 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t call him decent, he did a lot of evil during his presidency. 1. Backing the shah of Iran 2. Complicit in the East Timor genocide 3. Supported Pol Pot 4. Supported Somoza (dictator in Nicaragua) Him and his admin supported brutal regimes in these countries which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I think his post presidency work was great however, and it seems like he realised the mistakes him and his administration made and he was trying to rectify it by doing some good " Did he back the Shah of Iran? Don't remember. If he did then that was a good thing. The Shah's regime may have been a bit despotic but it was far better than what replaced it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t call him decent, he did a lot of evil during his presidency. 1. Backing the shah of Iran 2. Complicit in the East Timor genocide 3. Supported Pol Pot 4. Supported Somoza (dictator in Nicaragua) Him and his admin supported brutal regimes in these countries which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I think his post presidency work was great however, and it seems like he realised the mistakes him and his administration made and he was trying to rectify it by doing some good Did he back the Shah of Iran? Don't remember. If he did then that was a good thing. The Shah's regime may have been a bit despotic but it was far better than what replaced it."  shah of Iran kicked out by him a horrible mistake | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t call him decent, he did a lot of evil during his presidency. 1. Backing the shah of Iran 2. Complicit in the East Timor genocide 3. Supported Pol Pot 4. Supported Somoza (dictator in Nicaragua) Him and his admin supported brutal regimes in these countries which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I think his post presidency work was great however, and it seems like he realised the mistakes him and his administration made and he was trying to rectify it by doing some good Did he back the Shah of Iran? Don't remember. If he did then that was a good thing. The Shah's regime may have been a bit despotic but it was far better than what replaced it." Yes he backed the shah during his presidency as they wanted to overthrow Mossadegh. Who wanted to nationalise the Iranian oil, but of course, the US and UK were not happy about that as the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now called BP), controlled their oil. The shah’s regime was very authoritarian, as their CIA backed secret police were torturing people, censoring people, etc. throughout his regime. Also, the UK and US led out a coup, which just served their interests, I don’t believe coups are a good thing at all especially when theyre used to serve other countries interests. They led out a coup to replace a democratically elected person, but the west is all for democracy right? Also, the coup was the main reason for the 1979 Islamic revolution, the majority of the Iranian people held resentment towards the US and they decided to revolt. The country seriously repressed under the shah, and then totally repressed under what replaced the Shah, all at the hands of Jimmy Carter and his administration | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In this thread he brought about the Islamic revolution and supported the shah within three posts of each other. The long term good relations of the US (similar to most of the west) with the Shah’s government continued under Carter. Then there was a local revolution and the shah was replaced by the ayatollah. His government did not get on with them but has been accused of complicity in their rise simply because they didn’t immediately invade. I suppose the problem with being the world policeman is that you get blamed for everything even when you don’t do very much at all, or perhaps especially then. Carter lost his re election bid to Regan because the voters felt Regan would be stronger against Iran. It is highly likely that the Republicans were engaging in backdoor diplomacy from opposition, destabilising the Carter administration’s efforts to release US hostages, and actually extending the time that those hostages spent in captivity. This is an explicit criminal offence in the US, in comparison to the UK where it is merely a breach of the ministerial code. Immediately on Regan’s election, hostages were released. However, in all other significant aspects Regan continued Carter’s stance towards Iran and that is pretty much remained static ever since even if Obama and his administration used soft words and the Trump administration used harsher words; effectively, the Carter policy with minor alterations has remained ever since - freeze them out with sanctions, talk tough, facilitate those other players (Isreal and the Saudis etc) who will harm them but put no US boots on the ground. " I couldn’t believe that he said to Shah of Iran to leave United States just after revolution happened so he didn’t even let him to live there but Anvar Sadat accepted him kindly to stay in Egypt , king of Iran Pahlavi the man who supported US for a long time and the owner of Pan Am airlines (most successful airline at the time ) kicked out by Carter , that was nasty but mullahs showed him a big cock instead of doing business with US after that so he totally deserved to be replaced by Reagan . Listen to Reagan what he said about Shah . The biggest mistake in history that brought Middle East to this point . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t call him decent, he did a lot of evil during his presidency. 1. Backing the shah of Iran. Did he back the Shah of Iran? Don't remember. If he did then that was a good thing. The Shah's regime may have been a bit despotic but it was far better than what replaced it. Yes he backed the shah during his presidency as they wanted to overthrow Mossadegh. Who wanted to nationalise the Iranian oil, but of course, the US and UK were not happy about that as the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now called BP), controlled their oil. The shah’s regime was very authoritarian, as their CIA backed secret police were torturing people, censoring people, etc. throughout his regime. Also, the UK and US led out a coup, which just served their interests, I don’t believe coups are a good thing at all especially when theyre used to serve other countries interests. They led out a coup to replace a democratically elected person, but the west is all for democracy right? Also, the coup was the main reason for the 1979 Islamic revolution, the majority of the Iranian people held resentment towards the US and they decided to revolt. The country seriously repressed under the shah, and then totally repressed under what replaced the Shah, all at the hands of Jimmy Carter and his administration " Don't remember the full story as 45 years ago now. I did go to Iran in 1975 with an Iranian schoolfriend. His family were quite 'we to do' and fervent supporters of the Shah. Obviously I did not see any signs of brutality or repression. Only there for a week and the country seemed quite westernised and the people quite laid-back and happy. I think it is a rather different place these days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t call him decent, he did a lot of evil during his presidency. 1. Backing the shah of Iran 2. Complicit in the East Timor genocide 3. Supported Pol Pot 4. Supported Somoza (dictator in Nicaragua) Him and his admin supported brutal regimes in these countries which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I think his post presidency work was great however, and it seems like he realised the mistakes him and his administration made and he was trying to rectify it by doing some good Did he back the Shah of Iran? Don't remember. If he did then that was a good thing. The Shah's regime may have been a bit despotic but it was far better than what replaced it. Yes he backed the shah during his presidency as they wanted to overthrow Mossadegh. Who wanted to nationalise the Iranian oil, but of course, the US and UK were not happy about that as the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now called BP), controlled their oil. The shah’s regime was very authoritarian, as their CIA backed secret police were torturing people, censoring people, etc. throughout his regime. Also, the UK and US led out a coup, which just served their interests, I don’t believe coups are a good thing at all especially when theyre used to serve other countries interests. They led out a coup to replace a democratically elected person, but the west is all for democracy right? Also, the coup was the main reason for the 1979 Islamic revolution, the majority of the Iranian people held resentment towards the US and they decided to revolt. The country seriously repressed under the shah, and then totally repressed under what replaced the Shah, all at the hands of Jimmy Carter and his administration " You are totally confused about Iran history . Mossadegh was 1951 -1953 and we are talking about Carter 1979 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jimmy Carter, the longest living US President, has died today aged 100. As I understand it he was very well thought of, a decent human being." But a useless Potus.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t call him decent, he did a lot of evil during his presidency. 1. Backing the shah of Iran 2. Complicit in the East Timor genocide 3. Supported Pol Pot 4. Supported Somoza (dictator in Nicaragua) Him and his admin supported brutal regimes in these countries which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I think his post presidency work was great however, and it seems like he realised the mistakes him and his administration made and he was trying to rectify it by doing some good Did he back the Shah of Iran? Don't remember. If he did then that was a good thing. The Shah's regime may have been a bit despotic but it was far better than what replaced it. Yes he backed the shah during his presidency as they wanted to overthrow Mossadegh. Who wanted to nationalise the Iranian oil, but of course, the US and UK were not happy about that as the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now called BP), controlled their oil. The shah’s regime was very authoritarian, as their CIA backed secret police were torturing people, censoring people, etc. throughout his regime. Also, the UK and US led out a coup, which just served their interests, I don’t believe coups are a good thing at all especially when theyre used to serve other countries interests. They led out a coup to replace a democratically elected person, but the west is all for democracy right? Also, the coup was the main reason for the 1979 Islamic revolution, the majority of the Iranian people held resentment towards the US and they decided to revolt. The country seriously repressed under the shah, and then totally repressed under what replaced the Shah, all at the hands of Jimmy Carter and his administration You are totally confused about Iran history . Mossadegh was 1951 -1953 and we are talking about Carter 1979 " You’re right, I got this one wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t call him decent, he did a lot of evil during his presidency. 1. Backing the shah of Iran. Did he back the Shah of Iran? Don't remember. If he did then that was a good thing. The Shah's regime may have been a bit despotic but it was far better than what replaced it. Yes he backed the shah during his presidency as they wanted to overthrow Mossadegh. Who wanted to nationalise the Iranian oil, but of course, the US and UK were not happy about that as the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now called BP), controlled their oil. The shah’s regime was very authoritarian, as their CIA backed secret police were torturing people, censoring people, etc. throughout his regime. Also, the UK and US led out a coup, which just served their interests, I don’t believe coups are a good thing at all especially when theyre used to serve other countries interests. They led out a coup to replace a democratically elected person, but the west is all for democracy right? Also, the coup was the main reason for the 1979 Islamic revolution, the majority of the Iranian people held resentment towards the US and they decided to revolt. The country seriously repressed under the shah, and then totally repressed under what replaced the Shah, all at the hands of Jimmy Carter and his administration Don't remember the full story as 45 years ago now. I did go to Iran in 1975 with an Iranian schoolfriend. His family were quite 'we to do' and fervent supporters of the Shah. Obviously I did not see any signs of brutality or repression. Only there for a week and the country seemed quite westernised and the people quite laid-back and happy. I think it is a rather different place these days." You are absolutely correct . No brutality / repression. , totally nonsense and bullshit . People in Iran didn’t know even who was that ayatollah terrorist when he came to Iran after Shah , I call him cockmeini . Like all the islamists he started to talk bullshit about freedom and said economy belongs to idiots and after one year started to hang people because they didn’t agree with him . Ayatollahs have killed 30000 people incl many children with age of 17 . Never seen a dictator regime like them in my life very close to North Korea . The Shah in opposite initiated major investments in infrastructure, subsidies and land grants for peasant populations, profit sharing for industrial workers, and literacy programs which were considered some of the most effective in the world . At the moment children searching for food in the public Wheelie Bins ., tons of women are in prison and so forth …feeding hezbollahs and Hamas with the money of Iranian to stay in power . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t call him decent, he did a lot of evil during his presidency. 1. Backing the shah of Iran 2. Complicit in the East Timor genocide 3. Supported Pol Pot 4. Supported Somoza (dictator in Nicaragua) Him and his admin supported brutal regimes in these countries which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I think his post presidency work was great however, and it seems like he realised the mistakes him and his administration made and he was trying to rectify it by doing some good Did he back the Shah of Iran? Don't remember. If he did then that was a good thing. The Shah's regime may have been a bit despotic but it was far better than what replaced it. Yes he backed the shah during his presidency as they wanted to overthrow Mossadegh. Who wanted to nationalise the Iranian oil, but of course, the US and UK were not happy about that as the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now called BP), controlled their oil. The shah’s regime was very authoritarian, as their CIA backed secret police were torturing people, censoring people, etc. throughout his regime. Also, the UK and US led out a coup, which just served their interests, I don’t believe coups are a good thing at all especially when theyre used to serve other countries interests. They led out a coup to replace a democratically elected person, but the west is all for democracy right? Also, the coup was the main reason for the 1979 Islamic revolution, the majority of the Iranian people held resentment towards the US and they decided to revolt. The country seriously repressed under the shah, and then totally repressed under what replaced the Shah, all at the hands of Jimmy Carter and his administration You are totally confused about Iran history . Mossadegh was 1951 -1953 and we are talking about Carter 1979 You’re right, I got this one wrong " not to worry . I don’t blame you it was nearly half a century ago | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
