It strikes me those who think we can get along with Iran, have to be those who didn’t live through the Carter years. If they had, they would know exactly why Iran is not our friend, and never will be.
Explain? Sounds like you know more and can provide more clarity; at least from your point of view.
Yes, I agree they have all been Arabs. That’s not to say that Iran wouldn’t help terrorist groups though.
You seem to be dismissive of the difference between Arab nationals, and people, who have carried out terrorist attacks against USA and the West, versus Iranian nationals and people, who have not. Am I correct?
You also make a sweeping comment: "that's not to say that Iran wouldn't help terrorist groups." Are you saying or implying Iranian people 'working independently of the mullahs' regime' have carried out terrorist attacks, like Saudis and other Arabs have done? Or will do so?
I did not know that, but I wouldn’t want the Shah to have it. He didn’t need it.
Why?
I am not knowledgeable about Iran’s working relationship with other near-by nations during the Shah’s rule. My awareness of the Shah arose out of the Carter fiasco.
It's ok, not many are. To be fair, there is Always more than one side to consider, closely. Most, in the West are only aware of the one side (their own side), and/or prefer to take one side of an issue into consideration. But it Always takes 2 to tango, as they say.
I'm interested to get full clarity regarding your thoughts per above points & questions, if you choose to share.
...now being practiced by lowly states like Iran, instead of Russia or China. Very dangerous IMO.
The other ones are very much up and coming, including the biggest U.S. creditor China, while the U.S. continues to be weakened.
It strikes me those who think we can get along with Iran, have to be those who didn’t live through the Carter years. If they had, they would know exactly why Iran is not our friend, and never will be.
Explain? Sounds like you know more and can provide more clarity; at least from your point of view.
The Shah was our ally. He ruled with an iron fist, but he wasn't like Hussein of Iraq. IMO, you have to rule with an iron fist in that region. Different factions are always trying to gain control. If you don't rule with determination, you're basically toast.Carter thinking he knew it all, undercut the Shah. To Carter it seemed the Shah was a ruthless dictator and the Iranians deserved better.
He telegraphed the Shah had to go. He supported the idea of the Ayatollah coming back to rule. Encouraged by Carter's view, protests in Iraq got out of hand, the Shah had to leave, and the Ayatollah did return.
Then we got an Islamic driven government and all the anti-U.S. sentiment that generally comes with that. You also got a very opressive government many times worse than the Shah. Carter never acknowledged that.
The Iranian people had been pro U. S. The nation had become Westernized under the Shah. Women were able to go outside wearing western garb. At least they weren't stoned or given trouble if they didn't wear the habab. They were allowed to go to school. Christians were free to worship there.
Then the Islamic leadership took control. It was from day one very anti-U. S.
Then a faction of the University Kids decided that U. S. was the enemy of the Iranian people, they stormed the U. S. Embassy, and held the staff hostage for 444 days. It hadn't occurred to Carter there might be some anti-U. S. backlash to his stupid plan to replace an ally of the U. S. with someone who wouldn't be an ally of the U. S.
We have had to deal with Carter's mess since the late 1970s. Iraq emboldened by U. S. disatisfaction with Iran's leadership, attacked Iran. This led to a very bloody war that cost both sides massive numbers of losses. Some estimate upwards of one million died, both military and civilians. This would never have happened without Carter's brilliant stratetic actions. He has the blood of those people on his hands. He was a typical Leftist when it came to global diplomacy. He could make massive messes, but he had no idea how to clean them up.
The Islamic leadership of Iran was an enemy of the U. S. It has been hostile ever since. Not only had Carter destabalized a good friend of the U. S., he had helped replace him with a man that dispised the U. S. The leadership was anti-U. S. back then. It has remained anti-U. S., and it will remain anti-U. S.
Now Iran is developing the bomb. We are sitting back letting it happen. Soon Iran will be a nuclear power. Every nation in the region will be in danger once that takes place. With the proper missile technology, Iran could become a nuclear power capable of striking our shores. It will be able to hit Europe in short order. It has some fairly advanced missile technology already.
We are forced into being anti-Iran by good old peanut boy. We simply cannot act as if everything is kosher, with Iran seeking the bomb. We are going to be butting heads with Iran's leadership. Soon it will be a leadership with nuclear weapons.
Those ayatollahs are never going to be friends with the Great Satan. Yeah, who knew Jimmy?
Carter destabalized the Middle-East with his actions concerning Iran. Now Obama is destabalizing the rest of the Middle-East. He telegraphed his willingness to see leaderships fall, and nations be converted at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood went in and worked it's magic. Force is being used here, but these actions mirror Iran with the changes in leadership, and the Islamic driven governance. Obama has not only look on favorably, he has actually armed and funded some of these efforts. So what Carter helped accomplish in the late 1970s, is being facilitated across a number of nations right now by Obama. We will have a number of Islamic governments that hate the U. S. at the end of the day. These are members of al Qaeda.
This is why I state that Iran will not be our friend. We're not going to be able to cozy up with them. Now we've intalled other governments that we will never be able to cozy up with. What Carder did with one nation, Obama has doen with a number of them..
Yes, I agree they have all been Arabs. That’s not to say that Iran wouldn’t help terrorist groups though.
You seem to be dismissive of the difference between Arab nationals, and people, who have carried out terrorist attacks against USA and the West, versus Iranian nationals and people, who have not. Am I correct?
Yes, you are correct. You see, Iran is not ruled by it's people. It is ruled with an iron fisted government. It's my opinion rightly or wrongly, that the Iranian government would kill many of it's own people if they tried to topple it. So no, this isn't going to change any time soon..
You also make a sweeping comment: "that's not to say that Iran wouldn't help terrorist groups." Are you saying or implying Iranian people 'working independently of the mullahs' regime' have carried out terrorist attacks, like Saudis and other Arabs have done? Or will do so?
I am saying that there are undoubtedly Islamic people working on the Nuclear technology. I am also saying that it is resonable to believe they will share technology with other followers of Islam.
You keep saying Iran has not been involved in terrorism with the U. S. Are you aware that Iran was supplying training, munitions, and full support to the terrorists fighting in Iraq? Do you have any idea were supplies for IEDs were coming from, at least in part? Iran was heavily involved in terrorist activity during the Iraq war. It wasn't carried out here int he U. S., but please remind me where terrorism has been carried out in the U. S. over time. The two attacks on the trade center are the only ones I can think of, and they were driven by private parties, and not governments.
Iran has been operating just like other terrorist states, who carry out their terrorism away from the U. S. They are not pristine in this. Their government is perfectly happy to carry out terrorism against the U. S., when the right circumstance presents.
I did not know that, but I wouldn’t want the Shah to have it. He didn’t need it.
Why?
For the same reason we don't supply other allies with nuclear weapons. I don't believe in nuclear proliferation. The fewer nations that have the bomb, the better.
I am not knowledgeable about Iran’s working relationship with other near-by nations during the Shah’s rule. My awareness of the Shah arose out of the Carter fiasco.
It's ok, not many are. To be fair, there is Always more than one side to consider, closely. Most, in the West are only aware of the one side (their own side), and/or prefer to take one side of an issue into consideration. But it Always takes 2 to tango, as they say.
I'm interested to get full clarity regarding your thoughts per above points & questions, if you choose to share.
Those are my thoughts developed over time.