|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes, Joo, Carter was incompetent. He also gave away the Panama Canal for NOTHING. It was no accident that the movie wanted to give Charlie Wilson all the credit for the Afghan resistance: nobody likes Carter's Presidency nor wants to give its administration credit for it. Those four years were a black eye for the Democratic Party.
BUT, please explain to me how Bush is any more competent than Carter? And then, my second question, which addresses Ya-Ta's point above: shouldn't Bush be considered worse for promoting, condoning, and defending torture in our military? He did this against the advice of JAGs, Colin Powell, and the consensus military establishment.
Carter is an embarrassment, but Bush is a disgrace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
BUT, please explain to me how Bush is any more competent than Carter? And then, my second question, which addresses Ya-Ta's point above: shouldn't Bush be considered worse for promoting, condoning, and defending torture in our military? He did this against the advice of JAGs, Colin Powell, and the consensus military establishment. |
Bush�s Veto of Bill on C.I.A. Tactics Affirms His Legacy
| Quote: |
| Mr. Bush vetoed a bill that would have explicitly prohibited the agency from using interrogation methods like waterboarding, a technique in which restrained prisoners are threatened with drowning and that has been the subject of intense criticism at home and abroad. Many such techniques are prohibited by the military and law enforcement agencies. |
| Quote: |
Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that Al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland,� he said.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, disputed that assertion on Saturday. �As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have heard nothing to suggest that information obtained from enhanced interrogation techniques has prevented an imminent terrorist attack,� he said in a statement. |
It is decisions like this one that remind me that Bush really is a lousy president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that Al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland,� he said.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, disputed that assertion on Saturday. �As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have heard nothing to suggest that information obtained from enhanced interrogation techniques has prevented an imminent terrorist attack,� he said in a statement. |
It is decisions like this one that remind me that Bush really is a lousy president. |
Now, this I would agree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Carter was a pretty bad President, but in fairness, he inherited most of his disasters. Especially on Iran, which Joo persists in wanting to assign Carter sole responsibility for. The US "withdrawing its support" for the Shah did not precipitate the Iranian Revolution. The US installing the Shah as a puppet monarch in 1953 precipitated the Revolution. Iran was a kettle that came to a boil over twenty-five years, not three. |
could have gotten to Khomeni and supported the Shah .
Things didn't have to be the way they were. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, Joo, Carter was incompetent. He also gave away the Panama Canal for NOTHING. It was no accident that the movie wanted to give Charlie Wilson all the credit for the Afghan resistance: nobody likes Carter's Presidency nor wants to give its administration credit for it. Those four years were a black eye for the Democratic Party.
BUT, please explain to me how Bush is any more competent than Carter? And then, my second question, which addresses Ya-Ta's point above: shouldn't Bush be considered worse for promoting, condoning, and defending torture in our military? He did this against the advice of JAGs, Colin Powell, and the consensus military establishment.
Carter is an embarrassment, but Bush is a disgrace. |
a) Khomeni was more vunerable in France than Bin Laden in Tora Bora.
b) What was Carter thinking when he witheld support? (His advisor Andrew Young called Khomeni a saint? )
c) Iran is far more powerful than Al Qaeda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
could have gotten to Khomeni and supported the Shah .
|
As a point of question, how much support for continuing the Peacock Throne would there have been among the Iranian people in 1979? The impression I've always had was that the Shah wasn't very popular at all in Iran by the point. If that's true, I'm not sure how long the US could have kept on backing him.
Joo, respectfully, sometimes your worldview seems to dovetail with the more reductionist left-wing analyses, which assume that any dictator can be kept in power simply by the US president willing it so. The difference being, of course, that the reductionist lefties think that's a bad thing.
But I'm still interested in hearing about the Shah's popularity ratings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
(His advisor Andrew Young called Khomeni a saint? )
|
Joo, can you produce Young's comments in context? I'm not claiming to know what he meant, one way or another, I'd just like to read the whole speech containing the comments. Everything I can find on the internet is just that brief snippet, out of context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
could have gotten to Khomeni and supported the Shah .
|
As a point of question, how much support for continuing the Peacock Throne would there have been among the Iranian people in 1979? The impression I've always had was that the Shah wasn't very popular at all in Iran by the point. If that's true, I'm not sure how long the US could have kept on backing him.
Joo, respectfully, sometimes your worldview seems to dovetail with the more reductionist left-wing analyses, which assume that any dictator can be kept in power simply by the US president willing it so. The difference being, of course, that the reductionist lefties think that's a bad thing.
But I'm still interested in hearing about the Shah's popularity ratings. |
The US without a doubt could have gotten to Khomeni and probably a lot more.
This is what I have on the comments. I don't have them in any better context but many others aren't bothered by that . If there were a specific context I am sure someone would have added them in.
If I have any better context I will add it in.
| Quote: |
| American leaders were also supporting Khomeini. After the Pravda endorsement, Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, held a press conference where he reported on a trip to Iran and a Paris visit with Khomeini. He urged the US government to take no action to help the Shah so that Iran "could determine it's own fate." Clark played a behind the scenes role influencing members of Congress to not get involved in the crisis. Perhaps UN Ambassador Andrew Young best expressed the thinking of the left at the time when he stated that, if successful, Khomeini would "eventually be hailed as a saint." |
http://www.iranianvoice.org/article774.html
| Quote: |
Remember Jimmy Carter attending the Shah of Iran's New Year's Eve party just a year before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Teheran? Andrew Young, Mr. Carter's Ambassador to the United Nations, predicting Khomeini would go down in history as ''a saint''? The national vigil when television announced nightly the number of days Americans had been held hostage in Teheran? Ronald Reagan autographing a Bible for Khomeini? Robert McFarlane arriving in Teheran with a cake?
The images from the decade of Khomeini's rule still seem bizarre. Then there are the horrors: suicide bombers, child soldiers becoming martyrs, photographs of gaunt-faced hostages. Khomeini is dead, but his heirs and his revolution are entrenched in Teheran. |
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DC153AF935A15752C1A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The US without a doubt could have gotten to Khomeni and probably a lot more. |
Yes, but how feasible would it have been to keep the Peacock Throne up and running? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Andrew Young, Mr. Carter's Ambassador to the United Nations, predicting Khomeini would go down in history as ''a saint''? |
Again, do you have the context for that? Was it something like, "Khomeini will be remembered as a saint, because he really is a great man, so we should support him", or more like "Khomeini will be remembered as a saint by people who think like him, so it would be bad PR for us to thwart him". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The US without a doubt could have gotten to Khomeni and probably a lot more. |
Yes, but how feasible would it have been to keep the Peacock Throne up and running? |
Get Khomeni. He was the worst of all alternatives. As for the rest get the Shah or his sucessor to go after the Khomeni followers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Andrew Young, Mr. Carter's Ambassador to the United Nations, predicting Khomeini would go down in history as ''a saint''? |
Again, do you have the context for that? Was it something like, "Khomeini will be remembered as a saint, because he really is a great man, so we should support him", or more like "Khomeini will be remembered as a saint by people who think like him, so it would be bad PR for us to thwart him". |
I don't even see the NY Times/ Robin Wright putting it into context. I would guess if there was some other context they would have added it in.
I would also guess that he meant that Andrew Young thought he would be a good leader so that Khomeni getting power was actually a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One should remember that it was not clear that Khomeini would become leader of Iran. Hindsight is 20/20. The iranian revolution just didn't end when the Shah left the country, there was a power struggle following that. There were other leaders such as Mehdi Barzargan, the first Prime Minister following the Revolution, and Abol-hassan Banisadr, the first President of post-shah Iran. Khomeini outwitted them politically and marginalized them. I really don't think any Western leader thought Khomeini would end up running Iran when he left Paris. Remember, a theocracy was unheard of at that point.
I don't mean to defend Carter, but I don't think any other President would have been more pro-active in regards to Khomeini up until the US Embassy takeover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
One should remember that it was not clear that Khomeini would become leader of Iran. Hindsight is 20/20. The iranian revolution just didn't end when the Shah left the country, there was a power struggle following that. There were other leaders such as Mehdi Barzargan, the first Prime Minister following the Revolution, and Abol-hassan Banisadr, the first President of post-shah Iran. Khomeini outwitted them politically and marginalized them. I really don't think any Western leader thought Khomeini would end up running Iran when he left Paris. Remember, a theocracy was unheard of at that point.
I don't mean to defend Carter, but I don't think any other President would have been more pro-active in regards to Khomeini up until the US Embassy takeover. |
How about Bush II?
See what the US did last year in Somalia and the the kidnapping in Italy.
| Quote: |
Islamists abandon Somali capital
Ethiopian-backed government troops are close to Mogadishu
Islamist fighters have left the Somali capital as government forces backed by Ethiopian troops advance on the city.
As they withdrew, gunfire was heard and armed supporters of the city's warlords began taking control of key faciliti |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6213499.stm
| Quote: |
Italy orders CIA kidnapping trial
An Italian judge has ordered 26 US citizens - most of them CIA agents - to stand trial over the kidnap of an Egyptian cleric in Milan in 2003. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6368269.stm
Remember Iran killed the Shah's successor when he got to France and more amazingly France didn't do anything about it.
This shows the US could have gotten Khomeni and probably gotten away with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You missed my point. I wasn't saying the US was afraid to use force against Khomeini; it just didn't consider Khomeini to be a significant threat to its interests up until the events of November 4th, 1979. I said up until the point of the Embassy takeover, not afterwards. I would not argue that another President would have done the same as Carter following that event. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
