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: Ilaine who wrote (204597)	9/28/2006 3:52:54 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| 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." Step back and take a better look at the big picture. I'd suggest that you stop thinking in terms of whether we could have dried the river bed by damming the river and instead consider ways to have diverted the flow. If Carter did, in fact, decide that the standing in the way of a people who wanted to be ruled by Islamic rule was neither good policy nor possible, then it now clearly appears from the Iraqi debacle that he was right. You can argue all day about how we could have "stopped" it but the fact is that when you have to use deadly force to keep a people in check, they'll eventually grow stronger and outlast you. As I've said before, the best cure for a people who want to be ruled by unenlightened, intolerant leaders is...rule by intolerant leaders. On a smaller scale, that's a lesson we're currently relearning in America. Ed

To: Ilaine who wrote (204597)	9/28/2006 4:18:01 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

China attacks U.S. satellites! telegraph.co.uk

To: Ilaine who wrote (204597)	9/28/2006 4:31:46 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>" I am sure that this craven, dishonorable behavior encouraged Islamists to think we're degenerate weaklings. "<< Well, we sure cleared that up in the 80s by arming, training and providing the mujahadeen with all that help in Afghanistan. We certainly got rid of those Afghani atheistic commie types and that certainly stopped any further thinking on the Islamist's part that we were "degenerate weaklings". Thank god for Reagan. And regarding >>" Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's puppet master in foreign policy "<< it is a darn good thing we don't have any pictures of him shaking hands with Saddam after we delivered to him his latest WMD supply. Thank god for Reagan. And oh btw, what kind of weapons were we trying to give to Islamic Iran for hostages to convince them that we were not "degenerate weaklings". Thank god for Reagan. Should I mention the strong actions we took after the 102 dead marines in Lebanon?...Naah, but thank god for Reagan.

To: Ilaine who wrote (204597)	9/29/2006 9:39:39 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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. The problem, IMO, was that the Shah had just become such a megalo-maniac, that his behavior made it REALLY difficult to justify defending him.. And isn't this where we currently find ourselves, once again, with regard to the Saudis and Kuwaitis?? Hawk