>I'm sorry, but I don't see how the act of taking the embassy was an act of war, yet occupying the embassy was not.

Take the embassy, occupy the embassy - same act, different terminology. It occured during the Carter administration, and should have been dealt with by him. It was, by all definitions, and act of war. An attack on an embassy - sovereign territory by international agreement - may be considered an act of war. Period, end of statement.

>You seem to be arguing that the Iranians committed an act of war against the U.S., and Carter is to be blamed for doing nothing,

That's exactly what I'm saying. What's not to understand? Continued occupation after the original attack, still being an act of war? That's what you seem to be arguing, and THAT makes no sense to me. Should Reagan have declared war? He was handed an existing situation, but the hostages were released. Why go to war over an empty building?

>while Reagan sold arms to the same government who committed the act of war not too much later. While they were occupying our embassy. I'm sorry, your argument just doesn't make sense to me.

Reagan sold arms to the Iranians AFTER the embassy was attacked - what, two, three years later? Personally I think that was a stupid act but that's totally irrelevant to this discussion.