Republicans have been wrong for 100 years.

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: techs
I claim pwnage with this thread.

Self-pwnage, for sure. :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
If they banned the word "troll" from this forum your posts would get cut by 90 percent. The fact is, he's actually pretty close to the truth. THe republicans have been wrong on policy for a very long time. It's your job to show how that's wrong rather than making ad hominem attacks.

How much history do you know? Be honest 🙂

:roll: No, it's not my job to refute his BS. I will however point out a troll thread - which this most certainly is. Only a BDS sufferer wouldn't be able to see that.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
If they banned the word "troll" from this forum your posts would get cut by 90 percent. The fact is, he's actually pretty close to the truth. THe republicans have been wrong on policy for a very long time. It's your job to show how that's wrong rather than making ad hominem attacks.

How much history do you know? Be honest 🙂

:roll: No, it's not my job to refute his BS. I will however point out a troll thread - which this most certainly is. Only a BDS sufferer wouldn't be able to see that.

Yes, if you think posting facts and educating people about history is "trolling".
Yet, the facts are true.
So, I can only guess the Republicans on this board don't know what to say when their parties disastrous policies are examined. Except to scream troll.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
If they banned the word "troll" from this forum your posts would get cut by 90 percent. The fact is, he's actually pretty close to the truth. THe republicans have been wrong on policy for a very long time. It's your job to show how that's wrong rather than making ad hominem attacks.

How much history do you know? Be honest 🙂

:roll: No, it's not my job to refute his BS. I will however point out a troll thread - which this most certainly is. Only a BDS sufferer wouldn't be able to see that.

Yes, if you think posting facts and educating people about history is "trolling".
Yet, the facts are true.
So, I can only guess the Republicans on this board don't know what to say when their parties disastrous policies are examined. Except to scream troll.

Actually they are your opinons of history and you assign causation to narrow things, leaving out massive amounts of history so it all fits into your nice little bubble world. I was messaged about this troll thread and pretty much told it was going to stay open(no, I didn't ask for it to be locked). I may or may not chose to educate you on your version of history if I take the time to do so. It isn't that it's hard to do, it's just that you've crammed so much BS into your troll it'll take pages to educate you on the context of the issue/situations/etc you've brought up.

BTW, I'm a Conservative - which just happens to be most aligned with the Republicans.

 

[Stoneburner]

Cad, you aren't fooling anybody. You could address the tiniest piece of a single issue here ... but nope... you'd rather just troll about how the OP is a troll. Irony is such a troll.

You don't know enough history off hand to refute anything here.

 

[ProfJohn]

Techs, it seems like you have a very basic understanding of history. As pointed out most of your points are based on half truths or just completely false.
Point by point:

End of WW 1.
While it is true that Republicans in congress opposed the Treat of Versailles, it is also true that Wilson himself hamstrung any attempt to get the treaty passed by essentially keeping congress in the dark about the deliberations and refusing to support any of the changes requested by the Senate.

Furthermore, and FAR more important than Republican interference was the fact that the allies did NOT want the 14 points. That was the main reason that Wilson?s ideas did not get put into action.

?The Republicans wanted the Europeans to keep their colonies? The Europeans wanted to keep their colonies too!! Are you suggesting that if the Republicans weren?t standing in the way that the Europeans would have just given up all their colonies?

The great depression.
To lay the entire great depression at the feet of the Republicans was just naïve. I suggest you head over to Wikipedia and read up on the depression where you will learn than even 80 years later there is still a debate as to what caused the depression.

In short the depression was most likely caused by a large number of independent events. Too much debt caused a drop in spending which lead to an economic turn down. A huge contraction in the money supply and a general weakness in the banking system, both of where caused by bad policy decisions by the Federal Reserve System etc.

I also suggest that you read up on Hoover. While Hoover did not intervene as much as FDR did he had more direct involvement in the economy than any President in our history (at that time.)

You should also educate yourself on FDR where you will learn that most of his programs had little effect on the depression. In fact there was a second recession in 1937, right as many of FDR?s new deal programs were going into action. It was not until the US and other countries launched into massive rearmament to counter the threat of Nazi Germany that the depression actually ended. (BTW many of FDR?s new deal programs were extensions and expansions of programs started by Hoover.)

The ?Red Scare?
You forget that it was President Truman, a Democrat, who created the Federal Employees Loyalty Program. Which allowed for the firing of federal employees if they doubted their ?loyalty.? You also forget that McCarthy was a good friend of the Kennedy family, even dated two members of the Kennedy family. In 1954 McCarthy had a 54% favorable rating with only a 29% unfavorable rating, better than every one running for President this year. JFK himself once said of McCarthy "Hell, half my voters in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero."

Civil Rights
As someone else already pointed out the Republicans voted for the civil rights act in far greater numbers than the Democrats. Over 80% of Republicans voted for the bill compared to the mid 60% level reached by the Democrats.

BTW I love how the Democrats try to run out the ?southern strategy? BS in an attempt to paint the Republican party as racists, but completely ignore the fact that Democrats RAN the south during the worst era of race relations. It was the Democrats who set the dogs loose and turned the fire houses on black protesters. It was a Democrat who stood in the door of the University of Alabama to make a symbolic statement about segregation. It was the Democrats who passed all the Jim Crow laws. Of course you just ignore all of this and run out the ?southern strategy? theory that has never been proven. What?s worse, the supposed racism by Republicans or the proven racist history of the Democratic Party?

1980s
First off you entirely seem to have forgotten about Kennedy, Johnson and the Vietnam war. I guess you would want to forget about a war started by Democrats that resulted in 58,000 American deaths (that is only 15 times the current death toll in Iraq that you complain about on a daily basis.) And what happened to Kennedy?s ?illegal? invasion of Cuba? Or the 1968 trip to Cambodia that is so clearly ?seared? into the memory of John Kerry?

You also skip right over Jimmy Carter and the absolute disaster that was his Presidency. Runaway inflation, poor economy, weak foreign policy. All of this resulted in a weak military, the Iranian revolution and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Following this disaster Reagan revitalised the US economy launching it into one of the longest peace time expansions in history. His military build-up and support of the mujaheddin lead to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. (BTW It was the weapon systems of the 1980s that won both Iraq wars and allowed Clinton to bomb Serbia into submission.)

Finally your last two paragraphs aren?t even worth responding too. Bush?s worst deficit was LOWER than Clinton?s worse deficit (as a % of GDP.) And American jobs have been leaving this country for 30+ years. Despite this fact unemployment today is nearly as low as it has ever been. Also the idea that Bush has ended 200 years of American freedom is laughable. Perhaps he should follow in the footsteps of that great Democrat President and intern every Muslim in the country until the ?war? is over.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs, it seems like you have a very basic understanding of history. As pointed out most of your points are based on half truths or just completely false.
Point by point:

End of WW 1.
While it is true that Republicans in congress opposed the Treat of Versailles, it is also true that Wilson himself hamstrung any attempt to get the treaty passed by essentially keeping congress in the dark about the deliberations and refusing to support any of the changes requested by the Senate.

Furthermore, and FAR more important than Republican interference was the fact that the allies did NOT want the 14 points. That was the main reason that Wilson?s ideas did not get put into action.

?The Republicans wanted the Europeans to keep their colonies? The Europeans wanted to keep their colonies too!! Are you suggesting that if the Republicans weren?t standing in the way that the Europeans would have just given up all their colonies?

The great depression.
To lay the entire great depression at the feet of the Republicans was just naïve. I suggest you head over to Wikipedia and read up on the depression where you will learn than even 80 years later there is still a debate as to what caused the depression.

In short the depression was most likely caused by a large number of independent events. Too much debt caused a drop in spending which lead to an economic turn down. A huge contraction in the money supply and a general weakness in the banking system, both of where caused by bad policy decisions by the Federal Reserve System etc.

I also suggest that you read up on Hoover. While Hoover did not intervene as much as FDR did he had more direct involvement in the economy than any President in our history (at that time.)

You should also educate yourself on FDR where you will learn that most of his programs had little effect on the depression. In fact there was a second recession in 1937, right as many of FDR?s new deal programs were going into action. It was not until the US and other countries launched into massive rearmament to counter the threat of Nazi Germany that the depression actually ended. (BTW many of FDR?s new deal programs were extensions and expansions of programs started by Hoover.)

The ?Red Scare?
You forget that it was President Truman, a Democrat, who created the Federal Employees Loyalty Program. Which allowed for the firing of federal employees if they doubted their ?loyalty.? You also forget that McCarthy was a good friend of the Kennedy family, even dated two members of the Kennedy family. In 1954 McCarthy had a 54% favorable rating with only a 29% unfavorable rating, better than every one running for President this year. JFK himself once said of McCarthy "Hell, half my voters in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero."

Civil Rights
As someone else already pointed out the Republicans voted for the civil rights act in far greater numbers than the Democrats. Over 80% of Republicans voted for the bill compared to the mid 60% level reached by the Democrats.

BTW I love how the Democrats try to run out the ?southern strategy? BS in an attempt to paint the Republican party as racists, but completely ignore the fact that Democrats RAN the south during the worst era of race relations. It was the Democrats who set the dogs loose and turned the fire houses on black protesters. It was a Democrat who stood in the door of the University of Alabama to make a symbolic statement about segregation. It was the Democrats who passed all the Jim Crow laws. Of course you just ignore all of this and run out the ?southern strategy? theory that has never been proven. What?s worse, the supposed racism by Republicans or the proven racist history of the Democratic Party?

1980s
First off you entirely seem to have forgotten about Kennedy, Johnson and the Vietnam war. I guess you would want to forget about a war started by Democrats that resulted in 58,000 American deaths (that is only 15 times the current death toll in Iraq that you complain about on a daily basis.) And what happened to Kennedy?s ?illegal? invasion of Cuba? Or the 1968 trip to Cambodia that is so clearly ?seared? into the memory of John Kerry?

You also skip right over Jimmy Carter and the absolute disaster that was his Presidency. Runaway inflation, poor economy, weak foreign policy. All of this resulted in a weak military, the Iranian revolution and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Following this disaster Reagan revitalised the US economy launching it into one of the longest peace time expansions in history. His military build-up and support of the mujaheddin lead to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. (BTW It was the weapon systems of the 1980s that won both Iraq wars and allowed Clinton to bomb Serbia into submission.)

Finally your last two paragraphs aren?t even worth responding too. Bush?s worst deficit was LOWER than Clinton?s worse deficit (as a % of GDP.) And American jobs have been leaving this country for 30+ years. Despite this fact unemployment today is nearly as low as it has ever been. Also the idea that Bush has ended 200 years of American freedom is laughable. Perhaps he should follow in the footsteps of that great Democrat President and intern every Muslim in the country until the ?war? is over.

That's pure opinion and you know it. Russia would have invaded Afghanistan even if my favorite, Ike, had been in the oval office. And the Iranian revolution being Carter's fault, I see you repeating that silly opinion here. A decent summary of the major reasoning is here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...ged_errors_of_the_Shah

I don't see Carter on that list, funny eh?

 

[Stoneburner]

End of WW 1.
While it is true that Republicans in congress opposed the Treat of Versailles, it is also true that Wilson himself hamstrung any attempt to get the treaty passed by essentially keeping congress in the dark about the deliberations and refusing to support any of the changes requested by the Senate.

Furthermore, and FAR more important than Republican interference was the fact that the allies did NOT want the 14 points. That was the main reason that Wilson?s ideas did not get put into action.

?The Republicans wanted the Europeans to keep their colonies? The Europeans wanted to keep their colonies too!! Are you suggesting that if the Republicans weren?t standing in the way that the Europeans would have just given up all their colonies?

What did the colonies have to do with the problem with overall problem of germany? I doubt wilson even took that portion of the 14 points seriously. While you are correct woodrow undermined himself, the Republican obstructionism was what it was. As i've stated in this thread before, woodrow acted like bush with regards to the opposing party... sometimes his own party.

However, you have to admit, america's detachment following woodrow (3 repubs in a row) was part of the overall problem that arose in Germany.

The great depression.
The great depression.
To lay the entire great depression at the feet of the Republicans was just naïve. I suggest you head over to Wikipedia and read up on the depression where you will learn than even 80 years later there is still a debate as to what caused the depression.

In short the depression was most likely caused by a large number of independent events. Too much debt caused a drop in spending which lead to an economic turn down. A huge Tcontraction in the money supply and a general weakness in the banking system, both of where caused by bad policy decisions by the Federal Reserve System etc.

I also suggest that you read up on Hoover. While Hoover did not intervene as much as FDR did he had more direct involvement in the economy than any President in our history (at that time.)

You should also educate yourself on FDR where you will learn that most of his programs had little effect on the depression. In fact there was a second recession in 1937, right as many of FDR?s new deal programs were going into action. It was not until the US and other countries launched into massive rearmament to counter the threat of Nazi Germany that the depression actually ended. (BTW many of FDR?s new deal programs were extensions and expansions of programs started by Hoover.)

Are you a real professor? Nobody should recommend wikipedia as an initial introduction to anything. The largest problem with what you are saying here is, you are not contradicting anything that was said. We know the general causes of the Depression: rampant speculation, gross lack of parity in spending power, foreign tariff battles, and COMPLETE LACK OF REGULATION. Laissez faire economics proved to be an absolute failure.

And the roosevelt recession (distinct from a depression)? CAUSED WHEN HE TRIED TURNING BACK TO LAISSEZ FAIRE. Roosevelt never intended to keep the New Deal around forever, but when he tried tempering it, the economy slumped. As for Hoover, everything he did was a bit too late. There's no evidence he would have done everything necessary to at least stymie the depression.

You forget that it was President Truman, a Democrat, who created the Federal Employees Loyalty Program. Which allowed for the firing of federal employees if they doubted their ?loyalty.? You also forget that McCarthy was a good friend of the Kennedy family, even dated two members of the Kennedy family. In 1954 McCarthy had a 54% favorable rating with only a 29% unfavorable rating, better than every one running for President this year. JFK himself once said of McCarthy "Hell, half my voters in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero."ext

So... kennedy like mccarthy, that means what exactly? This was close to a non-sequituir

Civil Rights
As someone else already pointed out the Republicans voted for the civil rights act in far greater numbers than the Democrats. Over 80% of Republicans voted for the bill compared to the mid 60% level reached by the Democrats.

BTW I love how the Democrats try to run out the ?southern strategy? BS in an attempt to paint the Republican party as racists, but completely ignore the fact that Democrats RAN the south during the worst era of race relations. It was the Democrats who set the dogs loose and turned the fire houses on black protesters. It was a Democrat who stood in the door of the University of Alabama to make a symbolic statement about segregation. It was the Democrats who passed all the Jim Crow laws. Of course you just ignore all of this and run out the ?southern strategy? theory that has never been proven. What?s worse, the supposed racism by Republicans or the proven racist history of the Democratic Party?

1. Most of the dixiecrats became republicans
2. Though southern democrats were the ones holding racism, it was the Eastern Elite Dems that brought about civil rights.
3. Nobody has said republicans were always racist. They just slowly shifted positions with dems until the FDR to Kennedy eras.

First off you entirely seem to have forgotten about Kennedy, Johnson and the Vietnam war. I guess you would want to forget about a war started by Democrats that resulted in 58,000 American deaths (that is only 15 times the current death toll in Iraq that you complain about on a daily basis.) And what happened to Kennedy?s ?illegal? invasion of Cuba? Or the 1968 trip to Cambodia that is so clearly ?seared? into the memory of John Kerry?

You also skip right over Jimmy Carter and the absolute disaster that was his Presidency. Runaway inflation, poor economy, weak foreign policy. All of this resulted in a weak military, the Iranian revolution and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Following this disaster Reagan revitalised the US economy launching it into one of the longest peace time expansions in history. His military build-up and support of the mujaheddin lead to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. (BTW It was the weapon systems of the 1980s that won both Iraq wars and allowed Clinton to bomb Serbia into submission.)

1. Ike started vietnam, nixon escalated. It's primarily kennedy's responsibility though.
2. Jimmy Carter - He would have won if not for the hostage crisis. And what was wrong with his foreign policy exactly? Was he supposed to bomb somebody?

Finally your last two paragraphs aren?t even worth responding too. Bush?s worst deficit was LOWER than Clinton?s worse deficit (as a % of GDP.) And American jobs have been leaving this country for 30+ years. Despite this fact unemployment today is nearly as low as it has ever been. Also the idea that Bush has ended 200 years of American freedom

Bush's best surplus was much lower than Clinton's WORST surplus 🙂 Unemployment numbers are B.S in how they are currently measured since they do not take into account those who have stopped seeking new jobs.

As for bush ending american freedoms... There have been moments and this is one of them. THe alien and sedition acts, the Maine affair, the war of 1848, the red scare.... Problem is, america has never had a particularly strong executive. FDR was probably the most powerful. As long as the power is balanced out, there is some reassurance. Bush is doing his best to undermine any balance among the 8 branches of government.

Thanks for actually responding.

 

[Stoneburner]

I just caught the stuff about the iranian revolution. That is an absolute mangling of history. American support for the shah caused the revolution, and the forcing of him back into power. JImmy Carter was the first president to tell the shah to reform or he'd lose support. As for reagan supporting the mujahadeen.... yep, brilliant strategy. You know damn well those same people, primarily saudis, were the ones who trained bin laden and started causing problems from east africa to pakistan.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I just caught the stuff about the iranian revolution. That is an absolute mangling of history. American support for the shah caused the revolution, and the forcing of him back into power. JImmy Carter was the first president to tell the shah to reform or he'd lose support. As for reagan supporting the mujahadeen.... yep, brilliant strategy. You know damn well those same people, primarily saudis, were the ones who trained bin laden and started causing problems from east africa to pakistan.

You just answered your own question.

Carter?s withdrawing support due to ?humanitarian? reasons resulted in the down fall of the Shah.
It is very ironic that Carter being upset about the number of political prisoners kept by the Shah and therefore withdrawing support for him resulted in the Islamic revolution in which more people were executed during the first year than had been executed in the Shah?s entire time in power.

As the saying goes: some times you are better with the devil you know than the devil you don?t know.

 

[Stoneburner]

Profjohn, that's dead wrong. Carter threatened to withdraw support, but never did. Blaming it on Carter is immensely stupid. Blame it on whoever told the CIA and the brits to reinstall the shah againt a democratic and secular regime. IN fact, carter never really threatened to withdraw support, he somewhat hinted at it. At that time, khomeini was already gaining a power base and the shah was already about to lose terribly.

This is a silly point to argue, I don't think you know enough about this event.

 

[ProfJohn]

Quick answer to you Stoneburner:

The fact that Republican opposed Wilson?s ideas is irrelevant because Europe would have never gone for most of his 14 points. Wilson had the right idea for sure, but he was before his time.

Not sure you can blame the Republicans for the mood of the country and the isolationist POV that occurred during the 30?s. Either way it was a horrible mistake.

Wikipedia is a quick and easy source that is why I suggested it.
The depression was a result of a LOT of different factors all coming together at the same time. You can not place ALL of the blame at the feet of the Republicans, nor can you place all of the credit for ending it on FDR. There are economists who suggest that FDR actually caused the depression to drag on longer than it would have due to the fact that his policies got in the way of the normal business cycle. (I don?t want to get into a long debate on that though.)

Kennedy-McCarthy: The red scare was a product of the cold war and really belongs to the country as a whole. For every Democrat who opposed McCarthy and his tactics there was one who supported him. Again, you can?t lay the blame for this at the feet of the Republicans, both sides made some mistakes. Imagine the outcry if Bush created a ?loyalty program? today.

Civil rights: Like Techs you ignore the history of the Democrat Party while trying to lay racism at the feet of the Republicans post 1960?s.

Vietnam: Johnson escalated, Nixon ended it. The three worst years are 67-69, Johnson was President for two of those years and the third was Nixon?s first year.

Jimmy Carter was a total failure; there was no way he could have been reelected, even without the hostage crisis.

The bit about Bush and Clinton is TRUE, look it up. You can call the unemployment numbers BS all you want, but they are figured out the same way today as they were under Clinton so in relations to Clinton?s terms Bush?s number are nearly as good.

Personally I am more fearful of Democrats attempts to control my wallet and healthcare than I am of Bush listening into phone calls between people in foreign countries.
8 branches of government??? I must have missed the other 5, please tell me what they are. 😀

 

[ProfJohn]

Iran:
From Wikipedia, again not the best source but a nice easy one to find and understand.

In 1977 a new American President, Jimmy Carter, was inaugurated. In hopes of making post-Vietnam American power and foreign policy more benevolent, he created a special Office of Human Rights which sent the Shah a "polite reminder" of the importance of political rights and freedom. The Shah responded by granting amnesty to 357 political prisoners in February, and allowing Red Cross to visit prisons, beginning what is said to be 'a trend of liberalization by the Shah'. Through the late spring, summer and autumn liberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the regime.[99] Later that year a dissent group (the Writers' Association) gathered without the customary police break-up and arrests, starting a new era of political action by the Shah's opponents.

and

Facing a revolution, the Shah appealed to the United States for support. Because of its history and strategic location Iran was important to the United States. It was a pro-American country sharing a long border with America's cold war rival, the Soviet Union, and the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. But the Pahlavi regime had also recently garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its human rights record.

The Carter administration followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[113] The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski ?repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully." President Carter arguably failed at following up on those assurances. On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department believed the revolution was unstoppable.[114] After visiting the Shah in summer of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[115] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (Secretary of Defense under Ford) were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support. Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. military intervention to stabilize Iran even when the Shah's position was believed to be untenable. President Carter could not decide how to stabilize the situation; he was certainly against another coup.

That sums up Carter, he could never make a ?hard? decision. He was insanely weak when it came to foreign policy. Our enemies saw this and took advantage of this situation. (The invasion of Afghanistan was just an example of this. As was his inability to act at the start of the hostage crisis.)

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iran:
From Wikipedia, again not the best source but a nice easy one to find and understand.

In 1977 a new American President, Jimmy Carter, was inaugurated. In hopes of making post-Vietnam American power and foreign policy more benevolent, he created a special Office of Human Rights which sent the Shah a "polite reminder" of the importance of political rights and freedom. The Shah responded by granting amnesty to 357 political prisoners in February, and allowing Red Cross to visit prisons, beginning what is said to be 'a trend of liberalization by the Shah'. Through the late spring, summer and autumn liberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the regime.[99] Later that year a dissent group (the Writers' Association) gathered without the customary police break-up and arrests, starting a new era of political action by the Shah's opponents.

and

Facing a revolution, the Shah appealed to the United States for support. Because of its history and strategic location Iran was important to the United States. It was a pro-American country sharing a long border with America's cold war rival, the Soviet Union, and the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. But the Pahlavi regime had also recently garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its human rights record.

The Carter administration followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[113] The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski ?repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully." President Carter arguably failed at following up on those assurances. On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department believed the revolution was unstoppable.[114] After visiting the Shah in summer of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[115] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (Secretary of Defense under Ford) were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support. Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. military intervention to stabilize Iran even when the Shah's position was believed to be untenable. President Carter could not decide how to stabilize the situation; he was certainly against another coup.

That sums up Carter, he could never make a ?hard? decision. He was insanely weak when it came to foreign policy. Our enemies saw this and took advantage of this situation. (The invasion of Afghanistan was just an example of this. As was his inability to act at the start of the hostage crisis.)

First off, let me congratulate you on being one of the very few to actually address the topic of this thread.
Insofar as Carter's inability to act, well, compare that with Bush Sr.'s sending signals to Saddam that encouraged him to both attack Iran and that the U.S. would not interfere with his invasion of Kuwait.
Carter was in a tough place. The Shah was a monster, in danger of being overthrown by monsters. Not an enviable situation.
It MAY have been possible to change what happened in Iraq if the U.S. had not supported the Shah so strongly. Unfortunately the U.S. is the b*tch for anyone who promises us oil. And thats what the Shah did.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iran:
From Wikipedia, again not the best source but a nice easy one to find and understand.

In 1977 a new American President, Jimmy Carter, was inaugurated. In hopes of making post-Vietnam American power and foreign policy more benevolent, he created a special Office of Human Rights which sent the Shah a "polite reminder" of the importance of political rights and freedom. The Shah responded by granting amnesty to 357 political prisoners in February, and allowing Red Cross to visit prisons, beginning what is said to be 'a trend of liberalization by the Shah'. Through the late spring, summer and autumn liberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the regime.[99] Later that year a dissent group (the Writers' Association) gathered without the customary police break-up and arrests, starting a new era of political action by the Shah's opponents.

and

Facing a revolution, the Shah appealed to the United States for support. Because of its history and strategic location Iran was important to the United States. It was a pro-American country sharing a long border with America's cold war rival, the Soviet Union, and the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. But the Pahlavi regime had also recently garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its human rights record.

The Carter administration followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[113] The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski ?repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully." President Carter arguably failed at following up on those assurances. On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department believed the revolution was unstoppable.[114] After visiting the Shah in summer of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[115] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (Secretary of Defense under Ford) were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support. Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. military intervention to stabilize Iran even when the Shah's position was believed to be untenable. President Carter could not decide how to stabilize the situation; he was certainly against another coup.

That sums up Carter, he could never make a ?hard? decision. He was insanely weak when it came to foreign policy. Our enemies saw this and took advantage of this situation. (The invasion of Afghanistan was just an example of this. As was his inability to act at the start of the hostage crisis.)

The problem is that the very reasoning you use to draw this conclusion is flawed. Your logical fallacies are readily apparent throughout this whole condemnation of Carter. To suggest Afghanistan wouldn't be invaded had Carter made a "tough" decision is just so laughably flawed and not based on any history whatsoever, including everything you've posted here. Well, it really does speak for itself. As if the Soviets suddenly realized after 7 decades "Hey, the US won't do anything if we invade another country!". :laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

So Techs? your response to my point about Carter is ?But Bush did it too?

Is that right?

BTW we didn?t send him signals that encouraged him to invade Kuwait. The ambassador said that we were not interested in the Arab disagreements. Implying that we would not interfere if he did invade. As far as the Iran-Iraq war: everyone in the world supported Iraq in this war, even the Soviets. EVERYONE was fearful that the Islamic revolution in Iran would spread into other countries.

Carter?s problem was that he put humanitarian ideas above common sense. He pushed the Shah to liberalize and the opposition took advantage of those policies to plant the seeds that led to the revolution. In an misguided attempt to create a freer more liberal Iran Carter ended up with an Islamic dictatorship? oops.

 

[Stoneburner]

profjohn, going through wikipedia isn't going to correct the fundamental fact you simply dont' know enough about the revolution. One quote from your excerpt sums it all up.

certain high-level officials in the State Department believed the revolution was unstoppable

And this is the simple truth. Was america supposed to send an army? The shah was on borrowed time every since the cia and the brits decided to stick him back in power. Everybody in iran hated him. He had more secret police and torture t han saddam in his prime. Khomeini and his ilk were gaining power throughout the late 70's. Please either read a real authority on the topic or at least stop cherry picking wikipedia to support a contention you never had evidence for when you made it.

The real question was, why didn't we leave in a iranian democracy, with the popular and secular mossadegh, in 1963? That kind of shortsightedness is what caused the Revolution, and that kind of short sightedness is what Bush is engaged in currently.

As for the rest of your contentions.

1. Southern dems were racist. Republicans didn't care. NOrth Eastern liberal dems pushed for civil rights. Dems have never been particularly united.
2. Red Scare - So 40 years from now we can't blame bush for the debacle in iraq because some dems gave him leeway. That's true to an extent but who pushed the policy? I wonder how many dems back then were just as afraid of republicans than as now? What you are saying is "Why didn't you stop me from beating you!". That's disturbing, considering your admission of being a stalker in that other forum 🙂

3. Vietnam - Nixon did end it, but only after stupidly trying a Surge of his own.

4. carter and clinton - People of your ilk undersell clinton. They say he did nothing. Really? 8 years of sound fiscal policy, worldwide stability, and effective legislative accomplishments through negotiation and compromise had nothign to do with the economic success at that time?

5. New Deal. People who argue that are complete morons. It cannot be more plain. Since the NEw Deal NO DEPRESSIONS. 0 depressions! before ? 1 every 15 years. Irrationality in the face of overwhelming empiricism is a hallmark of libertarian laissez faire nutjobs. The market failed, deal with it. It's a failed policy.

6.

 

[colonel]

you forgot Nixon and the illegal invasion of Cambodia, created and give weapons to juntas en latin american where Pinochet killed thousands support for Saddam Hussein in the 80" etc, they are a can of worms.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: techs
Yes, if you think posting facts and educating people about history is "trolling".
Yet, the facts are true.

You haven't posted a single fact in this thread yet. Nothing but partisan hackery and opinion.

Try posting some "facts" and then we can have a discussion.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am not a stalker, yet... I have yet to e-mail her 😉

Nixon surge? How come the number of deaths in Vietnam does not show that?

I didn't really talk about Clinton, other than to point out that his worse deficit was larger than Bush's. And that is only in reference to the idea that Bush has had crippling deficits. While they are certainly nothing to brag about, his deficits are rather tame compared to the ones of the 80s and early 90s. THAT was my point.

The new deal has essentially been dismantled since the 1970s and yet we haven?t had a depression. Why is that?

 

[b0mbrman]

Way to stick it to those 1920s Republicans...zing!

 

[Rogodin2]

Unfortunately the U.S. economy is a hybrid and the primary source of this economy is that of unlimited growth.

Rogo

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That sums up Carter, he could never make a ?hard? decision. He was insanely weak when it came to foreign policy. Our enemies saw this and took advantage of this situation. (The invasion of Afghanistan was just an example of this. As was his inability to act at the start of the hostage crisis.)

The problem is that the very reasoning you use to draw this conclusion is flawed. Your logical fallacies are readily apparent throughout this whole condemnation of Carter. To suggest Afghanistan wouldn't be invaded had Carter made a "tough" decision is just so laughably flawed and not based on any history whatsoever, including everything you've posted here. Well, it really does speak for itself. As if the Soviets suddenly realized after 7 decades "Hey, the US won't do anything if we invade another country!". :laugh:

Yes, remember when Carter first sided with Israel (after he owed them for being the middleman in selling our enemy Iran illegal missiles) and sent the marines to help Israel in Lebanon, but then when a bomb killed 249 of them, turned tail and ran, reversing his policy in an embarrassing retreat?

Or when he went to war against Saddam in Iraq, after helping to cause the war by his ambassador telling Saddam the invasion of Kuwait we went to war over was something that we had no interest in - only to win the war and then encourage the repressed groups in Iraq to rise up while Saddam was weakened, but let Saddam turn around and use gunships to slaughter the people who listened to him?

Oh, wait, those were Reagan and Bush, respectively.

Your partisanship is yet again corrupting any points you make, ProfJohn, making the wrongs of your boys invisible with your rose-colored blinders so you only attack democrats.

And Carter sure was 'insanely weak on foreign policy' when he brokered the Camp Davis peace accords.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
And Carter sure was 'insanely weak on foreign policy' when he brokered the Camp Davis peace accords.

Yep. He was insanely weak then, and he's worse now. He should have stuck to farming Peanuts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
And Carter sure was 'insanely weak on foreign policy' when he brokered the Camp Davis peace accords.

Yep. He was insanely weak then, and he's worse now. He should have stuck to farming Peanuts.

You should stick to pulling wings off flies instead of helping kill innocent non-Americans and posting demands to kill even more, but neither of us gets our way.

But let's just suggest that many would see you as radical for calling the Camp David agreements 'insanely weak' and preferring they had not been done.

But hey, extremism in the defense of paranoid ideology is no vice, right?