2007-12-04 03:24:45 · 20 answers · asked by realitycheck 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Don't listen to these folks who know nothing about history.
If the Iranian problem were directly related to the Shah, we as a nation certainly corrected the situation when in 1979, Carter supported the return of the Ayatollah and worked to force the Shah from the country Thus, allowing religious radicalism to take over leadership of the country.
Furthermore, he erroneously worked to assure everyone who had been associated with the Shah that their safety would be guaranteed if they would also force him out. To the contrary, thousands who had supported the Shah were immediately murdered upon the Ayatollah's return - his first slap in the face to Carter.
Carter should have backed up the Shah militarily if necessary to ascertain that radicalism within the region was kept at bay. Instead, he encouraged it, coddled it and allowed it to flourish both before and after his leaving our Oval Office.
2007-12-04 17:52:47 · answer #1 · answered by wider scope 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well... I am hoping this is not a facetious question so that I do not waste my time. You caught my attention... Jimmy Carter was one of the most, if not the most, 'setup', in USA presidential history.
It was Reagan that made the arms deal with Iran even while Carter was president.. yes even before he became president. There have been many books written on this but for some reason, historians won't talk about it unless ask specifically.
Basically, let me summarize it for you, Carter was president. Guerrillas took Americans as hostages in Iran... Carter was working to get them freed... a Reagan team made a deal with them that said: no matter what Carter does, do not free them until Reagan is president so he will look weak, on the day Reagan was inaugurated, the hostages were freed.
That might sound like a sci-fi movie but seriously is a summary of the hearings and investigations. I have no clue on this Earth why Reagan was not put on trial for treason.
2007-12-05 06:44:38 · answer #2 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your reality check apparently bounced. First, "Iran Crisis?" Stop taking your cues from Fox News. What is the crisis? The only crisis is that Bush needs more enemies to scare weak minded people into believing that the Republican party is the only party that can protect them from these boogeymen. There is a real situation in Iran, it is very complex and involves nuclear reactors. Hardly a crisis and hardly anything new. It has been going on since the 1950's. We started the Iranian nuclear program under a REPUBLICAN (Nixon, then Ford) administration and now we want to say that they cannot pursue nuclear power. We do have to ensure that they do not make nuclear weapons but they can have nuclear power and we can ensure they do not produce weapons grade plutonium.
There are many other issues in Iran. The Iranian people are not our enemy and Iran is not our enemy. Invading Iran at this point would be a disastrous foreign policy.
2007-12-04 12:01:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
So is this your belief, so you can justify Bush starting a war with Iran, and then blaming it on Jimmy Carter (a President from 30 + years ago) when everything goes wrong?
2007-12-04 11:29:17 · answer #4 · answered by Marina G 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Not just Carter but Reagan as well. We never dreamed that the Muslims would go this far.
I Cr 13;8a
2007-12-05 00:58:20 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Jimmy Carter, failure that he was as president, tried to get us to tap into alternative fuels....had we done that, we would not be dependent on Iran and the rest of the Middle East for oil...I'm sure Reagan supplying weapons to Iran helped a lot though.
2007-12-04 11:28:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
No, it is the product of the CIA overthrowing the Iranian government in the 1950s and installing the Shah into power...
The 1979 Revolution was a response to that evernt.
2007-12-04 11:27:46 · answer #7 · answered by outcrop 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Yes, had he supported the Shah we would have a government friendly to the United States and its interests. Instead of a bunch of crazy religious zealots.
2007-12-04 11:38:27 · answer #8 · answered by Grandprixondubs 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
IT MOST CERTAINLY IS. HE ALLOWED THE MAD MULLAHS COME TO POWER BETRAYING A VALUED ALLY IN THE REGION. TO THOSE HE WAS IN OFFICE OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO & IS NOT TO BLAME READ A BOOK. HE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
2007-12-04 14:02:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No more than Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.
2007-12-04 11:37:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋