JImmy Carter says US tortures

[HAL 9000 96]

" Would they have been better off if we had left them alone in the first place? "

Ding ding ding ding...

Now we're talking!

Then again, that would take the blame off of a Democrat (Carter), and some just can't live with that!

Lets suppose for a minute that... democracy was allowed to proceed instead of placing a monarch, a despot, in power... in any time frame that seems like a good idea, no?? If not, then using simple logic:

The American Revolution is a great cause to support, right?. So many other examples come to mind without using user-edited web encyclopedias...

Back to the topic,

Torture is wrong.

[no name 1]

" Would they have been better off if we had left them alone in the first place? "

Ding ding ding ding...

Now we're talking!

Then again, that would take the blame off of a Democrat (Carter), and some just can't live with that!

Lets suppose for a minute that... democracy was allowed to proceed instead of placing a monarch, a despot, in power... in any time frame that seems like a good idea, no?? If not, then using simple logic:

The American Revolution is a great cause to support, right?. So many other examples come to mind without using user-edited web encyclopedias...

Back to the topic,

Torture is wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Would they have been better off if we had left them alone in the first place?

Since we are talking about Carter and his stupid actions that isn't the point. Carter could have prevented the events of 79 and didn't.

With any world event you could go back in history and point to something that preceded it. You want to go back to when the British took Persia over and blame them? You want to go back to the area before Persia and blame that? It could go on forever. Lets keep it to the topic at hand.

Yes it is absolutely the point. You're angry with Carter's comments and so you want to blame him for Iran being the way it is today. Perhaps there is some merit to that - but the history of that event started with the '53 coup. That is the one crucial event that kick-started the revolution - and it was only 25 years before. You might think that is ancient history - but its highly relevant and you can't split it off just because its inconvenient to your indictment of Carter's presidency.

You're being rather intellectually dishonest in the fact that you won't recognise that the '53 coup (funded and facilitated by the US and British) is ultimately responsible for the current state of affairs. Trying to suggest that Carter should have gone to war (presumably this is what you're suggesting) to stop a revolution that was well-advanced is, I think, being rather unreasonable.

Again I ask - how feasible was it in 1979, a few years after the end of a disastrous war in asia that polarised the country that a President would consider starting another similar venture in the middle-east?

Be honest - how likely do you think this would be? Anyone else who was around in '79 feel free to chime in.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

Would they have been better off if we had left them alone in the first place?

Since we are talking about Carter and his stupid actions that isn't the point. Carter could have prevented the events of 79 and didn't.

With any world event you could go back in history and point to something that preceded it. You want to go back to when the British took Persia over and blame them? You want to go back to the area before Persia and blame that? It could go on forever. Lets keep it to the topic at hand.

Yes it is absolutely the point. You're angry with Carter's comments and so you want to blame him for Iran being the way it is today. Perhaps there is some merit to that - but the history of that event started with the '53 coup. That is the one crucial event that kick-started the revolution - and it was only 25 years before. You might think that is ancient history - but its highly relevant and you can't split it off just because its inconvenient to your indictment of Carter's presidency.

You're being rather intellectually dishonest in the fact that you won't recognise that the '53 coup (funded and facilitated by the US and British) is ultimately responsible for the current state of affairs. Trying to suggest that Carter should have gone to war (presumably this is what you're suggesting) to stop a revolution that was well-advanced is, I think, being rather unreasonable.

Again I ask - how feasible was it in 1979, a few years after the end of a disastrous war in asia that polarised the country that a President would consider starting another similar venture in the middle-east?

Be honest - how likely do you think this would be? Anyone else who was around in '79 feel free to chime in.

We were not being asked to engage in a war in Iran. We were asked for support. Carter in effect told him to go fukc himself.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Back to the topic,

Torture is wrong.

then why is rosie o'donnell on tv?

[DeadPoolX 9]

Back to the topic,

Torture is wrong.

then why is rosie o'donnell on tv?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Back to the topic,

Torture is wrong.

then why is rosie o'donnell on tv?

Your remote busted? Or can you just not find it.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Back to the topic,

Torture is wrong.

then why is rosie o'donnell on tv?

Your remote busted? Or can you just not find it.

i think it's hidden in one of her folds and i'm not digging for it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Would they have been better off if we had left them alone in the first place?

Since we are talking about Carter and his stupid actions that isn't the point. Carter could have prevented the events of 79 and didn't.

With any world event you could go back in history and point to something that preceded it. You want to go back to when the British took Persia over and blame them? You want to go back to the area before Persia and blame that? It could go on forever. Lets keep it to the topic at hand.

Yes it is absolutely the point. You're angry with Carter's comments and so you want to blame him for Iran being the way it is today. Perhaps there is some merit to that - but the history of that event started with the '53 coup. That is the one crucial event that kick-started the revolution - and it was only 25 years before. You might think that is ancient history - but its highly relevant and you can't split it off just because its inconvenient to your indictment of Carter's presidency.

You're being rather intellectually dishonest in the fact that you won't recognise that the '53 coup (funded and facilitated by the US and British) is ultimately responsible for the current state of affairs. Trying to suggest that Carter should have gone to war (presumably this is what you're suggesting) to stop a revolution that was well-advanced is, I think, being rather unreasonable.

Again I ask - how feasible was it in 1979, a few years after the end of a disastrous war in asia that polarised the country that a President would consider starting another similar venture in the middle-east?

Be honest - how likely do you think this would be? Anyone else who was around in '79 feel free to chime in.

We were not being asked to engage in a war in Iran. We were asked for support. Carter in effect told him to go fukc himself.

Sure - but again a situation we would not have been faced with if we hadn't have gotten involved 25 years earlier.

We f*cked that country long before Carter came on the scene.

[GaryC 7]

Sure - but again a situation we would not have been faced with if we hadn't have gotten involved 25 years earlier.

We f*cked that country long before Carter came on the scene.

Your drawing a line between 56 and 79. I don't think the first absolves what Carter did in the second. Whether we were right or wrong to help the Shah get back his throne is immaterial. Carter could have stopped the carnage that we have now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Back to the topic,

Torture is wrong.

then why is rosie o'donnell on tv?

Your remote busted? Or can you just not find it.

i think it's hidden in one of her folds and i'm not digging for it

eeewwww. that was not necessary.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sure - but again a situation we would not have been faced with if we hadn't have gotten involved 25 years earlier.

We f*cked that country long before Carter came on the scene.

Your drawing a line between 56 and 79. I don't think the first absolves what Carter did in the second. Whether we were right or wrong to help the Shah get back his throne is immaterial. Carter could have stopped the carnage that we have now.

Interesting. No line between 56 and 79 but Carter is responsible for the mess that I thought W got us into. Very interesting indeed.

[GaryC 7]

Sure - but again a situation we would not have been faced with if we hadn't have gotten involved 25 years earlier.

We f*cked that country long before Carter came on the scene.

Your drawing a line between 56 and 79. I don't think the first absolves what Carter did in the second. Whether we were right or wrong to help the Shah get back his throne is immaterial. Carter could have stopped the carnage that we have now.

Interesting. No line between 56 and 79 but Carter is responsible for the mess that I thought W got us into. Very interesting indeed.

I didn't say no line, I said that the mistake made in 56 does not let Carter off for the disaster made in 79. But I definitely think that if the radicals hadn't taken over Iran we wouldn't have had 9/11 and by extension the second war with Iraq.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sure - but again a situation we would not have been faced with if we hadn't have gotten involved 25 years earlier.

We f*cked that country long before Carter came on the scene.

Your drawing a line between 56 and 79. I don't think the first absolves what Carter did in the second. Whether we were right or wrong to help the Shah get back his throne is immaterial. Carter could have stopped the carnage that we have now.

Interesting. No line between 56 and 79 but Carter is responsible for the mess that I thought W got us into. Very interesting indeed.

I didn't say no line, I said that the mistake made in 56 does not let Carter off for the disaster made in 79. But I definitely think that if the radicals hadn't taken over Iran we wouldn't have had 9/11 and by extension the second war with Iraq.

Is that what your crystal ball tells you? I've got to get me one of those.

[Dan J 277]

Sure - but again a situation we would not have been faced with if we hadn't have gotten involved 25 years earlier.

We f*cked that country long before Carter came on the scene.

Your drawing a line between 56 and 79. I don't think the first absolves what Carter did in the second. Whether we were right or wrong to help the Shah get back his throne is immaterial. Carter could have stopped the carnage that we have now.

Interesting. No line between 56 and 79 but Carter is responsible for the mess that I thought W got us into. Very interesting indeed.

I didn't say no line, I said that the mistake made in 56 does not let Carter off for the disaster made in 79. But I definitely think that if the radicals hadn't taken over Iran we wouldn't have had 9/11 and by extension the second war with Iraq.

You have a twisted sense of cause and effect. No wonder why our country is screwed.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers came not from Iran, but Saudi Arabia. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Other than the fact that its an Arab country.

While our actions in Iran may have contributed to the motivation of those who pulled off 9/11. There is no guarntee that the event would not have happened.

Bush and Chaney had plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11. 9/11 just made it easier, because then they could say that Iraq was behind it. Even though it was a complete deception. Iraq may have still happened. With or without 9/11.