to support the Shah of Iran during the Carter years?
2007-08-22 12:27:23 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They were a prosperous free cosmopolitan and secular country. Now they are the biggest funders of terrorism in the world. Their people are not free, economically repressed and not allowed to own guns.
2007-08-22 12:49:42 · update #1
The Shah was one of the few allies we had in the Middle East. If we had supported the Shah instead of snubbing him because of human rights violations, the rest of the Middle Eastern countries wouldn't have had a blue print for an radical Islamic state they could all follow.
Now, I'm not saying the Shah should've been allowed to continue violating basic human rights, but at the same time when the Shah was kicked out all the people that were in the custody of the Shah were killed, and women went from close to equality to subserviant in less than a week, and now there are more human rights violation in Iran than there ever were under the Shah.
Also, the total lack of a response from the USA against those that overthrew the US's ally, and kidnapped citizens paved the way fr Russia to expand into the Middle East and Asia, because the Russians knew America wouldn't do anything with Carter at the helm, and they were right. Which led to Russia invading Afghanistan, and helped lead to the radicalization of one Usama Bin Laden.
I think the world would have been much better off of the Shah had remained in power.
2007-08-22 12:53:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question!
Carter is justly placed near the bottom of the Best President list because of this huge mistake. The Shaw was a dictator and should have gone, but the replacement has been a scourge on the world.
Dissident revolt? No way. The inhabitants of Iran will never have the balls to get rid of the theocracy of the Ayatollahs on their own.
2007-08-22 19:38:33 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The world would have been a better place if the USA would just keep their noses out of the Middle East!
They have family feuds that have been going on longer than the USA has been a country...
If we would take half the money that we spend on getting oil out of the Middle East, and spend it on developing sustainable fuel... in just a year or two we wouldn't even care about the Middle East!
2007-08-22 19:41:29 · answer #3 · answered by and,or,nand,nor 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah yes, the good ol prosperous days of Jimmy Carter. And wasn't he quited the world leader when it came to foreign policy? He sure was strong on defense and tough on terrorism too.
2007-08-22 19:35:43 · answer #4 · answered by Rick 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. We WERE supporting the Shah.
That's what caused the Revolution. The corruption of his regime with US support infuriated Iranians to the point that no amount of money and weapons would have kept the Shah in place. We screwed it up.
2007-08-22 19:32:36 · answer #5 · answered by gaelicspawn 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
nope. the Shah was a bad leader who was ousted and replaced by a worse one. give it more time. tyrants always lose power (either by aging and dying or by revolution or coup).
2007-08-22 19:33:45 · answer #6 · answered by Act D 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope, the Shah was worse than Saddam.
2007-08-22 19:32:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
NO, if big cooperation and bush's and bad united nation was not exist, the life should be better!
2007-08-22 21:55:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, It would be better if We and everyone else stayed out of other countries.
2007-08-22 19:32:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Maybe...
Great question!
2007-08-22 19:37:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋