Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Empires in decline start wars they can't win because they don't know how to do anything else. The wars are sometimes delayed when we get a Jimmy Carter who believes we can solve problems without guns and bombs, but he is soon voted out and the bombs rain, until the empire is finally conquered.
because carter was a disaster, he caused big time massive inflations in the U.S. and the iran hostages, he was a pos president.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamifloridafan
because carter was a disaster, he caused big time massive inflations in the U.S. and the iran hostages, he was a pos president.
Carter didn't cause the hostage crisis. Reza Pahlavi, Dwight D Eisenhower, Winston Churchill and William Fraser were responsible. The four of them were behind the coup d'etat that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and installing Pahlavi as the Shah and as a US puppet, who then had a 26 year reign of terror. Jimmy Carter in 1953 was still working on his peanut farm. He had nothing to do with the cause of the crisis
Carter didn't cause the hostage crisis. Reza Pahlavi, Dwight D Eisenhower, Winston Churchill and William Fraser were responsible. The four of them were behind the coup d'etat that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and installing Pahlavi as the Shah and as a US puppet, who then had a 26 year reign of terror. Jimmy Carter in 1953 was still working on his peanut farm. He had nothing to do with the cause of the crisis
while you are correct that we helped install the Shah in the 1950's
He was well liked, gave women rights, and was 1000 times better than the evil ayatollah Khomeini
I read about U.S. history. Reading about U.S. history convinces me that as bad as things as in America now, it could be worse. Much worse. As a Black man, any time period before 1969 is a bad time to be in America. This America has alot of rot and smut. However, America in the 1960s and before would have been a nightmare for me as a Black man, especially in the South.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
while you are correct that we helped install the Shah in the 1950's
He was well liked, gave women rights, and was 1000 times better than the evil ayatollah Khomeini
Pahlavi had some good things once reinstated, but you are glossing over the bad as well. Dissenters like Khomeini faced imprisonment and even torture just as an example. And Pahlavi's overthrow in 79 happened before the hostage crisis and with no US involvement
because carter was a disaster, he caused big time massive inflations in the U.S. and the iran hostages, he was a pos president.
Carter didn't cause the hostage crisis. Reza Pahlavi, Dwight D Eisenhower, Winston Churchill and William Fraser were responsible. The four of them were behind the coup d'etat that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and installing Pahlavi as the Shah and as a US puppet, who then had a 26 year reign of terror. Jimmy Carter in 1953 was still working on his peanut farm. He had nothing to do with the cause of the crisis
while you are correct that we helped install the Shah in the 1950's
He was well liked, gave women rights, and was 1000 times better than the evil ayatollah Khomeini
Pahlavi had some good things once reinstated, but you are glossing over the bad as well. Dissenters like Khomeini faced imprisonment and even torture just as an example. And Pahlavi's overthrow in 79 happened before the hostage crisis and with no US involvement
Mossadegh was elected in the same sense that Rouhani, Ahmejenejad, Bazargan and Bani-Sadr were elected. I'm not sure who sponsored him but Iran didn't have an electoral culture any more than the Peoples Republic of China, Cuba or the former Soviet Union did. It was, at best, a case of "one man, one vote, one time."
Britain and the U.S. had every right to protect the private property of petroleum interests from expropriation.The wealth under nationalization does not benefit the Iranian people or for that matter any of the people of the sheikdoms or "republics" of that area. It goes to the rulers' Swiss bank accounts or to warfare. The defenestration of the West as a result of the "Vietnam syndrome" stopped similar efforts to overthrow confiscatory, thieving regimes.
Johnson and Nixon destroyed the country by failing to explain the the U.S. people why we were fighting in Vietnam and other faraway places. Perhaps they should have cut losses sooner, or perhaps used more force to actually win. I don't know.
But I'm pretty sure that U.S. efforts in Vietnam bought nearby countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and perhaps even India time to develop and stabilize as independent countries before facing Soviet or Chinese-fueled insurgencies. The Soviet technique was to first destabilize these countries through stirring up local grievances and then install a sympathetic government. That's what they did in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Mossadegh was elected in the same sense that Rouhani, Ahmejenejad, Bazargan and Bani-Sadr were elected. I'm not sure who sponsored him but Iran didn't have an electoral culture any more than the Peoples Republic of China, Cuba or the former Soviet Union did. It was, at best, a case of "one man, one vote, one time."
Britain and the U.S. had every right to protect the private property of petroleum interests from expropriation.The wealth under nationalization does not benefit the Iranian people or for that matter any of the people of the sheikdoms or "republics" of that area. It goes to the rulers' Swiss bank accounts or to warfare. The defenestration of the West as a result of the "Vietnam syndrome" stopped similar efforts to overthrow confiscatory, thieving regimes.
Johnson and Nixon destroyed the country by failing to explain the the U.S. people why we were fighting in Vietnam and other faraway places. Perhaps they should have cut losses sooner, or perhaps used more force to actually win. I don't know.
But I'm pretty sure that U.S. efforts in Vietnam bought nearby countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and perhaps even India time to develop and stabilize as independent countries before facing Soviet or Chinese-fueled insurgencies. The Soviet technique was to first destabilize these countries through stirring up local grievances and then install a sympathetic government. That's what they did in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
I disagree with the bolded, and still maintain that world history would have been different (and for the better) of it weren't for the 53 coup in Persia
I disagree with the bolded, and still maintain that world history would have been different (and for the better) of it weren't for the 53 coup in Persia
Can you, and I don't mean this harshly, explain your disagreement with the bolded part?And explain how world history would have been better if the current Ayatollan regime existed through the 50's, 60's and 70's?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
