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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (69759)	11/13/2005 3:15:41 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

The Iran-Arms-Hostage deals were pretty well substantiated though the case was never fully investigated or tried so iron-clad proof was not obtained. But if you read the history it's pretty obvious what Reagan's people did. Out of Iran-Contra (thanks to John Kerry's investigations) came the revelation that the Reaganites had been selling and trading arms to Iran and funneling profits to the Contras, some of which, in turn used to buy cocaine. Reaganites sent arms to Iran in order to try and get back kidnapped CIA agent Buckley (but he was dead by then), they traded arms to Iran for illegal Contra money and they traded more arms with Iran to get them to hold off on releasing the hostages until Carter was out of office. The only leverage the Reaganites had over Carter's people was promises to send bigger and bigger arms shipments to Iran so they used that. Remember, the Shah had bought US weapon systems so Iran was desperate for US spare parts and ammo. Reaganites were worried Carter might spring the hostages right before the election so they sent their people to Iran and coaxed the Ayatollah types to wait. I recently read a book where sources were written about who knew Reaganites had bribed the Iranians not to release the hostages. But it was mainly part of a larger arms deal. Fox News's hero Ollie North shipped a ton of weapons to Iran, which by the way, was illegal. Of course we were also arming Saddam Hussein on the other side by then.

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (69759)	11/13/2005 3:21:41 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Carter was not responsible for the fall of the Shah. True, he could have invaded Iran and stopped the takeover, but we were really poorly equipped to do that in those days, still licking our wounds from Vietnam and deeply in debt. The Soviets also stood in our way. They had interests in Iran. The Shah's fall was in progress well before Carter came into power. In fact the middle east was ready to explode before Carter came in. It was about both oil money (Arab nations wanting a much bigger share of it) and Islamic fundamentalism. I recommend you read the book THE PRIZE which is a history of the oil business. There you will see that the Shah was only holding onto power by brutally supressing his opponents, and was spending so much money on his own super lavish lifestyle that it was a grave insult to his own people. The Iranian situation is really tragic, but there is no one administration you can blame for it. Various blame can go to Nxon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, then later to GW Bush. But mainly it was the Shah's own fault. GW's latest move in Iraq proved to doom the Iranian moderates. Now the country is back in the hands of far rightwing religious zealots. Just as bad as the Ayatollah.

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (69759)	11/13/2005 3:41:16 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

On the fall of the Shah, I'm looking at THE PRIZE now and see that Gerald Ford had a bitter argument with The Shah who refused to cooperate with the US on bringing down oil prices. The Shah was a meglomaniac and had bought so many US weapons systems that he was a huge military power. He was supposed to be able to fully defend himself. But he was way too selfish, greedy and ostentacious and his secret police were really brutal on anyone who criticized him. Secretary SImon called the Shah "a nut" and the US gradually lost all control over him. ANyway, when Carter came in it was only a matter of time before revolution broke out in Iran, and the Shah would not let us control or help him. Then came the big OPEC rebellion. Let ma ask you this too. If Reaganites had a better plan for how to deal with Iran, why didn't they use it, instead of just sending them arms? Did Reagan invade Iran and supplant the Ayotollah? Nope. Never even considered it.