|
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 02, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Alright, I stuck up for Joo earlier in the thread, so I won't feel too bad about this:
Joo,
Firstly, no, Khomeini is not strictly Carter's fault. It's kind of cheeky that you would even raise the issue in a partisan framework, because wasn't Reagan the guy who funded Khomeini to get the hostages back?
Secondly, FDR was not liberal? WTF?
Lastly, this is the year, Joo. This is the year a liberal Democrat takes the White House. Look at the damned polls. McCain is going to be able to attract some votes and carry some states, but this one is going to the Democrat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Alright, I stuck up for Joo earlier in the thread, so I won't feel too bad about this:
Joo,
Firstly, no, Khomeini is not strictly Carter's fault. It's kind of cheeky that you would even raise the issue in a partisan framework, because wasn't Reagan the guy who funded Khomeini to get the hostages back?
Secondly, FDR was not liberal? WTF?
Lastly, this is the year, Joo. This is the year a liberal Democrat takes the White House. Look at the damned polls. McCain is going to be able to attract some votes and carry some states, but this one is going to the Democrat. |
Arms for hostages is a stupid policy, agreed but nothing compared with allowing Khomeni to come to power.
Khomeni was vulnerable in France . No one can deny that.
Carter did not support the Shah. and the result was.
<a href="http://ads.townhall.com/accipiter/adclick/CID=00013ddc6d4b0d8d00000000/site=TOWNHALL/area=Townhall.Web/POSITION=TOWN_RECT/AAMGEOIP=166.104.204.65"> <img src="http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/creative/NewHouse2.swf" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"> </a>
Giving radical Islam its start
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, January 29, 2007
| Quote: |
n 1979, Qutb�s goal was achieved when the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran. The importance of the Khomeini revolution is that it demonstrated the viability of the Islamic theocracy in the modern age. And to this day post-Khomeini Iran provides a viable model of what the Islamic radicals hope to achieve throughout the Muslim world.
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.
Khomeini�s ascent to power was aided by the policies of Jimmy Carter and his allies on the political left. Carter was elected president in 1976 by stressing his support for human rights. From the time he took office, the left contrasted Carter�s rights doctrine with the Shah�s practices. The left denounced the Shah as a vicious and corrupt dictator, highlighting and in some cases magnifying his misdeeds. Left-leaning officials such as Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, UN envoy Andrew Young, and State Department human rights officer Patricia Derian pressed Carter to sever America�s longstanding alliance with the Shah. Eventually Carter came to agree with his liberal advisers that he could not in good conscience support the Shah.
When the Shah moved to arrest mullahs who called for his overthrow, leftists in America and Europe denounced these actions. Former diplomat George Ball called on the U.S. government to curtail the Shah�s exercise of power. Acceding to this pressure, Carter called for the release of political prisoners and warned the Shah not to use force against the demonstrators in the streets.
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.�
As the resistance gained momentum and the Shah�s position weakened, he looked to the United States government to help him. Carter aide Gary Sick reports that the Shah discovered many enemies, and few friends, in the Carter administration. Increasingly paranoid, the Shah pleaded with the United States to help him stay in power. Carter refused. Deprived of his last hope, with the Persian rug pulled out from under him, the Shah decided to abdicate. The Carter administration encouraged him to do so, and the cultural left celebrated his departure. The result, of course, was Khomeini.
The Carter administration�s role in assisting with the downfall of the Shah is one of America�s great foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century. In trying to get rid of the bad guy, Carter got the worse guy. His failure, as former Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, was the result of being �unable to distinguish between America�s friends and enemies.� Carter does not deserve sole discredit for these actions. This intellectual framework that shaped Carter�s misguided strategy was supplied by the political left.
By aiding the Shah�s ouster and with Khomeini�s consolidation of power, the left collaborated in giving radical Islam its greatest victory in the modern era. Incredibly this same cast of characters who lost Iran wants to block Bush�s policies in Iraq. In doing so they are playing with fire. The radical Muslims who already control Iran are trying to bring a second major state, Iraq, into their orbit. Then, they have said, they will target Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Yes, Iraq maybe a mess but in trying to get out of a bad situation, we don�t want to create a worse situation. Insurgency and sectarian strife is dangerous, but Iraq in the hands of Iranian fanatics or Al Qaeda fanatics is far more dangerous. America doesn�t need more foolish advice from Jimmy Carter. What it needs from him is an apology. |
2. If candidate is strong on National defense then they are not a liberal - not all the way. FDR was strong on national defense.
3. McCain is doing better now then Bush was in 2004 at around this time.
4. Al Gore running as a " New Democrat "could not win in 2000 with peace and prosperity going for him that tells us that Democrats always will have a tough time. In 2000 security was not on the ballot either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
2. If candidate is strong on National defense then they are not a liberal - not all the way. FDR was strong on national defense.
|
Sorry, but this is just a peculiar, idiosyncratic definition of 'liberal'.
There was a time in the very recent past when the Democrats were accused of being the War Party--it was an unfair accusation, but was refering to World War I, World War II and Korea...so by the time Vietnam came along, the non-interventionist win of the Republicans complained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not all posters are equally reasonable on all subjects. Ya-ta boy is a nice poster, but he's incapable of discussing anything to do with Ron Paul. |
I agree with your larger point, however.
Actually, I think I was rather sane about discussing RP when his supporters first started talking about him here (after I Wikied him up and found out who he was). |
Yeah, sorry for singling you out there but it's something I've noticed with a lot of posters. I won't talk to igtg about zionism for example either (plus I don't know anything about zionism). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back to the subject, this has always been the largest reason for me liking Obama and it's interesting to see him mention it in an interview today:
| Quote: |
One of the things that I've known about myself for a long time," he said, "is that, in difficult or stressful moments, I don't get rattled, and I don't get rattled during campaigns. I don't get rattled when things are up ... and I don't get too low when things are down.
"Part of the problem that we've seen historically when presidents make bad decisions is either they're ideologically driven � I would argue that that's what happened with George Bush," he said. "Or, oftentimes, it's driven by politics." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm just waiting for someone to compare Obama to the President on 24. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I won't talk to igtg about zionism for example either |
Oppose RP and you end up in IGTG's category. There is something deeply ironic in that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
For all those who think the Shah was worse than Khomeni
| Quote: |
| Advisers to the Shah recommended executing the ayatollah perhaps, an accidental death. The Shah refused and sent Khomeini into exile to Turkey. "Former royalist officials now living in London, Paris and Los Angeles still grumble about the decision not to kill Khomeini in 1964."[40] |
Imagine this the Shah let Khomeni go. Khomeni would have never shown mercy to one of his enemies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
The question, from a US foreign-policy standpoint, is not whether the Shah was worse than Khomeini, but whether either of them was worse than Mosaddeq. (Hint: yes, yes, yes.) We didn't get to pick between the Shah and the Ayatollah. We got to pick between the democratically elected, moderate Mosaddeq government and the brutally repressive dictatorship of the Shah. We chose the latter.
I know you think that Jimmy Carter was somehow retroactively responsible for this, but he wasn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo you're losing here. Nobody's talking about who's morally superior b/w the Shah and Khomeini. Stay on point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| Joo you're losing here. Nobody's talking about who's morally superior b/w the Shah and Khomeini. Stay on point. |
| stillnotking wrote: |
The question, from a US foreign-policy standpoint, is not whether the Shah was worse than Khomeini, but whether either of them was worse than Mosaddeq. (Hint: yes, yes, yes.) We didn't get to pick between the Shah and the Ayatollah. We got to pick between the democratically elected, moderate Mosaddeq government and the brutally repressive dictatorship of the Shah. We chose the latter.
I know you think that Jimmy Carter was somehow retroactively responsible for this, but he wasn't. |
US messed up big in 1953, that doesn't excuse Jimmy Carter's negligence in 1978.
The Aytollah could have been killed easily before he came to Iran.
Jimmy Carter instead of being concerned about what the Shah was doing ought to have been concerned about what the Shah was against.
The strategic problems the US faces in the mideast today are the direct result of a Jimmy Carter's failure to act.
Instead of messing around he out to have been going after the enemy.
That is what happens when liberals are in charge of national security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Jimmy Carter instead of being concerned about what the Shah was doing ought to have been concerned about what the Shah was against.
|
The Shah was against ANYONE who opposed him. His greatest concern was not the Islamists but the Leftists. Carter was right not to support his dictatorship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sargx
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Less worry, more glory.
Blow em up. Problem solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Quote: |
Jimmy Carter instead of being concerned about what the Shah was doing ought to have been concerned about what the Shah was against.
|
The Shah was against ANYONE who opposed him. His greatest concern was not the Islamists but the Leftists. Carter was right not to support his dictatorship. |
The Shah let Khomeni live.
Carter was wrong the result was Khomeni , Khomeni was crueler than the Shah. |
|
| 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
