Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (60147)	8/13/2004 3:50:18 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793896

I know its popular to revise Carter as some kind of Mother Theresa type I don't view him as being so wonderful, its more viewing Kerry as being so bad. Carter and team setup the policy of supporting the insurgency in Afghanistan. He and his team also effected the fall of the Shah -> bringing the Mullah's to power in Iran. Afghanistan certainly helped Al-Qaida developed, but it could have developed without the insurgency, also the insurgency would have happened without US support. Even if it was put down you would have had a lot of radical Islamic fighters come out of it. If you also take in to account the fact that the support for the isnurgency helped bring down the Soviet empire I'm not sure I'm against that policy. As for Iran - Here you may have a better case but I'm not sure that the shah would have lasted anyway. I don't think Iran would have become moderate or democratic whatever our policy about the Shah from '76 on. Tim