quote:

I would love to hear a reasoned dissertation of how you connect Carter to 9/11.

quote:

Are you suggesting Iran was a US colony?

quote:

Trust us for what?

quote:

Militant Islam has been growing over most of the Middle East for years and years prior to Carter.  To make the statement that the Iranian revolution was a starting point, catalyst, or central core of the rise of Militant Islam is rather myopic and ignorant.

quote:

In a similar vein, I could ask why Anencephalyboy couldnt, as commander and chief, organize a better plan for invading Iraq or Afghanistan.

President Bush is in charge, he had the power, the authority, and a Congress made up of his own party. Look how well that turned out. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Cuck,

Thanks for proving my point, I won't bother to point out why because you are exactly the sort I am speaking of.  It would be like trying to explain sex to a two year old.  No matter what you say they will have a tantrum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

I would love to hear a reasoned dissertation of how you connect Carter to 9/11.

It is extremely difficult to argue with someone having a reading comprehension problem. Maybe third time will be a charm...

quote:



I compare President Carter's actions and impotency in Iran to the assassination of President Kennedy. I, and many others, feel that had President Kennedy not been assassinated many who died in Vietnam would not have been there in the first place. If President Carter had acted with power and resolve in Iran, fundamental Islam would not have been in a position to attack the US on 9/11.

quote:



You have so much in common with President Bush its a wonder you don't admire him. Refusal to admit error, difficulty in addressing inconstancies in positions,  and calling any opposition viewpoint ignorance are some of the things you have in common.

quote:



President Carter was the commander and chief who, in the case of the US Embassy, surrendered the sovereignty of his country. You don't refute that point, obviously you can't. Tangent arguments about the past, are not relevant to his lack of action on that specific issue.

quote:

quote:

Are you suggesting Iran was a US colony?

An Embassy is US sovereign territory. When you verify the factual representation of the Congress during the Carter Administration, perhaps you'll also verify that fact.

quote:

Trust us for what?

quote:

Exactly the point. Couldn't trust him to defend his own sovereignty. How could he be trusted to fulfill the US obligations regarding any international treaty.

quote:

quote:

Militant Islam has been growing over most of the Middle East for years and years prior to Carter.  To make the statement that the Iranian revolution was a starting point, catalyst, or central core of the rise of Militant Islam is rather myopic and ignorant.

Yes of course, "myopic and ignorant". Laughable that you need to denigrate a viewpoint versus answering it. Your lack of confidence and ability to substantiate your opinion by no other means is, if nothing else, consistent. "Growing", yes - with a huge growth spurt under President Carter when he abandoned and went back on his commitment to the Shaw. Coming to power and gaining exponential membership was under, and caused, by President Carter's inability to act in the face of US sovereignty being breached in Iran.

quote:

quote:

In a similar vein, I could ask why Anencephalyboy couldnt, as commander and chief, organize a better plan for invading Iraq or Afghanistan.

President Bush is in charge, he had the power, the authority, and a Congress made up of his own party. Look how well that turned out. 

quote:

 Your constant opinion and comparison of President Bush to President Carter are interesting. To get a positive image of President Carter you need to compare him to President Bush? I would think in your mind at least his actions and policy couldn't be comparable. After all, you admire President Carter, and need to denigrate President Bush; yet you can only make your point by a comparison? It would seem to indicate you have very weak stand alone arguments.

quote:



I told you that you should consider President Bush as your new idol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


He is one of the main reasons there is a hole where the towers used to be in NYC.

How about George H.W. Bush recruiting and training Osama Bin Ladin? That's a much bigger reason.

quote:

After 9/11, the CIA will state, “Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Osama bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden.” [US State Department, 1/14/2005] 

quote:

The CIA, ISI, and bin Laden build the Khost tunnel complex in Afghanistan. This will be a major target of bombing and fighting when the US attacks the Taliban in 2001. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/2001; Hindu, 9/27/2001] It will be reported in June 2001 that “bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani, and US intelligence services to recruit mujaheddin from many Muslim countries,” but this information has not been reported much since 9/11. [United Press International, 4/10/2004] A CIA spokesperson will later claim, “For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden.” [Ananova, 10/31/2001] 

quote:

How is that working out for you?

quote:

I would love to hear a reasoned dissertation of how you connect Carter to 9/11.

quote:

You have so much in common with President Bush its a wonder you don't admire him. Refusal to admit error, difficulty in addressing inconstancies in positions,  and calling any opposition viewpoint ignorance are some of the things you have in common.

quote:

More insults

quote:

Why is it not a problem for Bush to refuse to abide by treaties and horrible that Carter failed to?

quote:

Ever hear of the psychological term "projection?" I am simply doing back to you what you keep doing to me.

quote:

At the time, there was no government to negotiate with. The only solution would have been invasion. With the Soviet Union opposed to us invading in the middle of a Cold War.

quote:


I compare President Carter's actions and impotency in Iran to the assassination of President Kennedy. I, and many others, feel that had President Kennedy not been assassinated many who died in Vietnam would not have been there in the first place. If President Carter had acted with power and resolve in Iran, fundamental Islam would not have been in a position to attack the US on 9/11.

quote:

quote:



Hmm, let me try explaining WHY people can believe in that scenario taking place. There is a movie called "The Butterfly Effect". I strongly suggest you go rent it and absorb it.  Your assumption may be that the "non assassination" of  Kennedy would have brought about the exact same chain of historical events. And that is too high an impossibility. It is simple actually, it calls for a "what if" way of thinking and processing the countless variables that would have the chance to play out.  Variables and alternative chain of events can be caused by the slightest of things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Hey, all it took was Reagan GIVING INTO THE TERRORISTS and giving them weapons in exchange for the hostages.

Carter COULD HAVE APPEASED THE TERRORISTS, couldn't he, just like Reagan did?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And in the end, the Iranian Hostages were released because they were PAID OFF in weapons, weren't they?

I guess Carter just DID NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS, but the Reagan administration was JUST FINE with the idea of negotiation and giving terrorists what they demand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

It was George H.W. Bush who conspired with the Terrorists to HOLD the hostages for the year and change, and ensure that they were not released until Reagan got in.

Whether it was A'li North or George H.W., they are still traitors who conspired to assist terrorists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Oh, people aren't allowed to conspire unless they're in office?

No, it's not like even as an employee of a bank, he's forgotten all his contacts?

President of Iran?

(voice of Bani-Sadr, translator over-dubbed:) It is now very clear that there were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms. We have published documents which show that US arms were shipped, via Israel, in March, about 2 months after Reagan became president.

I'd like to get that tape, and see a second translation myself, but that's credible enough for a Grand Jury.

After 12 years of news reports looking into the alleged conspiracy, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries into the issue, and journalists from sources such as Newsweek and The New Republic looked into the charges. Both Congressional inquires, as well as the majority of investigative reports, found the evidence to be insufficient. Nevertheless, several individuals, most notably Lyndon LaRouche, continue to claim otherwise.

The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".

The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign---or persons associated with the campaign---to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence." The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke, who claimed to be a CIA agent.

Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992, and concluded that almost every single statement Sick made, and all the witnesses he had used turned out to be false or lying. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. According to Snepp, not one of Sick’s sources had any direct knowledge of the alleged plot. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone, who refused to turn it into a movie. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke Snepp asserts that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be staying at a motel in Seattle, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting

Newsweek magazine also ran an investigation, and they too found most if not all the charges made to be groundless. Specifically, Newsweek found little evidence that the United States had transferred arms to Iran prior to Iran Contra, was able to account for George Bush’s whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Paris meeting, and found little corroboration when Sick’s witnesses were interviewed separately. Newsweek also alleged that the story was being heavily pushed within the LaRouche Movement

Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of the The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the timeframe Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

Carter: Bush's impact 'worst in history'
14 minutes ago
 
Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070519/ap_on_re_us/carter_bush_7;_ylt=Avt5sqNLoyuh8tX1TSZUUXYE1vAI


Carter on Prime Minister Tony Blair:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6672035.stm

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinksugarsub
i was impressed with Carter's candor and courage to speak his mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

To be clear it was better to surrender? The USSR invaded Afghanistan, we had an Embassy occupied. We would not be invading. We would be defending our sovereignty and our citizens. The weakness of President Carter to defend had nothing to do with the Cold War.

quote:



There was a government. The Ayatollah was representing himself as the leader.

quote:



At the time, many in Iran would have come to support the US action.

quote:



There was a faction in Iran that didn't want a fundamentalist government.

quote:



Had it appeared weak in the face of a US rescue, the radical regime may have failed. We have President Carter to thank for not being able to determine if that would have been the case.

quote:

The legitimacy of the current Iranian régime has been called into question regularly since it took power in 1979, chiefly because it excludes so many Iranians from any participation in government and public affairs. The fact that somewhere in excess of two million Iranians prefer to live in exile than return to live in the Islamic Republic is a prima facie compromise on the claims of the régime to represent all Iranians. Source: http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com20.asp 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Surrender to who?
Carter was involved in trying to be friends with the USSR and end the cold war.
Invading Iran when the USSR did not support the invasion might not have been productive on a global scale. In fact, it might have completely destroyed his efforts to get the USSR to the negotiating table to figure out an arms limitation treaty to end the Cold War.

President Carter surrendered the sovereignty of US territory, the Embassy, to the Iranians.

quote:



I would think that destroying the oil production would be seen as a positive. That occurring President Carter's self sufficiency program would have taken on a greater meaning.

quote:

quote:

As I have pointed out, your opinion does not constitute proof.

The proof is what has occurred, which can not be argued. President Carter is the why, in my opinion. You haven't presented anything to the contrary in the way of fact.

quote:

quote:

 "Things worked out historically because, not despite, what Carter did."

I agree 100% especially regarding the events of 9/11.

quote:

quote:

He was "a" leader. He just happened to be the one that ended up in charge after the dust settled.

Your position favors no negotiation at all. Without a leader there could be no negotiation. Instead we should have gone to rescue the hostages and protected the sovereignty of the US Embassy. I have no problem with that position.

However, facts dispute that Khomeini wasn't the head of Iran. Four leaders of the opposition, Naji, Rahimi, Khosrowdad, and Nasiri were brutally executed immediately after Khomeini took office. If he weren't the de facto leader could that have happened on his orders? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/170201.shtml 

quote:

quote:

Name 5.

How about two million?

quote:

quote:

The legitimacy of the current Iranian régime has been called into question regularly since it took power in 1979, chiefly because it excludes so many Iranians from any participation in government and public affairs. The fact that somewhere in excess of two million Iranians prefer to live in exile than return to live in the Islamic Republic is a prima facie compromise on the claims of the régime to represent all Iranians. Source: http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com20.asp 

 
Recent History: 
How about an entire website trying to keep the opposition alive: http://parvandeh.blogspot.com/ 

quote:

quote:

You insist on stating infinitives and certainties where I see few (or none) existing. Additionally, when I ask you for empirical proof for your certainties, you call me names. I look forward to your next set of insults and unproven half-truths and certainties.

Your words and the inability to recognize errors speak for themselves. I never referred to you, or anyone you support, in a derogatory manner or make a reference to "ignorance". Can you make the same representation? I only questioned your comprehension when you asked the same question three times after I gave the reason for my position. Since you didn't bring it up for a fourth time, I'm pleased that it is no longer an issue.  I'm sorry you took issue in the favorable and obvious comparisons you made between President's Carter and Bush. You made the comparisons, I only agreed with them and pointed out how in one case, President Carter, you had admiration while in the case of President Bush, to whom you made many references of doing the same exact thing, you detested and need to reference in a derogatory fashion. You made the comparisons not me. I only pointed out the irony of them.

quote:

Now we are back to the problem of definitions. 

What exactly is an "Iranian?"  The followers of Khomeini?  The students in the embassy?  Any one of the dozens of other Mullahs and Ayatollahs and ex-military officers and their entourages?

quote:

One issue I have with a lot of your posts is the insistence that the rest of the world follows the Western nation-state model which grew out of medeival fiefdoms in Western Europe. 

quote:

I would think that destroying the oil production would be seen as a positive. That occurring President Carter's self sufficiency program would have taken on a greater meaning.
Hrm, would love to hear the rationale behind this idea.[/quote] Surprised its lost on you, no oil from Iran the US would have more incentive to sustain its addition to locally produced sources of energy. Not a difficult concept really.

quote:

I have, actually.  Do a search for Isreali, Palestine, Shah, 1941, 1948, etc., on this thread and reread my points.

This is in regard to one situation occurring in 1979. President Carter is judged on his time and his actions. President Roosevelt or President Truman's actions notwithstanding.

quote:

Now factor time into your calculations.  Was Khomeini in a position to provide the hostages up to the US prior to the US fiasco implemented by Carter?

Please cite sources to support this claim.

Yes he was. The results both at the time and subsequently point to Khomeini being in charge. Why should I add more source to those already cited? I identified the opposition, you claimed there were less than 5, there were millions. Do I see a resignation of yet another incorrect statement?
Support your claim that Khomeini couldn't. It has the same impact, except Khomeini was in charge as I pointed out. You've yet to make a case that he wasn't. 

quote:

Name 5.

How about two million?

quote:

I dont know five people in Iran named Two Million.  I suspect you dont either.

2 Million is greater than 5, basic math. You made a point there was no opposition now you challenge a factual response - typical. 

quote:

Do you understand that a bunch of people thinking they are legitimate rulers of a country of people does not make it so?

 Well then once again you make a great point against your own position. Khomeini was in charge. Why make it an issue. We are in basic agreement, Khomeini had the authority and President Carter surrendered the sovereignty of the Embassy to him. 

quote:

I dont care what you personally think of Bush or Carter.
I am speaking of their actions

Each and every comparison was yours. Pointing out the irony was mine.

quote:

Your response is to attack me

Yes, yes, I know in your situation any disagreement is an "attack" - can't help you with that problem. 

quote:

 
The point I keep making is that your insistence that Carter caused radical Islam

You can't find any reference I made to 'cause'. I say he was a great contributor, and helped it to flourish. I point to his surrendering of the Embassy as a focus. You have never argued the point. Instead you again reference

quote:

myopic and ignorant

hysterically amusing!

quote:

While Carter might have been one of the historical precedents, I dont see Carter as being a root cause of Radical Islam.

Great that you finally agree to most important point I tried to convey on this thread. I will admit to taking the position too far in referring to him as a 'founding father' but as you state he did influence and contribute to the growth of radical Islam as a matter of "historical precedent". THANKS! I'm thrilled that you fundamentally agree and now see it that way. The degree of his contribution is immaterial as long as fundamentally you feel his Administration and he in particular was a factor.

quote:

I have made the point numerous times that Carter may have been "a" factor, but was neither causative or definitive to the rise of Radical Islam.  Replace Carter with anybody else, change no other factors, and Radical Islam would still have flourished.  You have made the point numerous times that there is a direct cause to effect relationship between the Carter administration and radical Islam.

quote:

Your approach to this discussion is reminiscent of those who claim there was only one (1) factor which caused the fall of the Roman Empire.  Gibbons had a lovely scholarly work on the subject several hundred years ago.  It turns out that despite his research, he was only partially correct.

quote:

However, after suffering through the poorly indented response you just made, I have come to the conclusion that I am no longer interested in having this discussion with you.  Your initial sentence states your position entirely.  "I have been consistent throughout"  I never argued that you do not truly believe what you say.  I simply pointed out you have presented no empirical proof that your beliefs are correct.

quote:

For example:"Khomeini was in charge."

Sure, he had the microphone and everybody outside of Iraq believed the same thing.

quote:

You resort to insults. You take comments out of context.

quote:

Enjoy your day.