Posted on 09/28/2014 7:45:32 PM PDT by freedom44
To this day you see people blaming the Shah for the rise of the ayatollahs.
They still do not understand that he fought on two fronts holding the communists and the ayatollahs at bay his entire adult life.
Or they do understand and hate him for it.
Jimmah Catarrh is a walkin’, talkin’ suppurating pilonidal cyst!
The Shah was dying of cancer and probably could not have done much. Maybe if he had made his Son the Shah then he could have more strongly fought off the Ayatollahs.
Jimmy Carter did what he did because he feared the above scenario could happen.
There is a pattern in that part of the world, of dictators being removed, and radical Islam rising up after dictators are gone.
It happened in a number of countries. Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, come to mind. Could it be that these dictators were able to keep radical Islam in check? And now the genie is out of the bottle? Just a thought.
“They still do not understand that he fought on two fronts holding the communists and the ayatollahs at bay his entire adult life.”
Exactly right. However the liberals always try to rewrite history. Jimmy Carter takes the full blame for this.
What if we had let Spain keep Cuba and Puerto Rico in 1898? Cuba would be a lot better off than it is under Castro. And we wouldn’t have idiots trying to make PR a state.
It must really suck to be Iranian and see pictures from 40 years ago and see a more modern world than the one they live in now.
If he had remained in power, he would be the oldest head of state in the world.
No WMD sales to Saddam, he probably wouldn't have over thrown Kuwait. So no gulf wars.
A few years back, Glenn Beck had a compelling interview with Rocky Sickmann who was a USMC guard when the embassy was stormed. Sickmann detailed how they had been given orders not to resist and defend the embassy grounds and had been told to stand down. He recalled the mobs had a few women in the front as human shields, and to this day he regrets not pulling a trigger. Sickmann has been very successful in his later life; at the time of the interview he was a senior executive for Anheuser Busch in charge of their entire military sales program, but in the interview he said he would have given up his entire future, his job, his kids, his grandchildren for the opportunity to go back and pull the trigger. It’s his belief that the Beirut USMC bombing, the 93 WTC bombing, 9/11 etc. were all a direct result of the US not standing to defend its embassy on November 4, 1979.
You’re right. The Shah imprisoned Communists and Islamic Fundamentalists who were terrorists. There were groups like MKO/MEK and Islamists groups detonating bombs inside of Iran. It was Iran’s war on terror but the Carter Administration saw it as something entirely different.
Definitely sounds like a far better scenario than what happened in reality.
Pahlavi was born in 1919 and was 60 when he died in 1980. Michael I of Romania was born in 1921 and was ousted by the Communists in 1947. He is not only the oldest surviving head of state from WWII, but is also the last surviving person to have held field marshal (five star equivalent) rank during the war.
I blame carter for the complete lack of paragraphs!
What is wrong with these Democrat Presidents. They are certainly showing they are not on the side of America.
Who are you saying sold WMD to Saddam Hussein?
Or are you saying because Rumsfeld “got chummy” and shook hands with Saddam Hussein, that means a WMD sale was a done deal?
Seeing as his sponsors in running for office were among the Rockefeller clan, I can't imagine why. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.