PDA

View Full Version : Blast from The Past : Desert One (under Jimmy Carter)




lynnf
09-19-2010, 05:59 PM
Carter is on 60 minutes tonight

be sure to read the comment after the below link: guess someone didn't tell him about what was what, or he didn't listen if they did.


http://www.ky3.com/sns-ap-jimmycarterdiary,0,6782235.story

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Jimmy Carter's new book says the failed Iran hostage rescue played a major role in his 1980 defeat and he was hurt by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's bid for the

--------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT after the above:

Slodkie at 5:19 PM September 19, 2010



I remember the silence in the mess hall at PNCOC. I asked the man at my table why everything was so quiet and his reply was a cryptic whisper: "Listen." That is when I learned of the tragedy at "Desert One."


Jimmy Carter's decisions including a ridiculous level of operational security, insistence on participation by all services, and unnecessary operational restrictions put the lives of those men in danger. The detachments did not train together until the last minute meant that Air Force personnel trained in the jungle while Army personnel trained in North Carolina. The insistence that all services have detachments involved nearly doomed the mission from the start because there were few Navy Helicopter pilots trained for long over ground mission. Because of there were not enough contingency aircraft (extra helicopters) the mission ended and the devastating crash as "Desert One" was actually after the mission ended and a recall order was issued.


I see similar types of political constraints in effect in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best thing I can say about Jimmy Carter is that because of him Obama is not the worst president we have had.


An article in the Air Force Magazine details these failures. < http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1999/January%201999/0199desertone.aspx >

silus
09-19-2010, 06:24 PM
Where is the evidence of all these restrictions he mandated? And where were the military leaders in all this?

lynnf
09-19-2010, 06:46 PM
Where is the evidence of all these restrictions he mandated? And where were the military leaders in all this?


you expect evidence from a secret military operation? how naive.

the leaders were taking orders from their Commander in Chief.



lynn

lester1/2jr
09-19-2010, 06:50 PM
I know alot of people, particularly conservatives, don't like Carter but his movie "man from the Plains" is pretty awesome and between the bible belt populism and pro palestine / mid east peace sentiment its almost paleo ish.

most of it is about his book which was somewhat controversial a few years ago re:israel/ Palestine.

klamath
09-19-2010, 07:12 PM
Carter was not a bad guy. His only fault with that mission was his overall disinterest in being CNC of the military. Unfortunately when Carter called upon the military to perform a mission the neglect came back to bite him. The failures of the mission outlined in the OP are well documented.

silus
09-19-2010, 10:21 PM
you expect evidence from a secret military operation? how naive.

the leaders were taking orders from their Commander in Chief.
lynn
Uh, if there is no evidence, then how would the thread starter make these claims in the first place? You make no sense.

lynnf
09-21-2010, 02:42 AM
speak of the devil....... he pops up this week just in time......


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/119779-carter-post-white-house-role-probably-superior-to-other-ex-presidents

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents," he told NBC News in an interview to air Monday night.

lynnf
09-21-2010, 02:51 AM
Uh, if there is no evidence, then how would the thread starter make these claims in the first place? You make no sense.

make sense of this: I didn't say there was no evidence.

any real evidence will be classified and therefore inaccessible.

the witness referred to in the op, even though he reports what he saw, is not an eyewitness to the actual events of making/taking orders from the top, so does not therefore provide the evidence that you seek.

lynn

cindy25
09-21-2010, 03:00 AM
Carter at least stands up to Israel. not a good president but far from the worst.

have you heard of FDR, Wilson, Truman, LBJ, W, ?

invisible
09-21-2010, 04:45 AM
Carter was awful on domestic policy (inflation, DOE, etc), but he's the only president in my lifetime that at least kept us out of war. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Aratus
09-21-2010, 08:05 AM
admittedly jimmy carter did more good for humanity AFTER leaving the white house
than during his term in office... however by not correctly qualifying his self, he seems
to be trying to pull rank on quite a few of our influencial and decisive sitting presidents!

Stary Hickory
09-21-2010, 10:02 AM
Carter was awful on domestic policy (inflation, DOE, etc), but he's the only president in my lifetime that at least kept us out of war. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Reagan kept us out of war.

invisible
09-21-2010, 10:22 AM
Reagan kept us out of war.

If I remember (and spell, lol) correctly, he had us involved (either overtly or covertly) militarily in Grenada, Guatamaula, Angola, El Salvador and Lebanon. Also see Contras and Ollie North.

erowe1
09-21-2010, 10:33 AM
I wonder what criteria that commenter could have that would make Carter worse than W.

erowe1
09-21-2010, 10:41 AM
Also see Contras and Ollie North.

If intervening by giving aid to foreign forces is what you mean by being in a war, then Carter did as well in Afghanistan.

But I agree with your general point that he was less interventionist than any other president for a long time.

pcosmar
09-21-2010, 10:54 AM
Considering that much is classified and the truth of the matter is hidden, I might remind folks that there were other shenanigans going on at the same time.
That the failure of the "rescue" was deliberate is a distinct possibility.

There were talks with the Iranians and a refusal to release hostages till Reagan was elected.
There were bribes (arms for hostages) and Bush's daddy (CIA director) was intimately involved.

I am disappointed with Carter, but won't give him total blame for this.

And don't forget why the Iranians were pissed in the first place. (Ajax)
:cool:

silus
09-22-2010, 01:59 AM
make sense of this: I didn't say there was no evidence.

any real evidence will be classified and therefore inaccessible.

the witness referred to in the op, even though he reports what he saw, is not an eyewitness to the actual events of making/taking orders from the top, so does not therefore provide the evidence that you seek.

lynn
1. Evidence does not have to be eye-witness.

2. Evidence and "accessible evidence" are synonymous in our discussion. Of course no one is referring to evidence no one can access. :rolleyes:

John Basiglone
09-22-2010, 05:35 AM
So you think this guy is just some country gentleman who served honorably, looking out for U.S. interests?

First of all, he is CFR, shouldn't that tell you something. The Shah of Iran was the real stabilizing force in the Middle East. At that time, we were very close allies. The Shah was westernizing Iran, liberalizing restrictions on the citizens, allowing women to be more independent, not the slaves of fanatical religious leaders. The Ayatollah and his rabble did not like the Shah's reforms as they eroded the power and iron fist of the tyrannical religious leaders.

Carter and his admin, let it be known that the Shah was on his own and the U.S. would no longer support his regime; this was the one of the prime reasons the fanatics took power in Iran; the rest is history, TERROR gained a foothold and a base of operation from that point through today.

Look, we can go on and on about Carter, he knew Pol Pot was killing 3 million in Cambodia, yeah, "Mr. Humanitarian" who shunned the Shah, allowed some third rate meglomaniac to systematically kill off generations of Cambodians. During his limp wristed term, the Soviets were marching on the world, essentially taking a country a year. Carter decimated our military, under Carter military morale was at an all time low.

Do you know of or remember the 21% prime interest rates, where our economy was nosediving.

Finally, Carter's is also the lopp who gave away the Panama Canal, not to mention the extra $40 million of our tax dollars to sweeten the deal. Today, the Chinese Operate the Panama Canal, where they are now mandating that a Chinese pilot must be at the helm of every ship passing through the canal that was ours in perpetuity until Carter decided to give away. Oh, of course, Brezneski was his right hand man who advised the dopey country bumpkin through his term in the White House. Yeah the same Brezenski who started the Tri Lateral Commission. The same guy who has been advising the current occupant of the Oval Office, only the current occupant is "Carter on Steroids".

Carter just was doing his part for one-world-government, just as the others that followed. The only road block to a totalitarian globalist state was the U.S., they have been effectively destroying our country one step at a time. America is gone, it is only a couple years before the iron fist falls on our butts.

Sure the time is soon, as the American people are now nothing but sheep for the slaughter. You need look no farther than the posts in this thread, most of you ignorant fools know nothing of the damage this man did during his term.

erowe1
09-22-2010, 07:11 AM
Carter and his admin, let it be known that the Shah was on his own and the U.S. would no longer support his regime; this was the one of the prime reasons the fanatics took power in Iran; the rest is history, TERROR gained a foothold and a base of operation from that point through today.

Look, we can go on and on about Carter, he knew Pol Pot was killing 3 million in Cambodia, yeah, "Mr. Humanitarian" who shunned the Shah, allowed some third rate meglomaniac to systematically kill off generations of Cambodians. During his limp wristed term, the Soviets were marching on the world, essentially taking a country a year. Carter decimated our military, under Carter military morale was at an all time low.


I get some of your complaints. But here it looks like you're complaining that he wasn't enough of an interventionist.

Are you suggesting that he should have intervened more in support of the Shah, intervened more against Pol Pot, been more of a cold warrior against the USSR, and spent more tax payers' money on the military?

pcosmar
09-22-2010, 09:41 AM
So you think this guy is just some country gentleman who served honorably, looking out for U.S. interests?
Nope. Not defending Carter at all. I was disappointed at several things.


The Shah of Iran was the real stabilizing force in the Middle East. At that time, we were very close allies.
:confused:
You might want to check your revisionist history at the door.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-operation-ajax.htm

YouTube - C.I.A. Blowback - Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1SYWi2GYWI)

You might also want to research SAVAK which was funded and supported by the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

This shit started long before Carter.

John Basiglone
09-23-2010, 01:37 AM
Answer this question honestly, are the Iranian people better off now under the rule of the Ayatollah and his Shiite rule or were they better off during the 1970s up until the revolution. In the 70s, Iranian students were everywhere in American universities. Iranian businessmen were starting their own privately owned businesses and industries. There were no terrorist attacks against the United States. Look at your video clips, there were produced by PBS, the bastion and primary outlet for liberal thought, sure they weren't slanted against the right wing supported Shah.

If the Shah was not in power, the U.S.S.R. would have had an early foothold in the middle east, that would have ultimately spread throughout the region, they already had Egypt in their back pocket and had their sights on the entire middle east. With control of the Middle East, the Soviets would have filled their coffers from oil revenue and controlled the oil supply lines that were vital to Europe. The Soviets would have been able to build a bigger war machine and stayed financially solvent in perpetuity.

Almost every Iranian that has immigrated to the United States has related to me, the Shah as a ruler was not that bad, where they would be happy to live in Iran under the Shah's rule, than the current situation and rulers in Iran now.

Blow back my ass, the Iranian people or should I say Shiite rulers hate the United States because of the American support and protection of Israel. If you don't think they hate us because of our financial and militaristic support of Israel, then I sure you still wait for Santa to come down your chimney on Christmas morning.



http:////t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJeRWu1oiPDNOpM-LHN98MY6WTPIh3JPR--yKFLDrFsJP5brY&t=1&usg=__FcXCv2ErDAX2TeWXopVe2Sjzdpo=

Also, if you don't think protecting our interests in the oil fields or energy supply lines is important and necessary, then I guess you live on a farm in an Amish community or maybe you are situated like Anderson Cooper and are an heir to a vast fortune, a fortune so large, $10 or $15 a gallon gasoline is of no consequence.

It is well known, that Carter pulled the rug out on the Shah, where the results were the control of Iran by an iron-fisted regime, a regime that has been more ruthless and controlling than the Shah during his most totalitarian and autocratic period of rule. The Shah was and had been loosening up on his draconian style of rule and was making reforms to overturn and alleviate much of the overbearing rules and dictates of Sharia Law. Under Sharia Law, the women of Iran are nothing but chattel, the Shah was moving in a positive direction away from Sharia Law.

Every major move by Carter was to weaken the United States, to bring us down, so as to even the balance sheet in an effort to incrementally bring about the Novos Ordo Seclorum. Carter Bush I, Bush II, Clinton have been loyal vassals to their globalist masters, where they have intentionally set the stage for the final execution of Lady Liberty, just like matadors sticking banderrillas in the back of the bull, setting it up for the final sword thrust. Recently, it looks as though the global elite, the real shot callers are becoming impatient and want their latest servant to finish the work by his predecessors. Carter was marching to the tune whispered in his ears by his chief adviser and direct puppet master, Z. Brzezinski.


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Carter-Admin.-Supporting-Iranian-Terrorist-Thugs.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cristyli.com/%3Fcat%3D10%26paged%3D3&usg=__U3-LclxPZoDmS8bG-Al6HsXR6Ho=&h=287&w=511&sz=38&hl=en&start=54&zoom=1&tbnid=d8Ekd8gRxwFdpM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=168&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dzbigniew%2Bbrzezinski%26um%3D1%26hl%3 Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D689%26tbs%3Disch: 10%2C929&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1044&vpy=414&dur=1915&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=155&ty=139&ei=UAObTLLWJoe8sAPLsqyVBA&oei=wQKbTOngBIX6swOIodCHBA&esq=7&page=3&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:54&biw=1440&bih=689


//t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJeRWu1oiPDNOpM-LHN98MY6WTPIh3JPR--yKFLDrFsJP5brY&t=1&usg=__FcXCv2ErDAX2TeWXopVe2Sjzdpo=

pcosmar
09-23-2010, 01:55 AM
Blow back my ass, the Iranian people or should I say Shiite rulers hate the United States because of the American support and protection of Israel.




So you are basically saying that Ron Paul is full of shit and that the Iranians loved having a murderous dictator imposed on them by the US so that Oil Companies could profit?

John Basiglone
09-23-2010, 02:00 AM
Answer this question honestly, are the Iranian people better off now under the rule of the Ayatollah and his Shiite rule or were they better off during the 1970s up until the revolution. In the 70s, Iranian students were everywhere in American universities. Iranian businessmen were starting their own privately owned businesses and industries. There were no terrorist attacks against the United States. Look at your video clips, there were produced by PBS, the bastion and primary outlet for liberal thought, sure they weren't slanted against the right wing supported Shah.

If the Shah was not in power, the U.S.S.R. would have had an early foothold in the middle east, that would have ultimately spread throughout the region, they already had Egypt in their back pocket and had their sights on the entire middle east. With control of the Middle East, the Soviets would have filled their coffers from oil revenue and controlled the oil supply lines that were vital to Europe. The Soviets would have been able to build a bigger war machine and stayed financially solvent in perpetuity.

Almost every Iranian that has immigrated to the United States has related to me, the Shah as a ruler was not that bad, where they would be happy to live in Iran under the Shah's rule, than the current situation and rulers in Iran now.

Blow back my ass, the Iranian people or should I say Shiite rulers hate the United States because of the American support and protection of Israel. If you don't think they hate us because of our financial and militaristic support of Israel, then I sure you still wait for Santa to come down your chimney on Christmas morning.

Also, if you don't think protecting our interests in the oil fields or energy supply lines is important and necessary, then I guess you live on a farm in an Amish community or maybe you are situated like Anderson Cooper and are an heir to a vast fortune, a fortune so large, $10 or $15 a gallon gasoline is of no consequence.

It is well known, that Carter pulled the rug out on the Shah, where the results were the control of Iran by an iron-fisted regime, a regime that has been more ruthless and controlling than the Shah during his most totalitarian and autocratic period of rule. The Shah was and had been loosening up on his draconian style of rule and was making reforms to overturn and alleviate much of the overbearing rules and dictates of Sharia Law. Under Sharia Law, the women of Iran are nothing but chattel, the Shah was moving in a positive direction away from Sharia Law.

Every major move by Carter was to weaken the United States, to bring us down, so as to even the balance sheet in an effort to incrementally bring about the Novos Ordo Seclorum. Carter Bush I, Bush II, Clinton have been loyal vassals to their globalist masters, where they have intentionally set the stage for the final execution of Lady Liberty, just like matadors sticking banderrillas in the back of the bull, setting it up for the final sword thrust. Recently, it looks as though the global elite, the real shot callers are becoming impatient and want their latest servant to finish the work by his predecessors. Carter was marching to the tune whispered in his ears by his chief adviser and direct puppet master, Z. Brzezinski.


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Carter-Admin.-Supporting-Iranian-Terrorist-Thugs.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cristyli.com/%3Fcat%3D10%26paged%3D3&usg=__U3-LclxPZoDmS8bG-Al6HsXR6Ho=&h=287&w=511&sz=38&hl=en&start=54&zoom=1&tbnid=d8Ekd8gRxwFdpM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=168&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dzbigniew%2Bbrzezinski%26um%3D1%26hl%3 Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D689%26tbs%3Disch: 10%2C929&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1044&vpy=414&dur=1915&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=155&ty=139&ei=UAObTLLWJoe8sAPLsqyVBA&oei=wQKbTOngBIX6swOIodCHBA&esq=7&page=3&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:54&biw=1440&bih=689

erowe1
09-23-2010, 07:23 AM
Also, if you don't think protecting our interests in the oil fields or energy supply lines is important and necessary, then I guess you live on a farm in an Amish community or maybe you are situated like Anderson Cooper and are an heir to a vast fortune, a fortune so large, $10 or $15 a gallon gasoline is of no consequence.

1) Let's pretend this were true. Why shouldn't those people who believe they have economic interests to protect by intervening in the Middle East take that on themselves, rather than employing the state as their middle man and forcing all those Amish people and Anderson Coopers to help foot the bill?

2) Do you really think that manipulating the market price of a commodity is justification for going to war?

3) How did you arrive at your number $10-$15/gallon?




Every major move by Carter was to weaken the United States

And by "the United States" you mean the regime in DC that subjugates us. You must, because it isn't the American people who meddle in other countries and exert global influence militarily, it's the government.

John Basiglone
09-25-2010, 08:46 AM
So you are basically saying that Ron Paul is full of shit and that the Iranians loved having a murderous dictator imposed on them by the US so that Oil Companies could profit?


Did I say Ron Paul was full of shit? In truth, Ron Paul may share my beliefs, but he too is a politician and must couch his public statements.

What I am saying, American and Iranian people were much better off when the Shah ruled, as he was a loyal friend to the United States. The Shah was moving Iran towards being a "first world" country. With the Shah in power, millions would not have been slaughtered in the "trench" warfare with Iraq. The "terrorist" movement or factions now have a well established and strongly funded headquarters in Iran; as a result, the globalist have systematically used this "terrorist" threat as the "Boogey Man" to frighten Americans in such a way, they are now being manipulated to willingly give up their liberty interests for the false sense of security; Henry Kissinger has advocated this concept in the past.


So, are you saying America is now better off that Terrorist Iran(since the fall of the Shah) will soon possess nuclear weapons, further, do you think it was, is or will be of no consequence that the Carter Administration abdicated and relinquished control of one of the world's most strategic assets, the Panama Canal; this in light of the fact, that China now has a 50 year lease on control and operation of the Panama Canal? By the way, now that China NOW has command and control of the Panama Canal, they require that a Chinese pilot must be at the helm or on the bridge of every ship that passes through the canal, even our own aircraft carriers.

Was Carter responsible for the 21% prime rate during his term? Do you remember those times, when middle class families could not afford to buy a home because the interest on the mortgage was above 21%? Do you remember how Carter cut defense spending, where the U.S. was becoming a paper tiger relative to the Soviet Union. The Soviets were sponsoring Communist revolutions in Central and South America, remember the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The Soviets were sponsoring every despot dictator in Africa, who committed wholesale genocide in the millions, destabilizing the entire region and setting the chaos that resulted in massacres like Rwanda, Somalia, The Congo, etc. Just take a look at the weapons carried by those para military death squads in places like Somalia, Zimbabwe or most African countries, they were plain and simple Soviet made and supplied.

So in your opinion, it was better to let the Shah fall, where the Iranian people jumped out of the frying pan into the fire? Yeah, if it happens to be a right wing dictator, who is friendly with American interests, you must think he is bad. But if he is a left wing, Soviet/Chicom supported dictator, who kills and imprisons more people by 10 fold, who additionally is operating and conducting affairs contrary to American interests, then he is just fine by your standards.

Carter was a horrible president, anybody who lived during that era remembers what a terrible job he did. Talk about revisionist history, you have been listening to those Columbia educated talking heads too long.

Carter is nothing but a Fabian Socialist like every president since Kennedy, they all have been hand picked and elected by the global elite. Really, does the vote even matter, if on orders from puppet masters, the major media was told to cast Stalin or Hitler in a positive light, the ignorant, mind numbed masses would vote for either candidate.

Why don't you look up Cecil Rhodes and while you are at it, check the membership lists of the CFR, T.C., Blildibergers and the rest of your masters. The only candidate in the last election who was not a "made-man" in one of these groups was Ron Paul.

pcosmar
09-25-2010, 09:13 AM
Answer this question honestly, are the Iranian people better off now under the rule of the Ayatollah and his Shiite rule or were they better off during the 1970s up until the revolution. ]
:eek:
Hell yes.
The Shah was a murderous Dictator. He was universally hated and set up SAVAK with the help and active assistance of the US government.

Oil Companies raped the country. Thousands were murdered by SAVAK and thousands more tortured.

You can't be friggin' serious.

John Basiglone
09-27-2010, 03:22 AM
1) Let's pretend this were true. Why shouldn't those people who believe they have economic interests to protect by intervening in the Middle East take that on themselves, rather than employing the state as their middle man and forcing all those Amish people and Anderson Coopers to help foot the bill?

2) Do you really think that manipulating the market price of a commodity is justification for going to war?

3) How did you arrive at your number $10-$15/gallon?

Re: Ques. #1: Amish folks and Anderson Cooper are not as concerned about the price of oil as the Amish do not use automobiles as their primary means of transportation and Anderson Cooper an heir to the Vanderbilt fortune does not have to worry about the price of gasoline or heating oil. Additionally, back in the late 70s, had the Soviets gained control of the region, they would have used the oil profits as a means to finance their war machine to subjugate and conquer the western world. Where did I even suggest or intimate that the Amish or A. Cooper "foot the bill"?

Re: Ques.#2: First of all, oil is not just some ordinary commodity like pork bellies or soy beans. Oil is the primary source of energy for everything, from transportation, food production and manufacturing. You must be completely delusional or patently intellectually dishonest if you think that oil supply lines are not important to this country. So if oil prices increased two or three fold, you would not be concerned? Boy, I wonder if you would be so composed and un

Re: Ques. #3: Back in the 70s gasoline prices were approx. $0.80/gal., adjusted for inflation, present value, the $0.80/gal price in 1979, would now be $4.00/gal today. What do you think the price of gas today would be if Mid-East oil supply was cut off or restricted? It would at least double or most likely increase 3 to 5 times of its current price; this is where I came up with the $10 to $15/gal. gas figure.

And by "the United States" you mean the regime in DC that subjugates us. You must, because it isn't the American people who meddle in other countries and exert global influence militarily, it's the government.

Remember, back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, the Soviet Union was enlarging their sphere of influence throughout the world. Whenever the Soviets took de facto control of a country, the people were truly subjugated, oppressed and worse off.
Whenever the U.S. influenced countries and exerted de facto control of a country, the lifestyle of the populace in general were better off.

Okay, I am waiting for some left wing remark about U.S. Imperialism.

John Basiglone
09-27-2010, 03:39 AM
:eek:
Hell yes.
The Shah was a murderous Dictator. He was universally hated and set up SAVAK with the help and active assistance of the US government.

Oil Companies raped the country. Thousands were murdered by SAVAK and thousands more tortured.

You can't be friggin' serious.

You can't be friggin serious! how did the oil companies rape the Iranians? But for the oil companies finding the oil and setting up the infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground, the people would still be riding donkeys and peddling tin and brass goods to tourists. Thousands were murdered by SAVAK, how many millions have been killed by the current regime? The balance sheet shows that the Shah was better to the people than the regimes that followed the revolution.

The Shah was bad because he right wing, but Stalin, Mao and Castro were alright because they were left wing anti U.S. right? You are whacked!

Are you a Political Science major at Columbia? You sound like this guy I knew back in the 80s, who was an econ major at UCLA. He lamented how the corporations were exploiting the third world, but when I questioned him further, he was living off of corporate dividends that were left in a trust fund for the little rich kid. Here I was working full time and attending university at night, where "Richy-Rich", was living the "life O'Reilly, like a frat boy, where his bread and butter were from the "evil" Exxon and Chevron Corporations.

Answer the question, were or are the American people better off with the Shah or are we and the Iranian people better off with Islamic Fundamentalist regime in power. Just like our current two party system, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

erowe1
09-27-2010, 04:45 AM
Okay, I am waiting for some left wing remark about U.S. Imperialism.

You mean like the following?

Remember, back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, the Soviet Union was enlarging their sphere of influence throughout the world. Whenever the Soviets took de facto control of a country, the people were truly subjugated, oppressed and worse off.
Whenever the U.S. influenced countries and exerted de facto control of a country, the lifestyle of the populace in general were better off.

pcosmar
09-27-2010, 09:13 AM
You can't be friggin serious! how did the oil companies rape the Iranians? But for the oil companies finding the oil and setting up the infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground, the people would still be riding donkeys and peddling tin and brass goods to tourists. Thousands were murdered by SAVAK, how many millions have been killed by the current regime? The balance sheet shows that the Shah was better to the people than the regimes that followed the revolution.

The Shah was bad because he right wing, but Stalin, Mao and Castro were alright because they were left wing anti U.S. right? You are whacked!

He lamented how the corporations were exploiting the third world, but when I questioned him further, he was living off of corporate dividends that were left in a trust fund for the little rich kid. Here I was working full time and attending university at night, where "Richy-Rich", was living the "life O'Reilly, like a frat boy, where his bread and butter were from the "evil" Exxon and Chevron Corporations.

Answer the question, were or are the American people better off with the Shah or are we and the Iranian people better off with Islamic Fundamentalist regime in power. Just like our current two party system, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Wow
There is so much misinformation here I don't even know where to start.

The Shah was bad because he right wing,
No. The Shah was bad because he was just plain bad. He was not elected, he was imposed,
He ruled not by the will or choice of the people but by Force of arms.
He was universally hated, but maintained power through SAVAK, Funded and supported by the US.

Are you a Political Science major at Columbia? You sound like this guy I knew back in the 80s, who was an econ major at UCLA.
No, Not hardly. And irrelevant to the points.

Answer the question, were or are the American people better off with the Shah or are we and the Iranian people better off with Islamic Fundamentalist regime in power.
Irrelevant again. there is no effect to the American people.
The dictator was profitable for a few individuals that made a profit providing arms to the Shah.
And to Oil Companies that took the oil.
Iran has never attacked or had harmful effect on the US or it's people.
That could change if the current march to war continues.

Just like our current two party system, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Once again you fail. You believe that there is a substantial difference between the two parties.