Former US President Jimmy Carter has critised outgoing British PM Tony Blair for his 'blind' support of the war in Iraq.
Mr Carter told the BBC Mr Blair's backing for US President George W Bush has been 'apparently subservient'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6672035.stm

Tony Blair should listen to President Carter and ally himself with people like Yasser Arafat.

Our own media had to invent the terms Stagflation and the Misery Index to illustrate just how bad the economy was under Carter. Then there was the Carter's response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis by whining and snivelling and crying out to the Iranians "what did we do wrong," and managing to make the U.S. the laughingstock of the world. Then he goes and make "peace" by offering North Korea nuclear material for a mere promise that they not go and make nuclear weapons from said material. We all know what became of that deal, dammit.

I find it unbelievable that Carter has the nerve to criticize anyone. Carter managed to push the borders of incompetency further than they've been pushed since Nero. Carter should shut the hell up and go back to farming peanuts and building houses or whatever the hell it is when he's not screwing up international relations, dammit.

Oh, and here's a short clip of some news show where a caller ambushes Carter, and sticks it to him good.

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2802874?loomia_si=1

Then he (Carter) goes and make "peace" by offering North Korea nuclear material for a mere promise that they not go and make nuclear weapons from said material. We all know what became of that deal, dammit.

Yep. We do know "what became of" that deal.

So.

Let's apply the same logic to N Korea attacking us that we hear incessantly from the Reichwing about being attacked when the subject is the Middle East;

""Daauuuuh, welp, they ain't never atacked us since the time of (insert relevant date) !"

Using the same logic (speaking euphemistically, of course) the Rightwing uses, it would seem that Carter's interactions with N Korea have turned out perfectly successful. :rolleyes:

I find it unbelievable that Carter has the nerve to criticize anyone. Carter managed to push the borders of incompetency further than they've been pushed since Nero.

ROTFL.

What I find unbelievable is that a supporter of of that borderline mental retardate known as G W B*sh would have the gall to accuse any other political leader on earth of being "incompetent".

Carter's only claim to fame is having brokered a peace deal between Israel and Egypt. I have to ask whether it was Carter's doing, or Egypt just getting tired of having their ass kicked every time they attacked Israel.

Its a bit strange, no one has addressed what Carter said, just Carter himself.

He's wrong.
Happy?

He's wrong.
Happy?
No Im not happy,whats wrong,have to work tonite.

He's certainly right about Blair being Bush's poodle. I can't think of a single instance where British objections have altered or mitigated the disastrous US policy in Iraq. But he's probably wrong if he thinks the war could have been averted had Blair not co-operated fully. GWB was bound and determined to get his idiotic war in Iraq, and most likely would have found a way to get it with or without British support.

Carter has also called GWB the worst president in the history of the United States. I guess he has conveniently forgotten his own term in the Oval Office. Jimmy Carter has gone from being the worst President the country has ever seen to being the worst ex-President the country has ever seen. He should stick to building houses for the poor and simply STFU.

Our own media had to invent the terms Stagflation and the Misery Index to illustrate just how bad the economy was under Carter.Ever see one of these, Darth?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/18/commentary/wastler/wastler/win_button.jpg

That's a Whip Inflation Now button, Jerry Ford's laughable solution to revitalize the American economy. The idea, you see, was for everyone to wear these buttons and inflation would go away. And don't forget the wage/price controls of the Nixon years or the aftershocks of the Arab oil embargo. Carter didn't exactly inherit a thriving economy from his Republican predecessors. Then there was the Carter's response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis by whining and snivelling and crying out to the Iranians "what did we do wrong," and managing to make the U.S. the laughingstock of the world.I would very much like for you to provide a link supporting your characterization of a whining and sniveling Carter. He did attempt a hostage rescue as I recall. That it failed was unfortunate but at least he tried. Perhaps the most disingenuous criticism of Carter is that he somehow precipitated the Iranian revolution by not giving full support to the Shah. Such criticisms stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of historical forces, that revolutions (as opposed to coups d'état) are some kind of manufactured event. There was going to be a revolution in Iran no matter what Carter did -- an event (ironically enough) that was virtually guaranteed to occur by the CIA-led coup in 1953, and the subsequent US support of the dictatorial Pahlavi regime.

Our own media had to invent the terms Stagflation and the Misery Index to illustrate just how bad the economy was under Carter.

Naturally, because he was a democrat, the state of the economy when he took office is not worthy of mention.

Btw, "The term stagflation is generally attributed to United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer, Iain MacLeod in a speech to parliament in 1965."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation

You're also incorrect about the origin of the "Misery Index".

"The Misery Index is an economic indicator, created by economist Arthur Okun, and found by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation both create economic and social costs for a country.[1] It is often incorrectly attributed to Chicago economist Robert Barro in the 1970s, due to the Barro Misery Index that additionally includes GDP and the bank rate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)


Then there was the Carter's response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis by whining and snivelling and crying out to the Iranians "what did we do wrong," and managing to make the U.S. the laughingstock of the world.

Again, the blunder was not Carter's, it was Eisenhower's. Since you like partisan hackery it's interesting to note that the idea of overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran was first floated during Truman's term (he was democrat and refused), and then it was presented to Eisenhower after he was elected in 1953, (he was a Republican and agreed and the rest is history). So if you wish to blame a political party for the problems we have dealing with Iran, you can thank the Republicans.


Then he goes and make "peace" by offering North Korea nuclear material for a mere promise that they not go and make nuclear weapons from said material. We all know what became of that deal, dammit.

I don't think Carter did that.

"In June 1994, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Rosalynn Carter became the first people to cross the demilitarized zone from South Korea to North Korea and back again since the two countries were divided following the Korean War. President and Mrs. Carter had been invited by then President Kim Il Sung to visit North Korea and went as representatives of The Carter Center with the hope of defusing a serious issue related to North Korea's nuclear program.

The international climate at the time of the Carters' visit was growing increasingly heated, as fears mounted in the United States and other countries that North Korea was developing a nuclear arsenal. After the North Koreans had withdrawn their membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency and threatened to expel the IAEA's inspectors, the United States began pushing for U.N. sanctions.

Following two days of talks with President Carter, President Kim agreed to freeze North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for the resumption of a dialogue with the United States. That breakthrough led to the first dialogue between the United States and North Korea in 40 years. Subsequent talks between the two countries resulted in two agreements, reached in October 1994 and June 1995, in which North Korea agreed to neither restart its nuclear reactor nor reprocess the plant's spent fuel. Construction was halted on two additional plants, and all three will be replaced with safer light-water reactors, which cannot produce weapons-grade materials."

http://www.cartercenter.org/countries/north_korea.html


Carter managed to push the borders of incompetency further than they've been pushed since Nero.

Do you have any specific and accurate complaints? The complaints you've lodged so far are complete bull.

EDIT: I watched the video link you posted. Tell me Darth, do you agree with the irate caller that Jimmy Carter is a racist and an anti-semite? If so, perhaps you'd be so kind as to post your reasons why. If you don't agree, I see no point in posting your link at all.

Carter called Bush the worst president in history because he is the worst president in history.

Didn't Carter end aid to that scumbag Somoza in Nicaragua.

Okay, time for some rebuttals........dammit.


Naturally, because he was a democrat, the state of the economy when he took office is not worthy of mention.

Okay, Carter did inherit a stumbling economy, we'll keep that one in mind. So, tell me Vile, what kind of economy did REAGAN inherit and what did he turn it into? (I already know the answer and that it would be very, very painful for you to admit that Reagan did turn the U.S. economy around, so you can ignore this little point of mine. Or you could inhale a lot of ether and admit that Reagan turned around a terrible economy, such admission would be painful for you, inhale a LOT of ether.)

Oh, and don't you usually castigate me when I start delving into history and using Clinton's actions to defend Bush?

I must thank you for the info on the misery index and stagflation. Being under 40 years of age, the first time I ever heard such terms were when I was a second grader. I haven't heard of stagflation or the misery index since that time, so I thought both terms were invented in the 70s, or something, dammit.


Again, the blunder was not Carter's, it was Eisenhower's. Since you like partisan hackery it's interesting to note that the idea of overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran was first floated during Truman's term (he was democrat and refused), and then it was presented to Eisenhower after he was elected in 1953, (he was a Republican and agreed and the rest is history). So if you wish to blame a political party for the problems we have dealing with Iran, you can thank the Republicans.


It would've been nice had you added in British involvement in the overthrowing of Prime Minister Mossadegh into the whole mix, instead of implying that Ike dreamt up of this whole scheme by himself. Mossadegh started to "nationalize" British owned petroleum companies in Iran and the Brits wanted him gone. They managed to convince Ike that Mosssadegh was getting a lot of support from communist factions in Iran and it might be a good idea to nip any communist expansion in the bud. Keep in mind that the Commies had managed to seize all of Eastern Europe after the Second World War and that they tried to take South Korea, so everyone was just a bit paranoid over what the commies were up to.

I'll not argue whether or not that particular action was right or wrong, nor will I engage in speculation as to whether or not Ike's actions led to the Islamists seizing power in 1979.

Carter, however, did engineer the fall of the Shah of Iran. (It ain't true what you are saying Sedan, dammit)

FIRST off, Carter's support for the Shah of Iran fell off sharply. Using "human rights" as a tool and threatening to cut off support to the Shah's government if Carter's demands were not met, Carter managed to get the release of some 3,000 "political prisoners" and end the system of military tribunals. Apparently the civil trials became a show piece and propaganda tool for the anti-shah types.

Carter THEN went ahead and pressured the Shah into allowing "free assembly" meaning that the "anti-Shah" folks were allowed to get together and start riots and vocally and very publicly campaign for the overthrow of the Shah. Of course, these riots got very big, very well organized and very powerful.

The coup de grace was administered when Carter ordered the Pentagon to tell some 150 of the Iran's top military commanders to not interfere when the Ayotollah seized power in Iran and the rest is history.

Gee Vile and Sedan, considering Carter's hip deep involvement in destabilizing the Shah of Iran, the idea of a revolution was inevitable because of Ike's actions back in the early 50s is looking pretty shaky, dammit.

My references for my above rebuttals can be found at IranianVoice.com or an article by Christopher Ruddy available at newsmax.com. I WILL be linking to both articles, dammit.

I don't think Carter did that.

"In June 1994, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Rosalynn Carter became the first people to cross the demilitarized zone from South Korea to North Korea and back again since the two countries were divided following the Korean War. President and Mrs. Carter had been invited by then President Kim Il Sung to visit North Korea and went as representatives of The Carter Center with the hope of defusing a serious issue related to North Korea's nuclear program.

The international climate at the time of the Carters' visit was growing increasingly heated, as fears mounted in the United States and other countries that North Korea was developing a nuclear arsenal. After the North Koreans had withdrawn their membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency and threatened to expel the IAEA's inspectors, the United States began pushing for U.N. sanctions.

Following two days of talks with President Carter, President Kim agreed to freeze North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for the resumption of a dialogue with the United States. That breakthrough led to the first dialogue between the United States and North Korea in 40 years. Subsequent talks between the two countries resulted in two agreements, reached in October 1994 and June 1995, in which North Korea agreed to neither restart its nuclear reactor nor reprocess the plant's spent fuel. Construction was halted on two additional plants, and all three will be replaced with safer light-water reactors, which cannot produce weapons-grade materials."

Yes, Jimmy Carter and wife did cross the de-milatarized zone in '94 and make nice with Kim Jong Il and apparently I was wrong that Dear Leader used the nuclear material the Clinton Administration gave him to make bombs. Apparently, Dear Leader had his OWN bomb making materials, thank you very much. NOW, Vile, can you explain to me just what in the sam hell good did Carter's little kiss-butt session with Dear Leader do? Is North Korea anymore free? Did the North Korean Commies stop trying to develope the bomb? Can we at least get our stuff back now that we've learned Dear Leader took Carter's little treaty and urinated all over it?

Do you have any specific and accurate complaints? The complaints you've lodged so far are complete bull.

Gee Vile, the basic thrusts of my complaints were accurate. Carter did take a stumbling U.S. economy and rub salt into the wounds, he was ineffective in getting the hostages released from Iran, he championed aid for North Korea for an empty promise that they stop trying to get The Bomb. I'll add that Carter is so very fondly remembered for stagflation, the misery index, long gas lines and his very famous "malaise" speech. If there is ever a book on how to be the President of the United States, Carter's chapter should be "What NOT to do as President," dammit.


EDIT: I watched the video link you posted. Tell me Darth, do you agree with the irate caller that Jimmy Carter is a racist and an anti-semite? If so, perhaps you'd be so kind as to post your reasons why. If you don't agree, I see no point in posting your link at all.

How the hell should I know that Carter is an anti-semite? I'll ask him the next time I have him over for dinner, dammit. I will say that Carter is awfully sympathetic to people who seem to be doing their best to kill Israel. Whether or not it's because of Carter's annoying habbit of cozying up to various dictators and thugs or it's because Carter is anti-Semitic, your guess is as good as mine.

I linked to that video because it furthered my point that Carter is incompetent and has a long record of making bad decisions. Plus he got nailed, okay I admitted it, dammit.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/12/164726.shtml

http://www.strangesports.com/content/item/23477.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/12/13/cstillwell.DTL

http://www.censurecarter.com/index.php/CensureCarter/offenses

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/18/iran/main265244.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran

http://www.iranianvoice.org/article774.html

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3843

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2011

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2022

Carter didn't exactly inherit a thriving economy from his Republican predecessors.


Pfffffffft. Neither did Reagan, dammit.


I would very much like for you to provide a link supporting your characterization of a whining and sniveling Carter. He did attempt a hostage rescue as I recall. That it failed was unfortunate but at least he tried.

I'd like to find that link as well, I just don't know where it's at. Though it could've been a documentary I watched, or maybe a Ralph Peters article. He tends to write like that. It might've been Limbaugh, I just know that I picked it up somewhere and it's been in the back of my head dying to get out. Dammit. You can say what you want about Carter's attempts to free the hostages, but the people who count, the Iranians, will tell you that Carter was ineffectual. I seem to recall that the Iranians, once they gauged that Carter wasn't going to do anything to release the hostages draped American flags over the doorways to the Mosques so people could step all over them on their way to prayers. Kinda symbolic of just how effective Carter was in the foreign policy arena. Of course, the minute Reagan was sworn in, the hostages got released real fast. They didn't want to try to pull the stuff they'd gotten away with under Carter with Reagan, dammit.

There was another documentary where one of the former Iranian hostages was interviewed and the guards asked this guy what would Reagan do to Iran once he got into Office. Because all they knew about Reagan was from all those B-Westerns he starred in or something. This guy just looked at the guards and said "booooooommm!" That little story is pointless, but it should entertain the more right leaning members of this forum, dammit.

Okay, Carter did inherit a stumbling economy, we'll keep that one in mind.

Ok. :)


So, tell me Vile, what kind of economy did REAGAN inherit and what did he turn it into? (I already know the answer and that it would be very, very painful for you to admit that Reagan did turn the U.S. economy around, so you can ignore this little point of mine. Or you could inhale a lot of ether and admit that Reagan turned around a terrible economy, such admission would be painful for you, inhale a LOT of ether.)

That's nice Darth, but this is a thread about Carter, so I'll take your advice and ignore your irrelevant point about Reagan.


Oh, and don't you usually castigate me when I start delving into history and using Clinton's actions to defend Bush?

Huh?


I must thank you for the info on the misery index and stagflation. Being under 40 years of age, the first time I ever heard such terms were when I was a second grader. I haven't heard of stagflation or the misery index since that time, so I thought both terms were invented in the 70s, or something, dammit.

You're welcome.


It would've been nice had you added in British involvement in the overthrowing of Prime Minister Mossadegh into the whole mix, instead of implying that Ike dreamt up of this whole scheme by himself.

I implied nothing of the kind. You even quoted the paragraph where it mentions the idea for overthrowing the Iranian government was first suggested during the Truman administration.


Mossadegh started to "nationalize" British owned petroleum companies in Iran and the Brits wanted him gone. They managed to convince Ike that Mosssadegh was getting a lot of support from communist factions in Iran and it might be a good idea to nip any communist expansion in the bud. Keep in mind that the Commies had managed to seize all of Eastern Europe after the Second World War and that they tried to take South Korea, so everyone was just a bit paranoid over what the commies were up to.

Except Truman apparently.


I'll not argue whether or not that particular action was right or wrong, nor will I engage in speculation as to whether or not Ike's actions led to the Islamists seizing power in 1979.

Of course not, that might detract from your blame of Carter for that fiasco.


Carter, however, did engineer the fall of the Shah of Iran. (It ain't true what you are saying Sedan, dammit)

FIRST off, Carter's support for the Shah of Iran fell off sharply.

And that's a bad thing?


Using "human rights" as a tool and threatening to cut off support to the Shah's government if Carter's demands were not met, Carter managed to get the release of some 3,000 "political prisoners" and end the system of military tribunals.

Egad, the horrors. Not "human rights". What was Carter thinking? :rolleyes:


Carter THEN went ahead and pressured the Shah into allowing "free assembly" meaning that the "anti-Shah" folks were allowed to get together and start riots and vocally and very publicly campaign for the overthrow of the Shah.

So now you think freedom of assembly is a bad thing. What next?

BTW, freedom of assembly does not mean freedom to riot. Not even in Iran.


Of course, these riots got very big, very well organized and very powerful.

And of course, that's Carter's fault.


Gee Vile and Sedan, considering Carter's hip deep involvement in destabilizing the Shah of Iran, the idea of a revolution was inevitable because of Ike's actions back in the early 50s is looking pretty shaky, dammit.

No doubt you think the Iranians should be happy with whatever choices we make for them.


My references for my above rebuttals can be found at IranianVoice.com or an article by Christopher Ruddy available at newsmax.com. I WILL be linking to both articles, dammit.

I read the article at IranianVoice.org. It's a right-wing propaganda piece and doesn't even mention how the Shah came to power in 1953. I wonder why. :rolleyes:


Yes, Jimmy Carter and wife did cross the de-milatarized zone in '94 and make nice with Kim Jong Il and apparently I was wrong that Dear Leader used the nuclear material the Clinton Administration gave him to make bombs. Apparently, Dear Leader had his OWN bomb making materials, thank you very much. NOW, Vile, can you explain to me just what in the sam hell good did Carter's little kiss-butt session with Dear Leader do? Is North Korea anymore free? Did the North Korean Commies stop trying to develope the bomb? Can we at least get our stuff back now that we've learned Dear Leader took Carter's little treaty and urinated all over it?

Now you're just ranting.


Gee Vile, the basic thrusts of my complaints were accurate.

Too bad you got the details all wrong.


Carter did take a stumbling U.S. economy and rub salt into the wounds, he was ineffective in getting the hostages released from Iran, he championed aid for North Korea for an empty promise that they stop trying to get The Bomb. I'll add that Carter is so very fondly remembered for stagflation, the misery index, long gas lines and his very famous "malaise" speech. If there is ever a book on how to be the President of the United States, Carter's chapter should be "What NOT to do as President," dammit.

More ranting, but little substance.


How the hell should I know that Carter is an anti-semite? I'll ask him the next time I have him over for dinner, dammit. I will say that Carter is awfully sympathetic to people who seem to be doing their best to kill Israel. Whether or not it's because of Carter's annoying habbit of cozying up to various dictators and thugs or it's because Carter is anti-Semitic, your guess is as good as mine.

I think you've gone completely off the deep end. You castigate Carter for overthrowing a dictator, and then accuse him of "cozying up" to dictators. Try to make some sense will you?


I linked to that video because it furthered my point that Carter is incompetent and has a long record of making bad decisions. Plus he got nailed, okay I admitted it, dammit.

The video is of a caller making wild and unsubstatiated allegations of racism and anti-semitic feelings on Carter's part, and you think it proves his incompetence? Wow.

This bashing of current administrations by former administrations seems to be a uniquely Democrat game.
Yes, I know, I know. Someone will Google some minor example of a Republican doing this over fifty years ago and declare that it is proof that everyone does it.
But there is no precedent for the quantity or the vitriol.

President Clinton is actually pretty respectful compared to the rest of them. Probably because he is secure in his reputation and place in history.
Not so much Carter, Gore or Albright.

Good job we have the Republican vanguard here to compare Democrats actions to Republican ones.

Good job we have the Republican vanguard here to compare Democrats actions to Republican ones.Does that mean you are going to disagree with me?

Only if I can B.

This bashing of current administrations by former administrations seems to be a uniquely Democrat game.


Maybe it's because the current administration deserves the criticism.

and no adminstartion before this did?

and no adminstartion before this did?

Did you have one in mind?

How about Hoover?

How about Hoover?

LOL, good one Trav. All I'm saying is that I do agree that it's rather unprecedented to have this much criticism of a current administration by a former President. Considering the fact that Carter is not known for being hot-headed or inflammatory, it makes me think that maybe he's got a point.

This bashing of current administrations by former administrations seems to be a uniquely Democrat(ic) game.
Yes, I know, I know. Someone will Google some minor example of a Republican doing this over fifty years ago and declare that it is proof that everyone does it.

No, it wouldn't be proof that "everyone" does it, it would however be proof that you are dead wrong in your claim it is "uniquely" Democratic.


But there is no precedent for the quantity or the vitriol.


There is also no precedent for a President being this idiotic, so that makes sense.

Hmmmmmmmmm..........


That's nice Darth, but this is a thread about Carter, so I'll take your advice and ignore your irrelevant point about Reagan.

True that the point of this discussion is about Carter, however you did bring up the point that the economy was already stumbling when before the Carter Administration, so I took that point and asked what kind of economy Reagan inherited when he took Office in '81. It's relevant because Presdential economic policies do affect how well the U.S. economy performs. Carter apparently botched that particular domestic issue, so my point is pretty damn relevant, dammit.


I implied nothing of the kind. You even quoted the paragraph where it mentions the idea for overthrowing the Iranian government was first suggested during the Truman administration.

I think a bit of background information as to why Ike decided to take part in the overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh in '51. It adds detail and circumstances, rather than the idea that Ike woke up one morning with a wild hare up his ass and decided the Iranian Prime Minister just had to go, dammit. The British had an interest in the ousting of Mossadegh and Ike got convinced that there was a bit too much communist influence in the Prime Minister's decisions for the U.S. to ignore.

Except Truman apparently.

I'm not aware as to why Truman did decide the way he did and I doubt that you are either.

Of course not, that might detract from your blame of Carter for that fiasco.

Not exactly, we're talking about nearly 30 years is an awfully long time and we have no way of knowing what might have happened in '79 had some actions not been taken in '51, dammit. It's a bit presumptuous to assume that had Ike not decided to take the action he did in Iran, we wouldn't have had an Islamic revolution occur there. Do YOU care to try to make predictions thirty years off? You can try to get Ike to shoulder the blame for the failure of an incompetent Democrat President thirty years on, I'll concentrate on Carter's actions and just how quickly Iran fell to the Islamists and all the resultant misery, dammit.

No doubt you think the Iranians should be happy with whatever choices we make for them.

Well gee, Vile, what exactly the alternative produce? Carter did push the Shah of Iran into falling to the Islamists. Are the Iranians any more free? Last I heard, they don't have the rights Carter blackmailed the Shah into giving the forerunners of Islamic terrorists? Are the Iranians any more prosperous? No. Is the Iranian government now more of a threat to the Middle East, Europe and the U.S.? Yes. You do look at the results of a particular event, right?


I read the article at IranianVoice.org. It's a right-wing propaganda piece and doesn't even mention how the Shah came to power in 1953. I wonder why.

So, because an article was written from a point of view you don't like, it's irrelavent? Is that it?

Now you're just ranting.

I've asked what were the results of Carter's "Peace Treaty" with Dear Leader over the issue of building nuclear weapons and this is the ONLY response you can come up with?

You castigate Carter for overthrowing a dictator, and then accuse him of "cozying up" to dictators. Try to make some sense will you?

I castigate Carter because his actions over the Iranian issue replaced one dictator with another that is far more dangerous to the world, dammit. And yes, Carter does his best to cozy up with ALL the anti-American types. Dammit.

Our own media had to invent the terms Stagflation and the Misery Index to illustrate just how bad the economy was under Carter. Then there was the Carter's response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis by whining and snivelling and crying out to the Iranians "what did we do wrong," and managing to make the U.S. the laughingstock of the world. Then he goes and make "peace" by offering North Korea nuclear material for a mere promise that they not go and make nuclear weapons from said material. We all know what became of that deal, dammit. why do you hate America so much?

I think a bit of background information as to why Ike decided to take part in the overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh in '51. It adds detail and circumstances, rather than the idea that Ike woke up one morning with a wild hare up his ass and decided the Iranian Prime Minister just had to go, dammit. The British had an interest in the ousting of Mossadegh and Ike got convinced that there was a bit too much communist influence in the Prime Minister's decisions for the U.S. to ignore.

Darth, I mentioned Truman in my post and the circumstances of the event were detailed in the link I posted.


I'm not aware as to why Truman did decide the way he did and I doubt that you are either.

Ok. The important thing IMO is that he did decide not to involve the US in a plan to overthrow the democratically elected government of another country.


Not exactly, we're talking about nearly 30 years is an awfully long time and we have no way of knowing what might have happened in '79 had some actions not been taken in '51, dammit.

I believe it was in 1953 Darth.


It's a bit presumptuous to assume that had Ike not decided to take the action he did in Iran, we wouldn't have had an Islamic revolution occur there. Do YOU care to try to make predictions thirty years off?

No, but it doesn't take a Nostradamus to know that the US should never involve itself in these kind of sordid actions.


You can try to get Ike to shoulder the blame for the failure of an incompetent Democrat President thirty years on, I'll concentrate on Carter's actions and just how quickly Iran fell to the Islamists and all the resultant misery, dammit.

Can you say "partisan hackery"? BTW, Iran "fell" to the Iranians. The fact that they were led by a group of fundamentalist Imams is because they're the only group that could organize the overthrow of the Shah. Why is that, You ask? Try googling SAVAK. That's the name of the CIA-trained secret police that was used by the Shah to maintain his tenuous grip on power.


Well gee, Vile, what exactly the alternative produce? Carter did push the Shah of Iran into falling to the Islamists. Are the Iranians any more free? Last I heard, they don't have the rights Carter blackmailed the Shah into giving the forerunners of Islamic terrorists? Are the Iranians any more prosperous? No. Is the Iranian government now more of a threat to the Middle East, Europe and the U.S.? Yes. You do look at the results of a particular event, right?

The problem is that you look at the results only from the perspective of an American. Are they more free? Yes. They are more free from the influence of the US and Britain, which was the whole purpose of, and the driving influence behind their revolution.


So, because an article was written from a point of view you don't like, it's irrelavent? Is that it?

I didn't say it was irrelevant, I said it was propaganda.


I've asked what were the results of Carter's "Peace Treaty" with Dear Leader over the issue of building nuclear weapons and this is the ONLY response you can come up with?

It seemed appropriate considering the tenor of your rant.


I castigate Carter because his actions over the Iranian issue replaced one dictator with another that is far more dangerous to the world, dammit.

His actions were to let the Iranians decide who would govern them. Sorry if you don't like it but that's the way the world works, Darth. The US doesn't get to make those choices for everyone on the planet.


And yes, Carter does his best to cozy up with ALL the anti-American types. Dammit.

:rolleyes: Go listen to some more Rush Limbaugh.

Vile's stuff.........


Darth, I mentioned Truman in my post and the circumstances of the event were detailed in the link I posted.

Yes, and I further highlighted the reasoning Ike may have used to side with the British and take out the Prime Minister of Iran. Point being that there was far more to it than Ike decided that the Iranian Prime Minister needed overthrowing, dammit.


I believe it was in 1953 Darth.

That's great, Vile, really. I was off by two damn years. Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in '53 rather than '51, I did try to make sure that I had gotten the dates right but it didn't work. Having said that, Vile, would you please explain to me how in the sam hell ANYONE could've known what actions that had happened in '53 would've lead to the events in '79. That includes whether or not Ike had interviened in Iran. I just hate it when I make a point or ask a question and someone decides to point out that my spelling was wrong or my dates were off and then not answer the question, dammit.


Can you say "partisan hackery"? BTW, Iran "fell" to the Iranians. The fact that they were led by a group of fundamentalist Imams is because they're the only group that could organize the overthrow of the Shah. Why is that, You ask? Try googling SAVAK. That's the name of the CIA-trained secret police that was used by the Shah to maintain his tenuous grip on power.

SAVAK's influence aside, the Iranian people have landed themselves with a government that is proving to be very unpopular with the Iranians, especially the younger set, and they don't have the means of getting rid of it, dammit.

The problem is that you look at the results only from the perspective of an American. Are they more free? Yes. They are more free from the influence of the US and Britain, which was the whole purpose of, and the driving influence behind their revolution.

While ridding Iran of Western influence was one of the factors in the Iranian revolution, that wasn't the question. The question was whether or not the Iranians have gained more freedom and prosperity under Islamic rule, which they haven't. And you are right, I do see the Iranian revolution from an American, or more accurately a WESTERN perspective and I know that trying to run a country by the religioius edict results in widespread misery and oppression everytime its tried, dammit. That's something that the whole of the Middle East has patently failed to grasp, dammit.

Sorry if you don't like it but that's the way the world works, Darth.

The way the world WORKS, Vile, is that countries everywhere do their damndest to spread their influence. The Lebanese sure as hell don't want Hezbollah and Hamas using their country as a springboard to attack Israel and assassinate their leaders who don't agree with the Islamist way of life, the Iraqis sure as hell don't want the "insurgents" who are supplied and fueled by Iran, to blow up their markets, the Afghanis don't want the Taliban back, the Tibetans want the Chinese gone, Eastern Europe dislikes Putin's bullying, Taiwan wishes to not be "reunited" with mainland China, the Cambodians sure as hell don't appreciate the Khmer Rouge. Point being is that there are plenty of others, who don't respect the rule of law and international treaties or civil rights who are more than willing to impose themselves on others. If the U.S. doesn't exert its own influence, there are plenty of others who will exert theirs. And we'll find the world a far worse place. Why don't you go and rant about THEM for a change? Dammit.

It seemed appropriate considering the tenor of your rant.

Whether or not you disliked the tone of my post, the question IS what was the result of Carter's Treaty with the North Koreans? The RESULTS, Vile, not whether or not I was ranting, dammit.


http://www.bookrags.com/Iranian_Revolution