Posted on 04/11/2005 7:28:21 AM PDT by Interesting Times
Nuff said.
Mannekin Pis having a tantrum.
Exactly. If they will never give up enrichment, what are we still talking about this for? Also who do the Iranians think theyre kidding with statements like:
-We need nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes, when theyre sitting on a sea of oil
-Our nuclear programs are peaceful. Thats why were building it in underground tunnels and hardened bunkers
Something needs to be done soon, or it will be pearl harbor all over again. And this time, pearl harbor (probably Isreal) will glow in the dark
Jerry Corsi's appearance on Hannity & Colmes has been delayed... I'll add rescheduling information as it becomes available.
I hope the world acts soon.
"Iran will not abandon uranium enrichment, despite its negotiations with the European Union "
I think it was GREAT that the US diplomacy let the euros run their course.... (I TOLD YOU SO !!)
So that now the'll (hopefully) shut up
I guess they will give up Iran instead. There are three Carriers carrying all the nukes they could dream of on the way. There are American troops with Patriot missiles setting up in Israel and the first new Apaches are in the sky.
Yep, shaping up to be quite a fourth of July this year.
BOMB THE MULLAHS' STRONGHOLDS
Got it. Thank you.
See #24... Jerry's appearance has been delayed.
It's the usual talk show shuffle...
Wrong. Carter hated the Shah and was sympathetic to the virulently anti-American fundamentalists. Carter visibly turned his back on the Shah and most importantly, rerfused to provide Iran with non-lethal crowd control equipment. This left the government with the no win choice of letting the rioters take over, or of firing into crowds and further stoking the revolution. Carter was very happy to see the Shah fall. He was rewarded by being humiliated by the fundamentalists.
Bump.
Williams is right.
You might be interested in this recent article....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1375792/posts
There have been many writtten over yrs about Carter's involvement.
You are buying into the media portrayal of the 1979 revoltion in Iran. Contrary to Ted Koppel's reports, it was NOT a popular uprising by a majority of Iranians.
You're correct. Carter was warned by Kissinger and his own Nat'l Security Adviser, Brzezinski, not to lose Iran and was advised to help the Shah. Kissinger told him that should he lose our ally Iran, the repercussions would be felt for yrs to come. How right he was!
In the article you posted, the only mention of Carters involvement with the mullahs is as follows:
"It was President Jimmy Carter (known for his bent toward appeasement) who championed human rights, especially among freedom fighters (aka terrorists). Mr. Carter unlocked Pandora's Box when he permitted the destabilization of Iran. (I personally knew the American general to whom he gave the order to overthrow the shah of Iran.) Because of the Carter policy of appeasement, the USSR responded with the invasion Afghanistan. "
The author states he personally knew the general to whom Carter gave the order to overthrow the shah, but with no facts to back up this claim (that is what we call hearsay). If you have some substantial proof that Carter gave an order to overthrow the shah I would love to see it, and will gladly change my opinion on this matter.
I have a general question. If Carter PERMITTED the destabilization of Iran, what is it he could have done to prevent the Iranian revolution? Sometimes I feel presidents are given both too much credit and too much blame for things that occur in the world. I typically believe in this case that the Iranians held far more influence over Iran than Jimmy Carter or any other president could possibly hope to.
"Carter was warned by Kissinger and his own Nat'l Security Adviser, Brzezinski, not to lose Iran..."
Of course he was warned not to lose Iran, the question is what could he have done to prevent Iran from being lost? Would a full military invasion have done the trick and with what sort of outcome? It is quite a delicate game they were playing in the middle east, obviously attempting to appease the Sauds, while at the same time trying to maintain as much control over the oil supplies as possible.
Now as I said before, I am not trying to paint Carter as some sort of saint, his bungling policies may well have helped the mullahs in Iran, but I seriously doubt until I see solid evidence that he directly supported Ayatollah Khomanei either military or with intelligence.
The other thing I have noticed in this thread is discussion of carter while totally ignoring the Shah's policies and power. Why was the Shah unable to suppress the revolution given he was the legitimate ruler of Iran with the full support of the Iranian people. How did Iran get to this point of destablization. Did the Shah's policies positively or negatively affect the fomenting theocratic revolution?
How did the Shah gain power in the first place? Was his rule supported by the general populace? How did the mullahs gain such significant power while he was in charge?
I believe the situation is much more complex than some are willing to admit, and to single out Carter as the source of Islamic terrorism is a bit of a stretch as I currently see it. Now I am definitely willing to change my mind on this subject if given the proper evidence can be produced.
"Because of the Carter policy of appeasement, the USSR responded with the invasion Afghanistan. "
I have read excerpts from National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski under Carter, that the US was funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion as a way to tempt the soviets to invade in order to create a vietnam like situation for the USSR.
Here are a couple of his quotes:
"But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 (6 months before the Soviet invasion) that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul"
"We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would."
What could he have done? It wouldn't have taken much.
The Shah asked for help. He asked for equipment. That is what Brzezinski wanted to do. Carter refused.
Forget the Saudis. IRAN was our strongest ally in the middle east at that time.
Carter was also involved with the French gov't in arranging for Khomeini to be flown from Paris to Tehran.
He was DIRECTLY involved in ovethrowing the Shah.
The information is out there from many sources. Do some research on your own, or continue to live in ignorance on this subject.
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.