- Oct 9, 2005
There is an answer to all of your questions and its called geo-politics. Nations try to stay on top of the food chain all of the time and therefore they play these interesting little games which have a side effect of screwing up the world and creating history.Originally posted by: Craig234
First of all, what gives you the right to say who should be in charge of Iran, mister pro-democracy?Originally posted by: Braznor
The alternatives to him were much worse. Too bad, we found this out the hard way. Carter's administration is responsible for promising support to the Shah only to withdraw it at the very last moment. Thus paving way for Mullahs in Iran.
Second of all, why don't you go crack a book sometime, and learn the history of how the guy democratically in charge had simply made the terrible mistake of raising the price of oil to England, leading them to ask the US for help in 'fixing' that 'problem', since they liked the old setup where they got oil at exploitave prices.
What paved the way for Mullahs to rule Iran? You might want to do some reading on that, too. Hint: Had we not put the Shah in power, the Mullahs weren't likely to be in charge.
If you had any principles, I'd ask you to explain and justify the US siding with Saddam in his invasion of Iran, with a million casualties, but I can see what a waste that would be.
Regarding democracy in Iran, while I don't have any right to decide the government for Iranians, it also pains me that the Iranians don't have much rights as well to decide about it. The Shah may have been a despot, but so are the mullahs and with them comes the bonus of cultural repression. None will dispute that Iran under the Shah was a much better place than it being under the Mullahs. Carter betrayed the Shah by promising him support until the last moment and withholding it when needed. So he does have direct culpability in bringing into place one leg of the quadripod that makes up the politics of Middle East today : The islamic republic of Iran.
As for American help for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Again geopolitics and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" attitude. But remember if it wasn't for Carter allowing Iran to fall to the mullahs, there would have no Iran-Iraq war too (a war fought by Saddam to curb the Iranian revolutionary fervor from spilling to his side of the border amongst the Shiite populace)
As for Carter, he should quit trying to save the world. The way things are standing, the world needs to be saved from him first.