If only he'd listened to the expected repercussions of admitting the shah back into the USA, he'd have likely won a second term and we'd now have the metric system in this country instead of retaining the backward standard system. Our biggest might-have-been of the 20th century.
A truly decent, compassionate and honest American. Wish for his complete and total recovery. R.
The Fall of Pahlavi Dynasty , despite all of its perceived or real shortcomings , did a serious disservice to America;s prestige in that part of the world .If we can't stand by our loyal friends and allies , we risk a loss of credibility as the leader of the free world . Undoubtedly President Carter is a thoroughly decent human being and we are all better off because of his service to the country and contributions to the world .
Unlike the Shah who also suffered from cancer Mr Carter doesn't have to go half way around the world to find comfort in his moment of need.Mr Carter never admitted his mistakes when it came to diplomacy with Iran.He never showed any remorse towards the thousands of Iranian families that were forced to leave Iran or were imprisoned and executed because of a despicable regime that under his misguided presidency help install by smoothning the path for "a Gandhi like figure".Despite this I wish the man well because that is the Iranian nature of things.
So you expected him to hand over the Shah to the Islamists? The fact was the hostage crises was fabricated by US intelligence to stablize the new regime.There are documents to prove that the US embassy was giving information to Khomeini's gangs regarding the people that used to phone the American embassy to ask if they can help them against Khomeini.After the phone calls Khomeini's gangs went to their homes and murdered them.Such is the double standards used by the US.
I agree that the hostage crisis doomed Carter's chances to be reelected to a second term. But the treatment of the former shah in the U.S. was just an excuse for hostage takers and the new regime in Iran. If that was not the case, they would have freed the hostages soon after Shah left the U.S., and not hold them for 444 days. What appeared in those fateful days as a coup against reformist and secular organizations and parties, ended up to be a coup by the hard right within the new regime to take over the real power, dump the Islamic Republic's own premier, and silence the opposition, all under the guise of a so-called "anti-imperialist" struggle, which effectively meant a campaign against modernity and liberal thinking.Carter did campaigned for human rights, and we should be all proud of him for doing so. If the Islamists came to power, you should look why the Shah and his regime collapsed so easily and so rapidly, the internal dynamics of the imperial court and its relations, or lack of, with the population. Don't make Carter into an excuse for the fall of a corrupt regime that had lost popular support.
Uskowi,Carter was secretly campaigning for the oil cartels.There was no human rights concerns for Iranian people.If that was the case then why Carter has not mentioned one single iota as regards human rights in Iran for the past thirty six years? Remember the Shah's 1973 oil speech when he said he will not renew the oil contracts for 1979? When did this "revolution" happen?
Uskowi,If Mr Carter was so concerned for human rights why did he receive financial support from Saudi Arabia a country that has one of the worst human rights abuses in the world? One other thing,there wasn't any reformists back then because if there were we wouldn't be in this spectacular mess we are in today.The socalled secularists were tripping over themselves to hand over Iran to Khomeini's islamic gangs.Didn't Sanjabi claim that Islam and democracy were compatible and that Khomeini was the best thing since sliced bread or not? Or are you going to prevent this post like the previous one about the Shah's 1973 speech regarding renewal of oil contracts for 1979 to get through and remain silent?
I thought we were discussing the times of revolution, when Carter was an outspoken advocate of human rights. In post presidency, Carter has remained the most active and engaged ex-president in the areas of human rights and development across the globe.You can continue blaming the West for all the country's ills, including why the Shah regime cold not last few months of popular demonstrations in the country. I assume it's an easy way to explain problems in a conspiracy theory framework, otherwise we should assign responsibilities to local actors as well.
Anon, Carter's human rights record are very clear and non-deniable. Whatever fault he might have had, respect to human dignity was not one of them.In any regime, including the so-called revolutionary regimes, there are always more moderates elements. Here, however, I was also talking about the hardliner assault, led by Khomeini, on political moderation and modernity in the country, including many groups outside the government.Your "theory" about the link of 1973 speech by the Shah and his decision in 1979 to leave the country and 2,500 years of monarchy was noted and I did reply to it.
Uskowi,that is not my theory as you claim.Just search online or better still listen to his speech in Farsi regarding the renewal of oil contracts back in 1973.The oil cartel are the biggest gangsters when it comes to politics. You out of all people should know this.So I'm quite surprised by your accusation that I am theorising this claim.You must realize that I am not against you.I think it's about time for Iranians to stop repeating the pre-revolutionary exaggerated slogans with all its propaganda and except that we as a people weren't perfect neither.
Where the problem lies is that Mr Carter seems to have cooperated with Saudi Arabia one of the worst countries of human rights abuses and picked on Iran which at that time was like a liberal democracy when compared to countries like Iraq,Syria,Saudi Arabia and even Turkey.If you can find one speech in that Mr Carter attacks Saudi Arabia on its human rights record then I will go back to Iran and hand myself over to the islamists.
Appreciate it that you are not against me, but that's not the issue here. Regarding Shah's speech in 1973 as the cause of his overthrow in 1979 is wrong. So many factors went into his ouster. People had lost their trust, as he was increasingly looked at as a tyrant head of a corrupt regime beholden to foreign powers. He was not overthrown because of his independence and nationalism. But I guess we can agree to disagree on this topic.
When it came to independence and nationalism I doubt Khomeini or any other member of the IRI are classed as nationalistic.To these people islam comes first with other things in between and Iran last.Remember Khomeini's infamous "Hich" as regards his return to Iran? Iran has become less Independent since the IRI. Iran can't even buy parts for its civil airliner fleet.So what type of funny independence is that? To sum it all up,I would say that the 1979 fiasco was a absolute disaster that can be summed up as national suicide. Best regards.
Dear Anon Please stay on topic and respect blog etiquette .
No need for you to hand yourself to the Islamists, we can agree to disagree on Carter and his place in history. Thanks for your comments.
Dear concerned AnonDiscussing about Jimmy Carter and naming him by his present title of "Mr" was keeping to "blog etiquette".
I was talking about the Shah. Concepts of being independent or nationalist are not comparatively applied. Shah not being a tolerant or nationalist leader does not make Khomeini his opposite. Khomeini's tyrannical tendencies were as bad if not worse, and his independent stance was more an independence from modernity.
again mark indulges himself in obnoxious nonsense.Carter was undone by the economy being lousy as much as the Iranian hostage-taking and thuggery
Post a Comment