Kevin,

My understanding was that toughness had nothing to do with the release of the hostages. A deal was negotiated, as I understood it, between President Reagan's election and installation.
President Reagan was later involved with other deals with Iran, selling them weapons to help finance activities in Central America.

The Shah of Iran was installed with the mutual assistance of the U.S. and the British.Guess why - for the OIL! Now the British had apparently been trying to do it for years but only succeeded once the U.S. came aboard. The stories of the Shah's SAVAK are legendary and have as much to do with the "revolution" in Iran as anything else.

Wikipedia has Hezbollah formed/announced in 1985, so their role in the bombing of the Marine barracks is disputeable.

You consider that the Iranian "revolution" raid on the U.S. embassy there and kidnapping of U.S. citizens for 444 days justification for bombing cities of Iran?
First, you forget the times, and secondly you seem to think you can bully anyone into your (the U.S.'s) mold.
The times were that there was another super-power that helped to keep things in check. President Reagan was using his head most wisely (as most U.S. presidents have, save one) in his reactions to events of the time.
Bullying seems never to work. Just look at all the instance past and present where the U.S. "installed" leaders of their choice and the results of those actions.

Talking isn't "appeasement", but let's talk about appeasement for a moment...
The U.S., backed by the world and by more than just words, started a war with Afghanistan when their leadership failed to turn over Bin Laden and his cohorts. The actual war was short and a resounding success - the Taliban driven from power, friendly leadership was installed and elections later confirmed the leadership by-and-large. Few U.S. troops (or other western/powerful nation's troops) were used in the "victory" by virtue of paying off war-lords with box-cars of cash and promises of some power when victory was had.
And look where things are today! Kabul, the capital city, has some semblence of freedom and democracy. The rest of the country is totally out of control when it comes to freedom and democracy. The poppy harvest was a record one this year and is used to finance the war-lords and the Taliban. The war-lords, APPEASED to obtain "victory", are now doing their own thing again, beholden to their own objectives and to those who will pay for their services. You've got NATO in there with all manner of sophisticated air support, fancy tanks, artillery pieces, armoured vehicles, communications, etc fighting men in dresses with shoulder weapons, hand-guns and Toyota trucks or horses for transport. And after nearly 5 years Kabul is the only prize won????!!!!!!!
Afghanistan offers only one 'benefit' at this point, and that is as a test bed for new weapons/munitions. Sure, we all want to see Afghanistan's people enjoy the benefits of freedom and democracy. But that objective is getting further and further away and you can be sure that NATO nations will want out of the conflict before that is achieved. Including the U.S. As soon as Bin Laden is killed or captured you can be sure that sentiments will change rapidly. There is no oil and there are no pineapples in Afghanistan.

The record of the U.S. or anyone else isn't stellar where countries have (competing) "militias" as part of their "social scene". Consider Somalia. Consider Afghanistan. Consider Lebanon (thinking PLO here as well as Hezbollah). And, worst of all, think of Iraq. Before the U.S. invasion THERE WERE NO MILITIAS (Saddam had full and complete control). Now there are several. And, worse, these militias are manned by people who are also members of the official army, intelligence services, police forces, etc.

The middle east isn't like the west. In the middle east militias are common, and they are usually tied to social 'agencies' that provide the basic necessities of life for the people. Both the PLO and Hamas are political parties with militias. Hezbollah is a political party with a militia. The Afghani war-lords are militia leaders who have huge influence on the well-being of the people in the areas they control.
It isn't "appeasement" to TALK with these people to learn the real sources of their rhetoric and to work towards addressing those grievances. One doesn't have to "give in" to their "demands" at all. But one does have to change the stated policy of never negotiating with "terrorists". We (the west) class these organizations as "terrorist" but the people who live with them actually VOTE FOR THEM IN ELECTIONS (except the Afghani war-lords, of course)!!!
Funny thing, but there was almost always TALKING going on between the USSR and the U.S. during the cold war even though Communism was considered every bit as bad as terrorism. In fact it was considered a highly refined form of terrorism (gulags, economic control by the state, etc).

You now see that the U.S. is the only super-power and has the might to crush whatever it chooses to crush and you want to go ahead and do it. Britain had similar experiences in its heyday and learned the hard way that it doesn't work. Most of the presidents of the U.S. understood that and looked to other means to achieve their goals.




>Do you believe that the US and other western nations are free of any responsibility for the state we find the middle east in?
>
>Absolutely not - but not for the reasons you're implying.
>
>We bear responsibility....for our policy of appeasement...for not completely crushing Iran, and terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. Need I remind you of 1983, when terrorists backed by Iran and Syria killed hundreds of Marines in Beirut.
>
>The U.S. has been justified for the last 27 years in bombing Iran's cities to rubble...and yet we did very little.
>
>One of the strangest pieces of irony is the transition from President Carter to President Reagan. Iran released our hostages (in part) for fear of real retaliation from Reagan. When Islamic Fundamentalists started to get a feel for the fact that Reagan was, in reality, no tougher than Carter, they knew they could get away. While I'm not a George W. fan, at least he is trying to do something.
>
>State-sponsored terror and murder, pure and simple. Islamic Fundamentalists have vowed to attack the West for years, and have a history of unlawful and immoral acts against the United States. Your leading questions smell badly of appeasement for terrorist activities.
>
>Kevin