A Tale of Two Eras

[gipper]

"From your link: ...Iran-Iraq war......It does not mention chemical weapons.

..."While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . "

So, you are arguing that publicly they were condemning it, while privately they were aiding and abetting it?

That sure puts a shine on Reagan's legacy.

So....let's get this straight.....

Democrat Jimmy 'Peanut' Carter installs the Ayatollah in Iran in place of the pro-Western Shah, ....

1.The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


And you're enough of a knucklehead to
a. Draw attention to another foreign policy failure by a Democrat.....hinting at the panoply of failures by Obama..

and

b. ...complain that President Reagan understood realpolitik, and worked to prevent victory by Iran or Iraq????



Brilliant.
That's what makes you a Liberal.

What is most ironic about Jimma's dumping the Shah, is it came back to bite him in the ass. We had 444 days of Americans held hostage by those radicals in Iran, which helped result in Jimma's election defeat against Reagan.

Jimma fails to back the Shah because of the Shah's terrible human rights record. Only to result in radical Islam taking control of Iran, leading to exponentially worse atrocities committed by the Shah's successor.

The consequences of liberalism are so often horrendous. Yet liberal politicians persist with their idiotic policies, learning nothing from their past failures. CRAZY!!!

 

[PrometheusBound]

All liberals were not for the Vietnamese, just against America being there. Get your facts straight.

Don't believe what people say about themselves. Liberals were spoiled-rotten Heirhead snobs, no different from Bush, who were waging class warfare against working-class GIs. Their protests were all about atrocities. They didn't care about the Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, American "imperialism," blah blah blah, except that "The enemy of my class enemy is my friend."

Their real message was, "Our Daddies told us that working class people are lazy, stupid, and greedy. Well, maybe our Daddies will love us more if we add to that: The sons of the working class are baby-killers."

That generation, my generation, grew up on media glorifying war. But preppie Boomers in the 50s did a slow burn when they realized that those movies also glorified working-class soldiers. Their real purpose in the "anti-war" protests was to take away our pride and also to trick people who were outraged about this into supporting their class allies, the pro-war, pro-military Right wingers, who were equally treasonous because they made sure that their own sons wouldn't have to fight the Communists in Vietnam.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All liberals were not for the Vietnamese, just against America being there. Get your facts straight.

Don't believe what people say about themselves. Liberals were spoiled-rotten Heirhead snobs, no different from Bush, who were waging class warfare against working-class GIs. Their protests were all about atrocities. They didn't care about the Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, American "imperialism," blah blah blah, except that "The enemy of my class enemy is my friend."

Their real message was, "Our Daddies told us that working class people are lazy, stupid, and greedy. Well, maybe our Daddies will love us more if we add to that: The sons of the working class are baby-killers."

That generation, my generation, grew up on media glorifying war. But preppie Boomers in the 50s did a slow burn when they realized that those movies also glorified working-class soldiers. Their real purpose in the "anti-war" protests was to take away our pride and also to trick people who were outraged about this into supporting their class allies, the pro-war, pro-military Right wingers, who were equally treasonous because they made sure that their own sons wouldn't have to fight the Communists in Vietnam.

You just watch yourself, BUSTER!!

That's the one and only (thank goodness!) NoNoodles, himself, that you're correcting....insulting.....instructing............or something.


I'll have you know that NoNoodles is a world class expert on things only he knows....one of 'em is Viet Nam.


In fact....some of the finest univesities have invited NoNoodles to lecture on that very subject because of his experise!

I know that's true.....he told me his own very self!!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJMKupYF14I]Edith Ann - "And thats the truth" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PrometheusBound]

So, you are arguing that publicly they were condemning it, while privately they were aiding and abetting it?

That sure puts a shine on Reagan's legacy.

So....let's get this straight.....

Democrat Jimmy 'Peanut' Carter installs the Ayatollah in Iran in place of the pro-Western Shah, ....

1.The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


And you're enough of a knucklehead to
a. Draw attention to another foreign policy failure by a Democrat.....hinting at the panoply of failures by Obama..

and

b. ...complain that President Reagan understood realpolitik, and worked to prevent victory by Iran or Iraq????



Brilliant.
That's what makes you a Liberal.

What is most ironic about Jimma's dumping the Shah, is it came back to bite him in the ass. We had 444 days of Americans held hostage by those radicals in Iran, which helped result in Jimma's election defeat against Reagan.

Jimma fails to back the Shah because of the Shah's terrible human rights record. Only to result in radical Islam taking control of Iran, leading to exponentially worse atrocities committed by the Shah's successor.

The consequences of liberalism are so often horrendous. Yet liberal politicians persist with their idiotic policies, learning nothing from their past failures. CRAZY!!!

As an ex-Marine, I'm ashamed to say that the Embassy guards failed to do their duty when they let a teenage mob take over the grounds they had sworn to lay down their lives to protect. Whatever Carter told them to do, surrender is never a legal order.

Did you know that this was the second takeover? The Islamic mob had taken over the embassy a month before, stayed for a day, and left. That was a dress rehearsal, but Jimmy Crack Corn took it as a harmless protest.

Did you know that Carter was a draftdodger? He was eligible for the draft in June of 1942. His unique way of avoiding danger was to apply to the Naval Academy, predicting accurately that he could hide out there until the war was over. We must eliminate all possible legal means of evading our patriotic responsibilities. I don't know what other countries did about that dodge, but our academies should have been closed and the cadets should have been commissioned and sent into battle. Carter, whose subsequent actions proved that he wasn't the type to really have been interested in becoming a naval officer, should have been sent to OCS and taken his chances with the fighting fleet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....let's get this straight.....

Democrat Jimmy 'Peanut' Carter installs the Ayatollah in Iran in place of the pro-Western Shah, ....

1.The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


And you're enough of a knucklehead to
a. Draw attention to another foreign policy failure by a Democrat.....hinting at the panoply of failures by Obama..

and

b. ...complain that President Reagan understood realpolitik, and worked to prevent victory by Iran or Iraq????



Brilliant.
That's what makes you a Liberal.

What is most ironic about Jimma's dumping the Shah, is it came back to bite him in the ass. We had 444 days of Americans held hostage by those radicals in Iran, which helped result in Jimma's election defeat against Reagan.

Jimma fails to back the Shah because of the Shah's terrible human rights record. Only to result in radical Islam taking control of Iran, leading to exponentially worse atrocities committed by the Shah's successor.

The consequences of liberalism are so often horrendous. Yet liberal politicians persist with their idiotic policies, learning nothing from their past failures. CRAZY!!!

As an ex-Marine, I'm ashamed to say that the Embassy guards failed to do their duty when they let a teenage mob take over the grounds they had sworn to lay down their lives to protect. Whatever Carter told them to do, surrender is never a legal order.

Did you know that this was the second takeover? The Islamic mob had taken over the embassy a month before, stayed for a day, and left. That was a dress rehearsal, but Jimmy Crack Corn took it as a harmless protest.

Did you know that Carter was a draftdodger? He was eligible for the draft in June of 1942. His unique way of avoiding danger was to apply to the Naval Academy, predicting accurately that he could hide out there until the war was over. We must eliminate all possible legal means of evading our patriotic responsibilities. I don't know what other countries did about that dodge, but our academies should have been closed and the cadets should have been commissioned and sent into battle. Carter, whose subsequent actions proved that he wasn't the type to really have been interested in becoming a naval officer, should have been sent to OCS and taken his chances with the fighting fleet.

Please don't leave out the fact that Jimmy 'Beware of the Rabbit' Carter wrote speeches for Yasser Arafat....

 

[NoNukes]

you did injure a couple of nano bots.

You would not believe how many positive rep points I receive for leading her into making herself look foolish.

Wow....yep....I glanced at your rep record!


Bet you wish you could count that high?

Again with the failed attempt at humor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You would not believe how many positive rep points I receive for leading her into making herself look foolish.

Wow....yep....I glanced at your rep record!


Bet you wish you could count that high?

Again with the failed attempt at humor.

Ohhh....are you sulking?


Didn't you like my sterling defense of you in post #83?


Yeesssh....

...no gratitude from these baby boomers....

 

[Synthaholic]

"From your link: ...Iran-Iraq war......It does not mention chemical weapons.

..."While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . "

So, you are arguing that publicly they were condemning it, while privately they were aiding and abetting it?

That sure puts a shine on Reagan's legacy.

So....let's get this straight.....

Democrat Jimmy 'Peanut' Carter installs the Ayatollah in Iran in place of the pro-Western Shah, ....

1.The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


And you're enough of a knucklehead to
a. Draw attention to another foreign policy failure by a Democrat.....hinting at the panoply of failures by Obama..

and

b. ...complain that President Reagan understood realpolitik, and worked to prevent victory by Iran or Iraq????



Brilliant.
That's what makes you a Liberal.

This post doesn't address Reagan's complicity in the use of chemical weapons, an international crime that the U.S. led the fight to make an international crime.

Instead, you deflect to false statements about President Carter "installing" the Ayatollah.

Why is it acceptable for Reagan to commit a war crime?

 

[Synthaholic]

So, you are arguing that publicly they were condemning it, while privately they were aiding and abetting it?

That sure puts a shine on Reagan's legacy.

So....let's get this straight.....

Democrat Jimmy 'Peanut' Carter installs the Ayatollah in Iran in place of the pro-Western Shah, ....

1.The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


And you're enough of a knucklehead to
a. Draw attention to another foreign policy failure by a Democrat.....hinting at the panoply of failures by Obama..

and

b. ...complain that President Reagan understood realpolitik, and worked to prevent victory by Iran or Iraq????



Brilliant.
That's what makes you a Liberal.

What is most ironic about Jimma's dumping the Shah, is it came back to bite him in the ass. We had 444 days of Americans held hostage by those radicals in Iran, which helped result in Jimma's election defeat against Reagan.

Jimma fails to back the Shah because of the Shah's terrible human rights record. Only to result in radical Islam taking control of Iran, leading to exponentially worse atrocities committed by the Shah's successor.

The consequences of liberalism are so often horrendous. Yet liberal politicians persist with their idiotic policies, learning nothing from their past failures. CRAZY!!!

It's the responsibility of the United States to ensure the reign of an unelected dictator in a foreign, sovereign country?

Where is that in the Constitution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you are arguing that publicly they were condemning it, while privately they were aiding and abetting it?

That sure puts a shine on Reagan's legacy.

So....let's get this straight.....

Democrat Jimmy 'Peanut' Carter installs the Ayatollah in Iran in place of the pro-Western Shah, ....

1.The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


And you're enough of a knucklehead to
a. Draw attention to another foreign policy failure by a Democrat.....hinting at the panoply of failures by Obama..

and

b. ...complain that President Reagan understood realpolitik, and worked to prevent victory by Iran or Iraq????



Brilliant.
That's what makes you a Liberal.

This post doesn't address Reagan's complicity in the use of chemical weapons, an international crime that the U.S. led the fight to make an international crime.

Instead, you deflect to false statements about President Carter "installing" the Ayatollah.

Why is it acceptable for Reagan to commit a war crime?

"...you deflect to false statements about President Carter "installing" the Ayatollah."


Do you have a diploma?

That is the only thing that is false.


Democrat Carter installed the very source of all terrorism today.
Just as Democrat Roosevelt saved and supported the USSR.

Education to follow:


1. Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,”and is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. From his book: The Shah was in power between 1941 and 1979

2. Khomeini rose to prominence opposing women’s right to vote, land reform, opposing the status of force agreement with the United States (stationing of troops in Iran), anti-Semitic rhetoric (called the Shah an ‘infidel Jew’), and in ’62 he was arrested. He lived from ’64 to ’78 in exile, writing anti-democratic and anti-modern treatises. When the time came to seize power, though, he hid his intentions.

a. Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition, and spent eight months under house arrest for his speeches against the Shah, and the reforms. His arrest, in 1963, provoked powerful urban protest, the so-called uprising of 15 Khordad 1342, which led to a large number of deaths—thousands according to the opposition, 400 according to more reliable sources. http://bostonreview.net/BR32.6/milani.php



3. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised a) to hold the country together, calming the unrest, b) to keep the communists out, and c) to keep the oil flowing.

That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

a. Carter actually believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. The first constitution that was written was democratic! Khomeini flew to Iran in February, ’79. Within weeks he began to marginalize democracy forces. Soon a new constitution was written with the rule of the guardians at its center. November 4, of ’79 was the attack on the US embassy and taking of the hostages for 444 days.


c. The Islamic Revolution, so-called, was originally about the desire for political freedom. The Shah had given Iranians economic freedom via the White Revolution of 1963, and this was the groundwork for the unrest of ’78.

How ironic is it that in 1978, Jews, Christians, and even Baha’is could, generally, live their private lives pretty much as they wished. In 1975 there were 150,000 Jews in Iran…even today there are about 20,000, which is more than the other Muslim countries combined.


Yup....Carter installed Khomeini.
And...you can bet that Khomeini's hatred of Jews was certainly no turn-off for Jimmy Carter.



Is this enough proof that you are an idiot?

This....and the same opinion from every other person who has had the misfortune to be involved in a conversation with you.

 

[gipper]

So....let's get this straight.....

Democrat Jimmy 'Peanut' Carter installs the Ayatollah in Iran in place of the pro-Western Shah, ....

1.The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


And you're enough of a knucklehead to
a. Draw attention to another foreign policy failure by a Democrat.....hinting at the panoply of failures by Obama..

and

b. ...complain that President Reagan understood realpolitik, and worked to prevent victory by Iran or Iraq????



Brilliant.
That's what makes you a Liberal.

What is most ironic about Jimma's dumping the Shah, is it came back to bite him in the ass. We had 444 days of Americans held hostage by those radicals in Iran, which helped result in Jimma's election defeat against Reagan.

Jimma fails to back the Shah because of the Shah's terrible human rights record. Only to result in radical Islam taking control of Iran, leading to exponentially worse atrocities committed by the Shah's successor.

The consequences of liberalism are so often horrendous. Yet liberal politicians persist with their idiotic policies, learning nothing from their past failures. CRAZY!!!

It's the responsibility of the United States to ensure the reign of an unelected dictator in a foreign, sovereign country?

Where is that in the Constitution?

You missed my point. The point is Jimma refused to support the Shah BECAUSE the Shah was committing human rights violations against his own people. The result was the Shah was replaced by a much more radical leader who committed much greater human rights violations against his own people. Any fool who bothered to research the beliefs of Khomeini beforehand, would have to conclude he would be much worse than the Shah.

So, in conclusion, Jimma screwed up. This screw up lead to Iran reviving radical Islam and promoting Islamic terrorism worldwide. Not a good track record. Agreed?

The unforeseen consequences of the actions of leftist politicians (only unforeseen by them), are usually most negative.

 

[Synthaholic]

So....let's get this straight.....

Democrat Jimmy 'Peanut' Carter installs the Ayatollah in Iran in place of the pro-Western Shah, ....

1.The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com

2. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108


And you're enough of a knucklehead to
a. Draw attention to another foreign policy failure by a Democrat.....hinting at the panoply of failures by Obama..

and

b. ...complain that President Reagan understood realpolitik, and worked to prevent victory by Iran or Iraq????



Brilliant.
That's what makes you a Liberal.

This post doesn't address Reagan's complicity in the use of chemical weapons, an international crime that the U.S. led the fight to make an international crime.

Instead, you deflect to false statements about President Carter "installing" the Ayatollah.

Why is it acceptable for Reagan to commit a war crime?

"...you deflect to false statements about President Carter "installing" the Ayatollah."


Do you have a diploma?

That is the only thing that is false.


Democrat Carter installed the very source of all terrorism today.
Just as Democrat Roosevelt saved and supported the USSR.

Education to follow:


1. Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,”and is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. From his book: The Shah was in power between 1941 and 1979

2. Khomeini rose to prominence opposing women’s right to vote, land reform, opposing the status of force agreement with the United States (stationing of troops in Iran), anti-Semitic rhetoric (called the Shah an ‘infidel Jew’), and in ’62 he was arrested. He lived from ’64 to ’78 in exile, writing anti-democratic and anti-modern treatises. When the time came to seize power, though, he hid his intentions.

a. Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition, and spent eight months under house arrest for his speeches against the Shah, and the reforms. His arrest, in 1963, provoked powerful urban protest, the so-called uprising of 15 Khordad 1342, which led to a large number of deaths—thousands according to the opposition, 400 according to more reliable sources. http://bostonreview.net/BR32.6/milani.php



3. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised a) to hold the country together, calming the unrest, b) to keep the communists out, and c) to keep the oil flowing.

That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

a. Carter actually believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. The first constitution that was written was democratic! Khomeini flew to Iran in February, ’79. Within weeks he began to marginalize democracy forces. Soon a new constitution was written with the rule of the guardians at its center. November 4, of ’79 was the attack on the US embassy and taking of the hostages for 444 days.


c. The Islamic Revolution, so-called, was originally about the desire for political freedom. The Shah had given Iranians economic freedom via the White Revolution of 1963, and this was the groundwork for the unrest of ’78.

How ironic is it that in 1978, Jews, Christians, and even Baha’is could, generally, live their private lives pretty much as they wished. In 1975 there were 150,000 Jews in Iran…even today there are about 20,000, which is more than the other Muslim countries combined.


Yup....Carter installed Khomeini.
And...you can bet that Khomeini's hatred of Jews was certainly no turn-off for Jimmy Carter.



Is this enough proof that you are an idiot?

This....and the same opinion from every other person who has had the misfortune to be involved in a conversation with you.

You are boring.

When you cannot back up your bullshit, you put up walls of text that don't support your bullshit, but you still act as though they do.

President Carter did not install the Ayatollah. None of your hand-waving makes it so.

 

[Synthaholic]

What is most ironic about Jimma's dumping the Shah, is it came back to bite him in the ass. We had 444 days of Americans held hostage by those radicals in Iran, which helped result in Jimma's election defeat against Reagan.

Jimma fails to back the Shah because of the Shah's terrible human rights record. Only to result in radical Islam taking control of Iran, leading to exponentially worse atrocities committed by the Shah's successor.

The consequences of liberalism are so often horrendous. Yet liberal politicians persist with their idiotic policies, learning nothing from their past failures. CRAZY!!!

It's the responsibility of the United States to ensure the reign of an unelected dictator in a foreign, sovereign country?

Where is that in the Constitution?

You missed my point. The point is Jimma refused to support the Shah BECAUSE the Shah was committing human rights violations against his own people. The result was the Shah was replaced by a much more radical leader who committed much greater human rights violations against his own people. Any fool who bothered to research the beliefs of Khomeini beforehand, would have to conclude he would be much worse than the Shah.

So, in conclusion, Jimma screwed up. This screw up lead to Iran reviving radical Islam and promoting Islamic terrorism worldwide. Not a good track record. Agreed?

The unforeseen consequences of the actions of leftist politicians (only unforeseen by them), are usually most negative.

How is it the responsibility of a U.S. president to ensure the continued dictatorship of a non-elected strongman?

I would pose this same exact question to the wingnuts and know-nothings who blame Obama for Mubarek's ouster.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This post doesn't address Reagan's complicity in the use of chemical weapons, an international crime that the U.S. led the fight to make an international crime.

Instead, you deflect to false statements about President Carter "installing" the Ayatollah.

Why is it acceptable for Reagan to commit a war crime?

"...you deflect to false statements about President Carter "installing" the Ayatollah."


Do you have a diploma?

That is the only thing that is false.


Democrat Carter installed the very source of all terrorism today.
Just as Democrat Roosevelt saved and supported the USSR.

Education to follow:


1. Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,”and is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. From his book: The Shah was in power between 1941 and 1979

2. Khomeini rose to prominence opposing women’s right to vote, land reform, opposing the status of force agreement with the United States (stationing of troops in Iran), anti-Semitic rhetoric (called the Shah an ‘infidel Jew’), and in ’62 he was arrested. He lived from ’64 to ’78 in exile, writing anti-democratic and anti-modern treatises. When the time came to seize power, though, he hid his intentions.

a. Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition, and spent eight months under house arrest for his speeches against the Shah, and the reforms. His arrest, in 1963, provoked powerful urban protest, the so-called uprising of 15 Khordad 1342, which led to a large number of deaths—thousands according to the opposition, 400 according to more reliable sources. http://bostonreview.net/BR32.6/milani.php



3. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised a) to hold the country together, calming the unrest, b) to keep the communists out, and c) to keep the oil flowing.

That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

a. Carter actually believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. The first constitution that was written was democratic! Khomeini flew to Iran in February, ’79. Within weeks he began to marginalize democracy forces. Soon a new constitution was written with the rule of the guardians at its center. November 4, of ’79 was the attack on the US embassy and taking of the hostages for 444 days.


c. The Islamic Revolution, so-called, was originally about the desire for political freedom. The Shah had given Iranians economic freedom via the White Revolution of 1963, and this was the groundwork for the unrest of ’78.

How ironic is it that in 1978, Jews, Christians, and even Baha’is could, generally, live their private lives pretty much as they wished. In 1975 there were 150,000 Jews in Iran…even today there are about 20,000, which is more than the other Muslim countries combined.


Yup....Carter installed Khomeini.
And...you can bet that Khomeini's hatred of Jews was certainly no turn-off for Jimmy Carter.



Is this enough proof that you are an idiot?

This....and the same opinion from every other person who has had the misfortune to be involved in a conversation with you.

You are boring.

When you cannot back up your bullshit, you put up walls of text that don't support your bullshit, but you still act as though they do.

President Carter did not install the Ayatollah. None of your hand-waving makes it so.

As you know....every word, every single word I post is true and is backed up.

Certainly, the part about you being an idiot.


Proof?

You're disputing Dr. Abbas Milani, the Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University.

And he writes for the Liberal New Republic.



And you.....what?
Summa Caramel Latte graduate?

 

[Synthaholic]

"...you deflect to false statements about President Carter "installing" the Ayatollah."


Do you have a diploma?

That is the only thing that is false.


Democrat Carter installed the very source of all terrorism today.
Just as Democrat Roosevelt saved and supported the USSR.

Education to follow:


1. Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,”and is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. From his book: The Shah was in power between 1941 and 1979

2. Khomeini rose to prominence opposing women’s right to vote, land reform, opposing the status of force agreement with the United States (stationing of troops in Iran), anti-Semitic rhetoric (called the Shah an ‘infidel Jew’), and in ’62 he was arrested. He lived from ’64 to ’78 in exile, writing anti-democratic and anti-modern treatises. When the time came to seize power, though, he hid his intentions.

a. Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition, and spent eight months under house arrest for his speeches against the Shah, and the reforms. His arrest, in 1963, provoked powerful urban protest, the so-called uprising of 15 Khordad 1342, which led to a large number of deaths—thousands according to the opposition, 400 according to more reliable sources. http://bostonreview.net/BR32.6/milani.php



3. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised a) to hold the country together, calming the unrest, b) to keep the communists out, and c) to keep the oil flowing.

That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

a. Carter actually believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. The first constitution that was written was democratic! Khomeini flew to Iran in February, ’79. Within weeks he began to marginalize democracy forces. Soon a new constitution was written with the rule of the guardians at its center. November 4, of ’79 was the attack on the US embassy and taking of the hostages for 444 days.


c. The Islamic Revolution, so-called, was originally about the desire for political freedom. The Shah had given Iranians economic freedom via the White Revolution of 1963, and this was the groundwork for the unrest of ’78.

How ironic is it that in 1978, Jews, Christians, and even Baha’is could, generally, live their private lives pretty much as they wished. In 1975 there were 150,000 Jews in Iran…even today there are about 20,000, which is more than the other Muslim countries combined.


Yup....Carter installed Khomeini.
And...you can bet that Khomeini's hatred of Jews was certainly no turn-off for Jimmy Carter.



Is this enough proof that you are an idiot?

This....and the same opinion from every other person who has had the misfortune to be involved in a conversation with you.

You are boring.

When you cannot back up your bullshit, you put up walls of text that don't support your bullshit, but you still act as though they do.

President Carter did not install the Ayatollah. None of your hand-waving makes it so.

As you know....every word, every single word I post is true and is backed up.

Certainly, the part about you being an idiot.


Proof?

You're disputing Dr. Abbas Milani, the Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University.

Yes. He is not an uninterested party.

And as soon as I find one comment from him critical of Reagan you will dismiss his views, also.

And he writes for the Liberal New Republic.

So? It's the Right that are the Lockstep Party, not the Left.


Do you agree with everything that Jennifer Rubin writes?

 

[NoNukes]

All liberals were not for the Vietnamese, just against America being there. Get your facts straight.

Don't believe what people say about themselves. Liberals were spoiled-rotten Heirhead snobs, no different from Bush, who were waging class warfare against working-class GIs. Their protests were all about atrocities. They didn't care about the Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, American "imperialism," blah blah blah, except that "The enemy of my class enemy is my friend."

Their real message was, "Our Daddies told us that working class people are lazy, stupid, and greedy. Well, maybe our Daddies will love us more if we add to that: The sons of the working class are baby-killers."

That generation, my generation, grew up on media glorifying war. But preppie Boomers in the 50s did a slow burn when they realized that those movies also glorified working-class soldiers. Their real purpose in the "anti-war" protests was to take away our pride and also to trick people who were outraged about this into supporting their class allies, the pro-war, pro-military Right wingers, who were equally treasonous because they made sure that their own sons wouldn't have to fight the Communists in Vietnam.

You just watch yourself, BUSTER!!

That's the one and only (thank goodness!) NoNoodles, himself, that you're correcting....insulting.....instructing............or something.


I'll have you know that NoNoodles is a world class expert on things only he knows....one of 'em is Viet Nam.


In fact....some of the finest univesities have invited NoNoodles to lecture on that very subject because of his experise!

I know that's true.....he told me his own very self!!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJMKupYF14I]Edith Ann - "And thats the truth" - YouTube[/ame]

Good to see that you are beginning to pay attention and you are posting some truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't believe what people say about themselves. Liberals were spoiled-rotten Heirhead snobs, no different from Bush, who were waging class warfare against working-class GIs. Their protests were all about atrocities. They didn't care about the Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, American "imperialism," blah blah blah, except that "The enemy of my class enemy is my friend."

Their real message was, "Our Daddies told us that working class people are lazy, stupid, and greedy. Well, maybe our Daddies will love us more if we add to that: The sons of the working class are baby-killers."

That generation, my generation, grew up on media glorifying war. But preppie Boomers in the 50s did a slow burn when they realized that those movies also glorified working-class soldiers. Their real purpose in the "anti-war" protests was to take away our pride and also to trick people who were outraged about this into supporting their class allies, the pro-war, pro-military Right wingers, who were equally treasonous because they made sure that their own sons wouldn't have to fight the Communists in Vietnam.

You just watch yourself, BUSTER!!

That's the one and only (thank goodness!) NoNoodles, himself, that you're correcting....insulting.....instructing............or something.


I'll have you know that NoNoodles is a world class expert on things only he knows....one of 'em is Viet Nam.


In fact....some of the finest univesities have invited NoNoodles to lecture on that very subject because of his experise!

I know that's true.....he told me his own very self!!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJMKupYF14I]Edith Ann - "And thats the truth" - YouTube[/ame]

Good to see that you are beginning to pay attention and you are posting some truth.

Think so?


Tell me....how many times have you fallen for the Lucy-pulls-the-football-away trick?

 

[Unkotare]

It's the Right that are the Lockstep Party, not the Left.

Oh, I'm sorry, that response was WRONG. Too bad, but thanks for playing and here are some lovely parting gifts.

 

[NoNukes]

You just watch yourself, BUSTER!!

That's the one and only (thank goodness!) NoNoodles, himself, that you're correcting....insulting.....instructing............or something.


I'll have you know that NoNoodles is a world class expert on things only he knows....one of 'em is Viet Nam.


In fact....some of the finest univesities have invited NoNoodles to lecture on that very subject because of his experise!

I know that's true.....he told me his own very self!!



Edith Ann - "And thats the truth" - YouTube

Good to see that you are beginning to pay attention and you are posting some truth.

Think so?


Tell me....how many times have you fallen for the Lucy-pulls-the-football-away trick?

You are smarter than this, possibly. This type of thing goes down well with your lap dogs Daveman and Crudader Frank. Save it for them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Good to see that you are beginning to pay attention and you are posting some truth.

Think so?


Tell me....how many times have you fallen for the Lucy-pulls-the-football-away trick?

You are smarter than this, possibly. This type of thing goes down well with your lap dogs Daveman and Crudader Frank. Save it for them.

You misjudge once again.

I am an artist at vivisection.