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 (14391)	12/5/2004 12:08:15 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

>> How does the embargo Carter put on Iran fit into your thinking? Simple. Iran feels the pressure from embargo, war, etc and is forced to make nice and release the hostages and stop calling US the Great Satan and so on. Why is this hard to see? >> Next where is the evidence the Shah wanted an empire stretching to the Med? That would take too long to explain. The short answer is that Shah was not planning to invade the countries you name. Rather he wanted to project power in more or less the same way that US does. He had already paid for some naval base rights in the Mediterranean and if you look at the planned purchases for the navy, it becomes quite obvious that he was trying to transform Iran from a land power to a sea power...but this really is not as related to the discussion as the fact that US did support the Islamic revolution (at least passively). It really is a matter of public record and not just form some newspaper or magazine but also from books and memoirs written by Shah, interviews with Brzezinski, former US ambassadors, etc. I just don't have the time to put together a bibliography for you. If you are interested, I am sure you can dig into this further. >> This whole view of Carter-Brzezinski...if they were that smart and competent, getting the hostages released would have been a snap. Yes. IF they were competent, they could have. But then again, if they were smart, they would not have gotten into that mess in the first place. But that does not mean they did not try. Anyway, do you have any evidence that Brzezinski is lying when he says he lured the Soviets into Afghanistan or when both Brzezinski and Haig say the gave the ok to Saddam to invade Iran?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (14391)	12/5/2004 11:03:06 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

I remember the term used by Brzezinski was "Green Belt" which is sometimes spelt "greenbelt" on the net. In a recent article Amir Taheri who is a well respected syndicated writer had this to say: "Carter had decided to support Khomeini in the context of the so-called "Green Belt" strategy developed by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. That strategy was based on the assumption that the United States and its allies were unable to contain the Soviet Union, then expanding its zone of influence into Africa, the Indian Ocean region and, through left-leaning regimes, in Latin America. To counter that expanding threat, Brzezinski envisaged the creation of a string of Islamic allies that, for religious and political reasons, would prefer the United States against the "godless" Soviet empire..." BTW, this article was posted to me a while back on FADG by michael-90210 who is on my ignore list, so I have not commented on it. Of course Brzezinski is careful not to discuss his disastrous plan these days, so information is not so easy to come by. For example at a speech about Iran at CFR (council on foreign relations) Voice of America asked him about this and the moderator ignored the question all together so as not to embarrass Brzezinski: QUESTIONER: Thank you. My name is Mahtab Farid. I'm from Voice of America Persian Service. Mr. Brzezinski, I'd like to get your reaction on this editorial newspaper. It's printed in Persian in Los Angeles on Friday, July 16 edition. There is an editorial--I'm going to just read two lines, the exact translation. It says, "Your greenbelt has bended the Iranian people's back," meaning basically in this editorial it criticizes your policy towards Iran to engage in a country which is called state sponsor of terrorism. Could you give us your reaction on that, please? FEINSTEIN: Why don't we just take one more question. You can google the topic under google.ca but the best information is contained within various books and memoirs of the people involved at the time. Sun Tzu