Jimmy Carter Denounces Obama For "Widespread Abuse Of Human Rights"

I wasn't there, and neither were you, so of course you're right; neither of us knows if the figures are correct. If they are correct, then surely the combatant to civilian kill ratio is the best in the history of urban warfare.

Obviously yes. The only thing missing is that he didn't call Obama a traitor.

Here's the link to the original op-ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25....html?_r=3

I wasn't there, and neither were you, so of course you're right; neither of us knows if the figures are correct. If they are correct, then surely the combatant to civilian kill ratio is the best in the history of urban warfare.

What I am putting together is the consequences that we are still dealing with today as a result of the policies that he put into place… i.e. helping to remove the Shah and thereby instituting the fundamentalist Muslims that hate the west as the ruling party in Iran.

Clearly you didn't read the NYTimes piece saying that Obama's method for counting militant versus civilian deaths is to simply say, are there any males in the vicinity of fighting age, ok then they're militants. It basically means that only women and children will get counted as civilians in the death count, which is a joke.

Carter helped to remove the Shah? Do you have a link with more details?

Shah and the United States


Facing a revolution, the Shah appealed to the United States for support.[citation needed] Because of Iran's history and strategic location, it was important to the United States. Iran shared a long border with America's Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and was the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Shah had long been pro-American, but the Pahlavi regime had also recently garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its human rights record.[84] In the United States, Iran was not considered in danger of revolution. A CIA analysis in August 1978, just six months before the Shah fled Iran, had concluded that the country "is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation."[85]
The Shah of Iran (left) meeting with members of the U.S. government: Alfred Atherton, William Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977
According to historian Nikki Keddie, the administration of then President Carter followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[86] The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski “repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully." On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." But at the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department and the White House staff believed the revolution was unstoppable but largely went unheard until Ambassador Sullivan issued the "Thinking the Unthinkable" telegram, which formally discussed policy options if the Shah were to fail to quell the fervor.[87][88] After visiting the Shah in the autumn of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[89] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support.
Sociologist Charles Kurzman argues that rather than being indecisive, or sympathetic to the revolution, the Carter administration was consistently supportive of the Shah and urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" even after the regime's cause was hopeless.[90]
Many Iranians believe the lack of intervention and the sympathetic remarks about the revolution by high-level American officials indicate the U.S. "was responsible for Khomeini's victory."[86][91] Another position asserts that the Shah's overthrow was the result of a "sinister plot to topple a nationalist, progressive, and independent-minded monarch."[92]

Was out of town last week so I just now saw your request. Took about 5 miniuts to find this… Basicly Carter claimed to back the Shah and in the end he let him fall and let Iran become the mess it is today…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

Yes, because propping up butchers (Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Panama, Bolivia, etc.) has always been received favorably by locals and led to overall stability...

Mo…did you fricking even read the post. Iranians would rather have seen the US step in back in ’78 – ’79 and kept the Shah in power. Would have been a vastly different world today had Carter not been a spineless wimp.

Yes, I've seen that wiki article many times.

Spineless wimp? The Shah was a butcher who had no issue using violence, until he got to the breaking point. Then he decided he would NOT use violence, something those who opposed him decided would suit their purpose at that point.

We backed the Shah up for years (we propped him into power to ensure access to oil).

Yes, most Iranians today are NOT happy with the current regime, that being said, lots of people were unhappy with the Shah as well.

Look, we agree the current regime in Iran is far worse than what the Shah was doing, but what led to the Shah being forced out was his willingness to give in to outside powers and oppress his own people. Yes, the current regime is more oppressive, but hindsight is 20/20.

OK, we are not that far apart… I was commenting on another post that was questioning my statement that As a result of the Carter administration and the lack of committed support to the Shah added to the collapse.



It was Carter that was the spineless wimp