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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (14389)	12/4/2004 10:39:48 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Do you really put effort into misrepresenting what I say or do you naturally misunderstand me? I have no interest in pursuing pointless debates if all you are interested in is twisting my words. You say "problem here is that in April 1980, the US was pre-occupied with getting the hostages freed." This is not a problem. It is exactly the point I made when I said "Carter-Brzezinski hoped that by enticing Saddam to invade Iran, Iranians will have no choice to make nice with the US so as to get the spare parts they badly needed to defend themselves." It should be obvious that meant freeing the hostages. As to your point about Shah being a US ally and an anti-communist, this is true. But Shah also wanted to move Iran into the 21st century. He had plans for creating an empire of his own that would range from the Indian ocean to the meditranean sea and beyond. Aside from such plan not sitting well with US, they also required Shah to create a more open and democratic environment and that would mean giving communists more freedom. On top of all this, while a benign dictator, Shah was not popular (though he also wasn't hated either). All these meant that a fundamentalist religious regime had many appeals. Finally, Shah did not have an ideological appeal. Therefore Iran would not be a source of inspiration for uprisings within the southern soviet republics. Islam on the other hand could be counted on to create problems in the Soviet empire from Chechnya to Turkamanistan and beyond. Carter and Co kept their eyes on the "rewards" while being blind to the perils. The should have been satified with the ally they had rather than being greedy...but such is the nature of immorality; it often backfires. ST