Live Free or Die...

[ddmoit]

... In Iran!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071209122906.ydxg6hkk&show_article=1

[Sponsored Links]

[cx]

No wonder George Bush wants to bomb them!! :mad:

I say "Iran, love it or go back to New Hampshire!" That'll teach'em. :)

[John Corley]

"No wonder Geroge Bush wants to bomb them"

I don't get it....

[cx]

Little attempt at humor there, John.

GWB says they hate us and send bombers because we "love freedom." The least he'll wanna do is return the favor, eh? :shades:

[John Corley]

I get it :lol2: :scratch:

I hope this spirit of freedom keeps it up over there.

I know people who were there before the revolution, and they said there were even bikinis on the beach... :shrug:

[ddmoit]

There is a sizable pro-West faction in Iran. The last thing we need is for them to become collateral damage statistics from US bombs.

[dl]

Iran is a prime example of the bad results of meddling in the middle east. Back in the 50's Iran had a popular progressive, secular, pro-western government under the Shah and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, but when Iran decided to nationalize oil (rightfully imo) the US chose to side with the Brits and helped orchestrate a coup to oust Mossadegh. It took a while but the rest is history.

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

- DL

[MHI]

"I know people who were there before the revolution, and they said there were even bikinis on the beach..."

With bikini waxing and shaved armpits?

Well, I guess they gotta take it one step at a time.:)

[sandbagger]

GWB says they hate us .... nope, never said it. :shake: not in reference to the citizenry of Iran.

In fact, it is the dilemma of potentially alienating a friendly populace that has probably done the most to keep our bombers grounded. It took a while but the rest is history.and that 'history' isn't complete without pointing out that Carter is perhaps single-handedly responsible for the Islamic takeover and ouster of the Shah. The Mossadegh episode happened, and you can criticize or not. (fwiw - I do NOT agree with nationalizing an industry without proper compensation.) The Shah was pro-West and Khomeini was exiled in France when Carter took office. When Khomeini made his move against the Shah, Carter didn't just stand by and watch. Khomeini knew in advance that Carter would do nothing - unlike previous presidents. Yes, the rest is history - and Carter's legacy. :noid:

[John Corley]

Matt I don't think anyone was waxing in the 70's :zztop:

[Dave Hessel]

I wasn't there, but I have a hard time believing the bikini claim. Unless the men were sporting them. :blah:

[Scooter]

When Khomeini made his move against the Shah, Carter didn't just stand by and watch. Khomeini knew in advance that Carter would do nothing - unlike previous presidents. Yes, the rest is history - and Carter's legacy You probably should read the book "Guests of the Ayatolah". I think the author was Mark Bowden who wrote "Blackhawk Down" and he spent the better part of 10 years researching the book, interviewing French, Iranian, American guys, including the CIA Station Chief in Tehran, who was taken hostage. He also helped write the video documentary, with interviews of the CIA Station Chief, in case you saw that.

Mark Bowden would disagree with you on that score. The CIA's assessment at the time was that Khomeini was not a threat, and that there was immense popular support for the Shah. Moreover, other than shooting down the French Airline which carried Khomeini, there was little Carter could have done. The Shah had the right to refuse entry for Khomeini, and the Shah felt that Khomeini was not a threat either. Essentially, if the Shah didn't care, and it was his country, why should the US care?

If you would read the book, as I have, you would read the very long interviews with the CIA Station Chief who echoed the popular sentiment at the time, that he loved Iran, thought it was a beautiful country, loved the people, and did not feel threatened by Khomeini at all and felt that Khomeini's return was indeed a good thing. That was the popular sentement at the time. It had nothing to do with Carter, or Carter's failure to shoot down a civilian aircraft.

The CIA was, of course, wrong and the CIA Station Chief was taken hostage.

And if you remember, the Air Force did subsequently shoot down an Iranian civilian aircraft but that was after things started heating up. And Khomeini regretably was not on the plane.

unlike previous presidentsHuh? What prior President interfered with a domestic change of leadership in a foreign country? There was a military takeover in Chile after an election and we did nothinig to stop that. There was a Chinese takeover of Nepal and we stood by and watched that happen; and in the 50's watched as Soviet tanks rolled into Austria and Hungary. In Viet Nam there were a series of coup de'etats that we did nothing about either. So I'm at a loss for the historical precedent to unilaterally dictate to a soverign nation what rabble rousers should be allowed in, when the dictator himself allows the entry. Care to enlighten us to the historical precedent?

[sandbagger]

Mark Bowden would disagree with you on that score. well, he's wrong. According to this NY Times (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E12FA3D5D12728DDDAA0A94D9405B898BF1D3) piece, Ramsey Clark met Khomeini in France: Ramsey Clark, the former United States Attorney General, just back from a meeting with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in France, said yesterday that the Iranian Moslem leader had told him that he hoped the United States would not intervene in Iran, but choose instead to "let the nation determine its own fate."That was in January, 1979 - before the Shah was deposed. Unfortunately this is in the paid archive of the Times, but the author goes on to describe how Clark pleaded his case with Carter and key (Democrat) members of Congress. Carter - always the pacifist - was happy to oblige.

[Scooter]

Five points:

1. There was nothing that Carter could do to stop Khomeini, short of shooting down the airplane, right? Help me out here, I just don't understand.

2. The Shah voluntarily let Khomeini in the country. So again, point number one, I'm not sure that the USA would take military action against a friendly country against the wishes of the leader we actually supported. Again, you've not detailed what the US should have done nor told me your precedent for past actions, as you claimed.

3. You really want to quote Ramsey Clark as unbiased truthful source of information? Man, thats a stretch. That would be like me quoting Rush Limbag as a source of truth.

4. Did you read "Guests of the Ayatollah"? Or see the Documentary?

5. If not, which I suspect, there is at least a whole chapter devoted to the CIA Station Chief and he was interviewed on film as well. The point of this is that the sentement at the time was that Khomeini was good for Iran, a sentament shared by even the Shah. We know now that opinion was wrong, but do you dispute the fact that was the more or less unanimous popular opinion back then?

[sandbagger]

point number one, I'm not sure that the USA would take military action against a friendly country against the wishes of the leader we actually supported.you're missing the point. Up until Carter we professed support for the Shah in a manner that left enough doubt in the minds of Khomeini and his thugs that he didn't risk return. That ambiguity was all that was necessary to keep him out. Carter removed that doubt. You really want to quote Ramsey Clark as unbiased truthful source of information? I quoted the NY Times, Scooter - bible of the liberal intelligentsia. I'll apologize again for the fact that the entire article isn't available. But it doesn't matter whether I (or you) think Clark is reliable (I don't). Jimmy Carter did - and took his advice. there is at least a whole chapter devoted to the CIA Station Chief... CIA? Since when did you ever consider the CIA to be reliable? If I recall you've done your share of CIA-bashing when it comes to Iraq, eh? So how is it they got it right about Iran? History shows clearly they weren't any more right about Khomeini than they were about Saddam. :suspect:

[tileguytodd]

History shows clearly they weren't any more right about Khomeini than they were about Saddam.

Which History??

The Actual History of True Events?
Or
The History we are fed by our & others Media?

And if you dont believe that there is a difference, You havent looked at the History being taught in our schools.

These days, Quoting ANY News Media as a Source of factual Information should include a disclaimer, Something like:

The above information is one possible view of many from one news source, a news source with their own agenda. Use this information at your own Risk of looking foolish!!

They cant even get the Weather right , Do you really think they can handle Important stuff?? :yeah:

[Scooter]

Actually, Art, I'm not quarreling with you.

The point is that the CIA thought that Khomeini was harmless. And indeed that view permeated itself throughout the Administration. I do believe we finally agree that yes indeed, the CIA, Administration, and pretty much everyone thought Khomeini was harmless. Everyone was wrong. And the NY Times doesn't address that; and Ramsey Clark was not Secy of State nor Secy of Defense, so your reliance on an article which you haven't read which might discuss what may or may not be his opinion on foreign affairs mystifies me. If you were a student in a history, class, I don't think I'd give you a passing grade on this one.

Putting that aside, I still don't see what the USA could have done. We supported the Shah, took him into the USA after he got into trouble, but I'm not seeing how "support" translates to an action plan. For the third time, I ask you what the USA could have done? Commit troops? Shoot down the civilian aircraft? Get our buddies in France not to let him leave?

I enjoy criticizing a policy, and thats fine, but when you do, you have come up with a specific policy which is better. "Support" doesn't cut it for an idea.

[sandbagger]

I still don't see what the USA could have done....I'll repeat in a different way - we didn't actually have to do anything. It was the perception - or threat - that the US would act that kept Khomeini at bay through previous administrations. Carter - via Ramsey Clark the messenger - removed the threat. Simple as that. (by the way - I did read the article)
The point is that the CIA thought that Khomeini was harmless. kinda like they thought there weren't missiles in Cuba, like they thought there was WMD in Iraq, like they thought N Korea didn't have a nuke? And now they're telling us Iran stopped their nuke program? :lol1:
Anybody see a pattern here?

The problem with the CIA "assessment" on Khomeini was that it was exactly the position Carter wanted; much like some would say Bush wanted the WMDs.

I think we certainly agree on one thing, Scooter - the CIA is a mess. :sheep:

[Scooter]

If the idea is that we should have stopped a religious leader from starting a revolution, I don't think it could have been done.

If you have a problem with Carter doing nothing, then you must be really pissed at your beloved President Bush, who not once, but twice, let Sadr off the hook, only to allow him safe conduct back to Baghdad, where he started his own rebellion.

But the difference between Bush and Carter is, as you correctly point out that Carter had no means to stop the religious leader. Bush did--had him cornered in a building with troops surrounding it.

And the idea that an Islamic country would be better off with freedom of speech and thought e.g., freedom is good for Islamic countries is the cornerstone of the NeoCons. I don't believe in this for a second, I would take a good old fashioned ruthless dictator over a freedom loving leader that lets religious zealots run amock. Geroge Bush Sr understood this, as did Carter; Regretably, George Bush Junior missed the memo on this, hence the tar baby of Iraq we got ourselves into--all to bring "freedom" to Iraq.

What a crock of crap.