production of plutonium. If you look at activity from late 2002 (two years after Clinton left office) to 2004, North Korea thumbed their noses at the W. Bush administration and made most of its progress toward development of weapons. History does not support your conclusions. Sorry.

Who says the Republicans don't have a big tent? It is big enough for guys who would have us attack Iran and those who rationalize selling the same regime advanced weapons.