Posted on 11/03/2005 7:07:21 AM PST by F14 Pilot
For once I thought you copied that from ABC or CBS web sites!
"And your point is?"
That in 1979 that the maximum downside was the loss of our "ally" and taking over the U.S. embassy. Khomeni decimated what was left of the Shah's army.
Today we are in a shooting war and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would have a lot to give to the other side. Pakistan even has nuclear technology while the Saudis have American technology and training.
So I think simplistic judgments in either direction are dangerous - we can't just say "they are out allies and it doesn't matter what they do internally" nor can we just say "they are dictators with poor human rights records so we have to abandon them."
But complex views and nuanced approaches tend to just get whomever suggests them attacked by both extremes who want simple solutions.
I'm not sure what the point of that link was...
then read again!
"then read again!"
So you send a blind link about the hostage rescue. I tell you I don't understand your point and you just say read it again.. Doesn't sound like you want to have a discussion which is OK.
You want simple analysis and simple solutions and I understand the desire. unfortunately that doesn't match the real world.
Kewl!
You would think we would have learned more from that situation.
When I pointed out that we have learned and gave examples where we took a stronger more principled stand you countered with the usual liberal wave of the hand and brought up Saudi Arabia and China. I said in good time and suggested diplomacy is being tried there for now. Now you proclaim the complexities of today's dangerouos world and talk about nuances. So which is it, was supporting the Shaw during the Cold War hypocritical or nuanced?
"So which is it, was supporting the Shaw during the Cold War hypocritical or nuanced?"
First, I admit to being cold blooded here - I am considering American interests and little else. I want our approach to these countries to be that which preserves and protects the Un ited States. I have a clear conscience on this matter because I know in the long run it is good for the world to have the United States remain strong.
The problem with the way we handled the Shah is the end result - we got something worse. I'm not at all convinced that won't be the situation in Saudi Arabia.
If I had a simple solution to this I'd be running for office - I don't and I'm not. I bet Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice would agree that the situation is complex and we need a nuanced solution -does that make them liberal?
Liberal is not the opposite of simple and conservative is not the opposite of complex. We do ourselves a disservice when we think otherwise.
bump for later
I do think you underestimate the complexities of the Cold War. No losing Iran was not a minor thing. I don't know if you were alive then but as today, think oil. Oil is everything and the Soviets were quite interested in Iranian oil as were we. Since you are thinking of American interests I can tell you that at the time I was filling a gas tank and heating a house in the northeast. There most certainly were implications for losing the Iranian ally. And considering who was President I have no doubts at all that it could and should have been handled better.
As for your philosophy about liberals and conservatives, it all sounds really nice. I don't know if you saw this yesterday but I found it quite entertaining. Not because it breaks any new ground but we "conservatives" have all been in these arguments/discussions/debates with similar results.
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks110205.html
"I do think you underestimate the complexities of the Cold War."
That may be a failing on my part. I've been told that before. I had dinner with a retired FBI agent who said pretty much that exact thing.... I'll check your link out.
Wallace was interviewing the Ayatollah and said "Ayatollah, Sadat says you are crazy and insane..I am not saying this, Sadat is saying this, Aytollah". A few days later Sadat was assassnated!!!!! All because Wallace said this, embarrassed the Ayatollah, and he had to save face, so he hadhim killed. Could Wallace have been sooooo stupid that he wouldn't KNOW that the Ayatollah could not let this insult stand since EVERYONE in the world could hear out it??
Mike Wallce...you haveAnwar Sadat's BLOOD on your hands.
=============================================
That is not the question. The question was did we put reza on the throne by staging a coup against a legitimately elected leader and the answer is yes we did. The second part is that the iranian people threw the shahistas out. They got the mullahs in exchange but it was the people who made the change. When they've had enough they will do it again.
Of course...it's the perfect forum for the left.
A place that allows you to basically define and modify your own versions of the facts will draw them like a moth to a flame.
=====================================
Tell you what shahista...show me one word of mine that supports either Carter or the mullahs and I'll never post to you again. You must use my own words, not some imagined nonsense.
You don't like me being here because I point to what our own CIA wrote to their files and it discredits your hero using phrases like "pathologically afraid" to describe him. The CIA docs are easily found with a simple google search. Anyone can do it and read for themselves. I suggest that anyone interested in the truth take five minutes to read it for himself.
Simplistic, yes, but quite accurate in the historical sense.
Fair enough. As you point out, we do live in dangerous times and our children may again have to learn how to "duck and cover". Then link was supposed to be funny but believe me, I've had many of those same conversations.
Don't ask the source, but I recall Iran got some hundreds of millions from us to redo/build some kind of transportation facility. Jimmuh sent his Georgia buddies over to tell the Iranians they were there to "consult" and wanted 20% of the money. The Iranians were shocked and bemused, told them to piss up a rope and that was the dust up (simply put). Jimmuh failed to get his cut.
Their version of the Easter Offensive is pretty telling. According to them, the N. Vietnamese get beat, they withdrew due to logistics problems. They also claim there was no link between their defeat at the hands of the ARVN and their signing of the Paris Accords.
They also claim the Paris Accords allowed N. Vietnmase troops to remain in S. Vietnam. I've read the Paris Accords, it's not in there.
I guess he needed the cash to build his "habitat for Jimmuh".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.