Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Jimmy Carter: Gatsby's Type of President

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Jimmy Carter: Gatsby's Type of President
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:26 am Post subject: Jimmy Carter: Gatsby's Type of President

http://ibdeditorial.com/Special3.aspx

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:12 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Kennedy wasn't a liberal.

Quote:

Dude. You seriously skipped out on your history classes.

]Well I know enough to say that Carter had people who called Khomeni a saint and thought he was Ghandi.

I know enough that Carter pressured the Shah to let the radicals out of Jail.

I know enough to know Carter wouldn't sell the Shah stuff.

and I am perceptive enough to see 1979 as a turning point in the mideast.

Quote:

I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." - JFK

Sure you aren't like Jimmy

Quote:

Better a Carter apologist than a Shah apologist. Traitor.

Better the Shah than Khomeni.

Besides I see you complaining about US interference in 1953. Moonbat

Quote:

Yeah, in 1953. By not overthrowing Mosaddeq. Well before Carter was President.

Or by stopping Khomeni. 1979 is a turning point and the mideast has nevert been the same.

Mideast pre 1979 and post 1979 there is a difference.

Quote:

And Khomeni was in France. He should have been assassinated or thrown in a secret prision.

Quote:

And the millions of other Iranians who opposed the Shah? You would have assassinated them to? Add mass murderer to your glowing resume.[

No just Khomeni and his gang.

Remember stopping Khomeni would have saved lives those lives count. Not in your book but then again you are a moonbat.

Iran is the main cause of strategic problems the US faces today. If Carter had been up to the job things might very well be different.

And even Democrats said that Carter didn't know the difference between friends and enemies. It was true then and it is still true.

One final note. There is no excuse for what the Bathists . Khomeni followers or the Al Qaedists do. Saying they are reacting to US policy is like saying Hitler was a reaction to the terms of WW I.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:27 am Post subject:

oo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Quote:

Like I said, Carter's biggest failing was poor intel. That intel was in decline well before Carter came into the picture.

He was out of it that was his problem. Even democrats said he didn't know the difference between friend and enemy.

Quote:

You mean the political prisoners?

Yep including the radicals. The irony is that Khomeni killed a lot of them. They were safer in jail than they were with Khomeni in power.

Quote:

Such as?

Water cannons , rubber bullets , riot control gear.
.

Quote:

Your perception is off.

No it isn't.

1979 the mideast strategic situation changes . It has never been the same.

.

Quote:

So you think the Treaty of Versailles was a wise move? Kick a dog enough and he's gonna bite you. That's something the imperialist right should have learned by now. But they're like you. They don't study their history.

No it wasn't but it doesn't change what WW II Germany was about.

And the history is being nice to your enemies doesn't make them nice to you. And the history is that everything changed in 1979 cause Khomeni came to power.

Quote:

Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.

L: Iranian terrorists who held 52 Americans hostage in 1979 bragged that a U.S. led by Jimmy Carter could not 'do a damn thing' about it. R: Wreckage of Carter's failed hostage rescue.

This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.

Thanks Jimmy.

By the way no one is imperialist here. There would not have been a war if the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists gave up their war.

By the way no US action no free South Korea. The cold war was justified too.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:00 am; edited 1 time in total

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:00 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

Such as?

Water cannons , rubber bullets , riot control gear.

Water cannons, rubber bullets, and riot control gear? That's what Carter was keeping from the Shah? Are you nuts? Since when was the US the world's supplier of water cannons, rubber bullets, and riot control gear? Did Carter invoke the Rubber Bullet Proliferation Treaty to keep Iran from having their needed rubber bullets? Joo, that is about the stupidest thing I've ever read here. The Shah's hands were tied because Carter wouldn't sell him rubber bullets? Are you serious? Phwahahaha.

The Shah lost complete control of his country due to his own tyranny. You seem to think the Shah was justified to do whatever he wanted, as long as he stayed loyal to the US. Obviously the Iranian people didn't quite feel the same way. Guess what Joo, the people of the world don't owe the US any allegiance. If we want to have true allies we need to take into consideration the little people who make up the countries we lord over.

Quote:

Your perception is off.

No it isn't.

1979 the mideast strategic situation changes . It has never been the same.

That may be the "turning point" to the casual observer. If you'd studied your history you'd realize the turning point occured well before then.

Quote:

And the history is being nice to your enemies doesn't make them nice to you.

Really? So why hasn't Germany attacked Europe in the last 60 years?

Quote:

And the history is that everything changed in 1979 cause Khomeni came to power.

The history is that Khomeni was in the making in the 60's. The US ignored the Shah's incompetence and unpopularity. Consider it a US failure, not a Carter failure.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:09 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"][
[quote]

Quote:

When the Shah petitioned the Carter administration to purchase tear gas and riot control gear, the human rights office in the State Department held up the request. Some, like State Department official Henry Precht, urged the U.S. to prepare the way for the shah to make a �graceful exit� from power. William Miller, chief of staff on the Democrat-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, said America had nothing to fear from Khomeini since he would be a progressive force for human rights. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan even compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi, and Andrew Young termed the ayatollah a �twentieth century saint.�

Quote:

The Shah lost complete control of his country due to his own tyranny. You seem to think the Shah was justified to do whatever he wanted, as long as he stayed loyal to the US. Obviously the Iranian people didn't quite feel the same way. Guess what Joo, the people of the world don't owe the US any allegiance. If we want to have true allies we need to take into consideration the little people who make up the countries we lord over.

Of all the tryants in in the mideast why was it that the Shah was the only one overthrown? It wasn't cause he was too hard it was cause he wasn't as mean.

And Carter pressured him to let the radicals out of jail.

Quote:

That may be the "turning point" to the casual observer. If you'd studied your history you'd realize the turning point occured well before then

.

No the mideast before 1979 and after 1979 is different

Quote:

Khomeini also popularized the idea of America as a �great Satan.� Before Khomeini, no Muslim head of state had said this about America. Khomeini was also the first Muslim leader in the modern era to advocate violence as a religious duty and to give special place to martyrdom. Since Khomeini, Islamic radicalism has continued to attract aspiring martyrs ready to confront the Great Satan. In this sense, the seeds of 9/11 were sown a quarter of a century ago when Khomeini came to power.

Quote:

And the history is being nice to your enemies doesn't make them nice to you.

Quote:

Really? So why hasn't Germany attacked Europe in the last 60 years?

Germany gave up their war.

Quote:

The history is that Khomeni was in the making in the 60's. The US ignored the Shah's incompetence and unpopularity. Consider it a US failure, not a Carter failure

It was a Carter failure and it happened cause the Shah was forced to back off.

Quote:

This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

What was Carter thinking. Why choose the Shah?

By the way if the Shah was so bad remember the Shah let Khomeni live.When his own security people wanted him killed

Quote:

Advisers to the Shah recommended executing the ayatollah perhaps, an accidental death. The Shah refused and sent Khomeini into exile to Iraq. "Former royalist officials now living in London, Paris and Los Angeles still grumble about the decision not to kill Khomeini in 1964."[4

Khomeni on the other hand killed all his opponents even the ones overseas. He executed his own PM. And tried to kill Iran's first president Bani Sadr.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:21 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Of all the tryants in in the mideast why was it that the Shah was the only one overthrown? It wasn't cause he was too hard it was cause he wasn't as mean.

The Shah was a bad leader. He didn't know how to administer his own country. In either a good way or a bad way. The likes of Saddam at least had good administrative skills, albeit put to devious means.

But god forbid we try to aim for a democratic and free society. As long as the ruling elite cow tow to us and crush all opposition the situation is fine. Like the typical neocon, your answer is always more oppression, more tyranny. Tell me Joo, why do you hate freedom?

Quote:

That may be the "turning point" to the casual observer. If you'd studied your history you'd realize the turning point occured well before then

.

No the mideast before 1979 and after 1979 is different

To the casual observer. Anyone who has studied the mideast knows the changes were set in motion well before that.

http://www.answers.com/topic/iranian-revolution

Quote:

Some scholars trace the origins of the Iranian Revolution to the 1953 coup d'�tat against the prime minister and National Front leader Mohammad Mossadegh or to the abortive 1963 uprisings sparked by the arrest of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The more immediate cause of the revolution, however, was the failure of the shah's government to address the multifaceted cultural, economic, political, and social grievances that had been building up in Iranian society during the 1970s. The shah not only ignored these grievances but used his secret police agency, the SAVAK, to repress expressions of discontent and both real and suspected opposition activities.

Quote:

And the history is being nice to your enemies doesn't make them nice to you.

Quote:

Really? So why hasn't Germany attacked Europe in the last 60 years?

Germany gave up their war.

And why was that? Because we busted their ass after WWII? Or because we helped rebuild their country?

Quote:

The history is that Khomeni was in the making in the 60's. The US ignored the Shah's incompetence and unpopularity. Consider it a US failure, not a Carter failure

It was a Carter failure and it happened cause the Shah was forced to back off.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. By the time he started "backing off" it was too late. The wheels were in motion.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/15/opinion/edsick.php

Quote:

The ultimate reason for the U.S. policy failure at the time of the Iranian revolution was the fact that the United States had placed enormous trust and responsibility on the person of the shah of Iran. He - and not the country or people of Iran - was seen as the lynchpin of U.S. strategy in the Persian Gulf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution#cite_note-28
(I know it's wiki, but everything is footnoted.)

Quote:

Causes

Explanations advanced for why the revolution happened and took the form it did include actions of the Shah and the mistakes and successes of the different political forces:

[edit] Policies of the Shah

* His strong policy of Westernization and close identification with a Western power (the United States) despite the resulting clash with Iran's Shi'a Muslim identity.[7] This included his original installation by Allied Powers and assistance from the CIA in 1953 to restore him to the throne, the use of large numbers of US military advisers and technicians and the capitulation or granting of diplomatic immunity from prosecution to them, all of which led nationalistic Iranians, both religious and secular[8] to consider him a puppet of the West;[9][10]
* Extravagance, corruption and elitism (both real and perceived) of the Shah's policies and of his royal court;[11][12]
* His failure to cultivate supporters in the Shi'a religious leadership to counter Khomeini's campaign against him;[13][14]
* Focusing of government surveillance and repression on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, the communist Tudeh Party of Iran, and other leftist groups, while the more popular religious opposition organized, grew and gradually undermined the authority of his regime;[15][16][17]
* Authoritarian tendencies that violated the Iran Constitution of 1906,[18][19] including repression of dissent by security services like the SAVAK,[20] followed by appeasement and appearance of weakness as the revolution gained momentum;[21][22]
* Failure of his overly ambitious 1974 economic program to meet expectations raised by the oil revenue windfall. Bottlenecks, shortages and inflation were followed by austerity measures, attacks on alleged price gougers and black-markets, that angered both the bazaar and the masses;[23]
* His antagonizing of formerly apolitical Iranians, especially merchants of the bazaars, with the creation of a single party political monopoly (the Rastakhiz Party), with compulsory membership and dues, and general aggressive interference in the political, economic, and religious concerns of people's lives;[24]
* His overconfident neglect of governance and preoccupation with playing the world statesman during the oil boom,[25] followed by a loss of self-confidence and resolution[21] and a weakening of his health from cancer[26] as the revolution gained momentum;
* Underestimation of the strength of the opposition � particularly religious opposition � and the failure to offer either enough carrots or sticks. Efforts to please the opposition were "too little too late,"[27] but no concerted counter-attack was made against the revolutionaries either.[21]
* Failure to prepare and train security forces for dealing with protest and demonstration, failure to use crowd control without excessive violence[28] (troops used live ammunition, not Plexiglas shields or water cannons),[29] and use of the military officer corps more as a powerbase to be pampered than as a force to control threats to security;[30]
* The personalised nature of the Shah's government, where prevention of any possible competitor to the monarch trumped efficient and effective government and led to the crown's cultivation of divisions within the army and the political elite,[31] and ultimately to a lack of support for the regime by its natural allies when needed most (thousands of upper and middle class Iranians and their money left Iran during the beginning of the revolution).[32]

Hmm, don't see any mention of Carter there. Looks like the experts disagree with your analysis. Why are you going after a US President instead of the autocrat who bears the real blame? Playing the blame game. Pure political muck raking.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:25 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Of all the tryants in in the mideast why was it that the Shah was the only one overthrown? It wasn't cause he was too hard it was cause he wasn't as mean.

Quote:

why would Carter with all the bad stuff in the world turn his attention to the Shah.

Stoping Khomeni followers or Al Qaedists is a good thing. The less they get their way the more freedom there is.

[quote]

Quote:

To the casual observer. Anyone who has studied the mideast knows the changes were set in motion well before that.

http://www.answers.com/topic/iranian-revolution

Quote:

You are talking about just Iran I am talking about the whole mideast.

1979 was the turning point.

Quote:

And why was that? Because we busted their ass after WWII? Or because we helped rebuild their country?

both

Quote:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. By the time he started "backing off" it was too late. The wheels were in motion.

Carter had him let the radicals out.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/15/opinion/edsick.php

Quote:

Keep the radicals in jail . Kill Khomeni . Carter failed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution#cite_note-28
(I know it's wiki, but everything is footnoted.)
[quote]Causes

Explanations advanced for why the revolution happened and took the form it did include actions of the Shah and the mistakes and successes of the different political forces:

Quote:

Carter forcing the Shah to back off let it start. You article doesn't mention Carter cause he is not part of the discussion there.

Add this in to your wikipedia article

Quote:

Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.

]L: Iranian terrorists who held 52 Americans hostage in 1979 bragged that a U.S. led by Jimmy Carter could not 'do a damn thing' about it. R: Wreckage of Carter's failed hostage rescue.

This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.

add this

Quote:

In early 1977, Jimmy Carter became President of the United States, and he put human rights into his foreign policy agenda. The Carter administration suggested that if Iran did not improve its human rights record, aid, including military assistance, might be terminated. The Shah acted on Carter's wishes. Some would view this pressure on the Shah and Carter's reluctance regarding the Shah crushing opponents as responsible for the Shah's fall.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch29ir.html

What was Jimmy thinking?

Of course Khomeni was in Paris? You think the US could have got to him?
If Carter had killed him he wouldn't have come to power. Oh I forgot the liberals gutted the CIA and took away its ability to assassinate.

If Ford or Reagan or either Bush been president Khomeni would have been stopped.

Did the Shah screw up sure. But Carter made everything worse.

Even Democrats say so.

The Jimmy Carter outlook

Quote:

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter�s ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said �Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.� Carter�s Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, �Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.� Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of �impeccable integrity and honesty.�
The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, �Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?�

http://www.punditreview.com/2008/04/jimmy-carterfather-of-the-iranian-revolution/

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am Post subject:

Quote:

Jimmy Carter: Father of the Iranian Revolution
By: Michael D. Evans

We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that: Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."

The Shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?"

Let's look at the results of Carter's misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter's response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

WHEN CARTER entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal wave of anti-Vietnam War emotion. Carter asked for an in-depth report on Iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the Shah was not fit to rule Iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, Bill Clinton became attorney-general of Arkansas, and Albert Gore won a place in the Tennessee House of Representatives.

In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming "the West killed God and wants us to bury him," Khomeini's weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by Iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of Najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi ("the plague of Western culture").

Carter pressured the Shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have been stillborn.

Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter's military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: "The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. 'One cannot do that to a holy man,' he said."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has donned the mantle of Ayatollah Khomeini, taken up bin Laden's call, and is fostering an Islamic apocalyptic revolution in Iraq with the intent of taking over the Middle East and the world.

Jimmy Carter became the poster boy for the ideological revolution of the 1960s in the West, hell bent on killing the soul of America. The bottom line: Carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; America should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.

IN THE '60S it was mass rebellion after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. When humanity confronts eternity, the response is always rebellion or repentance. The same ideologues who fought to destroy the soul of America with the "God is dead" movement in the 1960s are now running the arts, the universities, the media, the State Department, Congress, and Senate, determined more then ever to kill the soul of America while the East attempts to kill the body. Carter's world view defines the core ideology of the Democratic Party.

What is going on in Iraq is no mystery to those of us who have had our fingers on the pulse of both Iran and Iraq for decades. The Iran-Iraq war was a war of ideologies. Saddam Hussein saw himself as an Arab leader who would defeat the non-Arab Persians. Khomeini saw it as an opportunity to export his Islamic Revolution across the borders to the Shi'ites in Iraq and then beyond to the Arab countries.

Throughout the war both leaders did everything possible to incite the inhabitants of each country to rebel - precisely what Iran is doing in Iraq today. Khomeini encouraged the Shi'ites across the border to remove Saddam from power and establish an Islamic republic like in Iran.

Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy - and nothing but diplomacy - now permeates the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, Carter is wrong.

There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated.

KHOMEINI HAD the help of the PLO in Iran. They supplied weapons and terrorists to murder Iranians and incite mobs in the streets. No wonder Yasser Arafat was hailed as a friend of Khomeini after he seized control of Iran and was given the Israeli Embassy in Teheran with the PLO flag flying overhead.

The Carter administration scrambled to assure the new regime that the United States would maintain diplomatic ties with Iran. But on April 1, 1979 the greatest April Fools' joke of all time was played, as Khomeini proclaimed it the first day of the government of God.

In February 1979 Khomeini had boarded an Air France flight to return to Teheran with the blessing of Jimmy Carter. The moment he arrived, he proclaimed: "I will kick his teeth in" - referring to then Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar, who was left in power with a US pledge of support. He was assassinated in Paris by Iranian agents in 1991.

I sat in the home of Gen. Huyser, who told me the Shah feared he would lose the country if he implemented Carter's polices. Carter had no desire to see the Shah remain in power. He really believed that a cleric - whose Islamist fanaticism he did not understand in the least - would be better for human rights and Iran.

He could have changed history by condemning Khomeini and getting the support of our allies to keep him out of Iran.

http://paktribune.com/news/print.php?id=184873

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject:

[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]

Quote:

Jimmy Carter: Father of the Iranian Revolution
By: Michael D. Evans

Quote:

Michael D. Evans is an evangelist, writer, and founder of the Jerusalem Prayer Team, whose mission is "to guard, defend and protect the Jewish people...until the redeemer comes to Zion." Among its supporters are televangelist Pat Robertson, and Tim LaHaye, author of the best-selling "Left Behind" novels.

Hmmmmm, sure. I'll pass on his opinion.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

You are talking about just Iran I am talking about the whole mideast.

1979 was the turning point.

I thought you said the situation in Iran was the turning point for the mideast? It may have been the turning point, but the seeds of change had been planted long before. Do you really think all was rosy in Iran until Carter came around?

It's the same as saying 9/11 was a turning point and because Bush was in charge he is to blame.

Quote:

Of course Khomeni was in Paris? You think the US could have got to him?
If Carter had killed him he wouldn't have come to power. Oh I forgot the liberals gutted the CIA and took away its ability to assassinate.

And that would have put an end to the anti-Shah anti-American movement in Iran? Right. Keep dreaming.

Quote:

If Ford or Reagan or either Bush been president Khomeni would have been stopped.

Are we talking about the same Ford who didn't know Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination? And the same Reagen who provided arms to Khomeni? And the same Reagen who helped fund the Taliban? I don't buy it.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

Jimmy Carter: Father of the Iranian Revolution
By: Michael D. Evans

Quote:

Hmmmmm, sure. I'll pass on his opinion.

Good enough to get published in a news paper in Pakistan.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

You are talking about just Iran I am talking about the whole mideast.

1979 was the turning point.

Quote:

the Shah had problems, but 1979 everything changed

Quote:

It's the same as saying 9/11 was a turning point and because Bush was in charge he is to blame.

Bush didn't change US policy towards Bin Laden. Carter told the Shah to back off.

Quote:

And that would have put an end to the anti-Shah anti-American movement in Iran? Right. Keep dreaming.

No but Khomen would have been gone. Khomeni was the worst possible leader.

Quote:

Ford meant by the statement that the Poles did not consider themselves conquered by the Soviets that they hadn't given up.l

Reagan would not have allowed Khomeni to just come to Iran.

And there was no Taliban when Reagan was president.

Quote:

When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.

Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.

L: Iranian terrorists who held 52 Americans hostage in 1979 bragged that a U.S. led by Jimmy Carter could not 'do a damn thing' about it. R: Wreckage of Carter's failed hostage rescue.
This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.

According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Kho-meini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."

The mullahs hated the shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society. Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.

Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow. And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.

On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."

Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.

When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."

Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.

Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.

According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

The shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the shah permanent asylum. Carter's response was: "F*** the shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."

In October 1979, the shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.

If the shah remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.

Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.

Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.

It was Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon. And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.

The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.

And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."

Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.

The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."

Quite simply, we concur.

http://ibdeditorial.com/Special3.aspx

and look here:

Quote:

In 1979, when the revolutionary regime in Tehran was lashing out at the US administration for its attempts to save the Shah government, the leader of the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, was in contact, from his residence in Paris, with the Carter administration through a permanent back channel to ensure that the US had accepted the revolution and that it was prepared to continue an arms supply relationship with the new government in Tehran.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/02/02/10101123.html

Case closed.

and Carter stops the sail of weapons to the Shah but allows Khomeni to buy them? WTF

Quote:

The Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran. A ban imposed on the sale of arms and materiel to Iran, imposed in 1978, was lifted, and a US presidential �finding�, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954, was dusted up to reaffirm Washington�s commitment to defending Iran against Soviet or other threats.

Also to symboliZe support for the mullas, President Carter initially rejected a visa application for the exiled Shah to travel to New York for medical treatment.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=53664&d=30&m=10&y=2004

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject:

http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the Shah had problems, but 1979 everything changed

Things were changing well before then. Nixon didn't recognize it, Ford didn't recognize it, and Carter didn't recognize it. Carter caught the lit end of the match.

Quote:

It's the same as saying 9/11 was a turning point and because Bush was in charge he is to blame.

Bush didn't change US policy towards Bin Laden. Carter told the Shah to back off.

And the Shah was Carter's puppet? Oh no! No more American rubber bullets! The reign is over!

Quote:

And that would have put an end to the anti-Shah anti-American movement in Iran? Right. Keep dreaming.

No but Khomen would have been gone. Khomeni was the worst possible leader.

And how do you know that? You were friends with all the Muslim clerics in Iran? And Khomeni was the worst possible one. Sure Joo. Whatever.

Quote:

Reagan would not have allowed Khomeni to just come to Iran.

But he did sell him weapons. Hmm, which one is worse? Oh, but wait. He also sold Saddam chemical weapons to use on the Iranians. So two wrongs make a right. Right, Joo?

Quote:

And there was no Taliban when Reagan was president.

potato potatoe

Read your own posts for a change.

Quote:

And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban.

Quote:

In October 1979, the shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.

If the shah remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.

I suppose it's Carter's fault the Shah died?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject:

http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/enfantprovocateur.htm

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 1 of 6

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe