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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (204590)	9/28/2006 3:34:27 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Carter pressured the Shah of Iran to recognize more human rights liberalize Iran, which wasn't a bad idea, but when the Islamic Revolution tried to overthrow the Shah, despite the fact that Carter kept promising assistance, it was never given, and we not only didn't help the Shah, we abandoned him and refused to even allow him into the country. I am sure that this craven, dishonorable behavior encouraged Islamists to think we're degenerate weaklings. Whatever hateful I may say about Carter, it goes double for Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's puppet master in foreign policy.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (204590)	9/28/2006 5:07:16 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

"I was not even aware that we'd had possession of Iran and had been in a position to "surrender it." Of course we owned Iran Ed. The puppet Shah we installed there and his Savak secret police were the reasons FOR the Iranian revolution that ALLOWED the Islamists to take over. But we didn't SURRENDER it, we lost it from our own greed, arrogance an incompetence. Our corporations had an uholy alliance with the Shah, and our intelligence services had NO CLUE that the situtaion there was that unstable.