He projected so much weakness, post-Vietnam, that it emboldened the Soviet Union to use their (unsustainably) increased military presence to distract their population from the declining productivity in their domestic economy via an invasion of Afghanistan.

Had there been a stronger US President then the USSR would have been much less likely to invade Afghanistan.

Without that invasion there would not have been the focus / opportunity to draw Osama Bin Laden into the conflict, train him, and foment the movement of which he was the head/face.

The world wouldn't have been perfect without Carter. Evil would still exist in the world, but it would have had the opportunity to be very different.

I despise carter as much as anybody, but that's kind of a stretch.

We can't know the future; neither can we accurately predict "What Might Have Been" in scenarios such this. There are just too many moving parts. . .

Yes, carter WAS week (as was zippy the wonder turtle), but we will likely never know how either presidency ultimately shape(d) our future.

An even bigger mistake long term was his handling of the Shah of Iran.
Like everyone over there, he was a thug. But he was a relatively moderate thinker, pro-USA and pushing his country out of the stone age of religion.
I think JC was one of the more well intentioned presidents but he was way too naive to be in that position.
Long term he will be shown to be in the bottom 10% of presidents.

Carter was the worst president in modern history until Kaptain Kenya showed up. Carter, like Obama, had the Midas Touch of Shit; everything he laid his hands on turned to crap. And his actions/inaction in regards to Iran was a powderkeg moment; replacing The Shah with the Ayatollah was the beginning of of our current problems in the Middle East.

Before the 1979 Iranian Revolution:




After:

"No matter how bad things are, they can always be made worse."

There is a lesson here that might apply to the Saudi Arabia.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
An even bigger mistake long term was his handling of the Shah of Iran.
Like everyone over there, he was a thug. But he was a relatively moderate thinker, pro-USA and pushing his country out of the stone age of religion.
I think JC was one of the more well intentioned presidents but he was way too naive to be in that position.
Long term he will be shown to be in the bottom 10% of presidents.

I spent a year as a military advisor when the Shah was still in power. I suspect that MANY of the people in this country have no idea of what the Shah did for the people of Iran.

Just one example: He started a program modeled after our homestead plan in which he was giving away huge amounts of land to the common folk. AIR, the requirement was that they had to live on it, improve it, over a 5 year period. Of course the mullahas were violently opposed to such things as it undermined their monopoly of control over the remote villagers. And Carter caused the Shah's downfall leaving the radicals in charge, where they are today.

My experiences in Kurdistan (western area next to the Iraqi border) was that the Shah was very well liked by the people. I spent time in Tehran as well and he was well liked there, outside of the radical mullahs.

What the USA/Carter did in Iran was not only tragically misguided (stupid) it led to death and misery for a lot of Iranians.

Carter will go down in history as the 2nd worst US president in history.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
An even bigger mistake long term was his handling of the Shah of Iran.

I think this is more of the issue than his "projected weakness."

If only he had risen above lieutenant in the Navy. He was smart, detailed oriented (and that's what hampered and bogged down his Presidency) but I don't think he was used to thinking big picture strategy like the kind of thinking you have to do when you're the president of the United States of America.

When he first announced he was running for President we thought it was a joke. Eventually, it was. On all of us.
He was a rebound President. After Watergate and all the scandals the Americans voting for him just wanted someone that was a fresh start, an outsider. Even then he didn't win by all that much and four years later we corrected things.
I believe he really wanted to do the right thing but didn't know how to play in the big leagues. He was a small town politician that was at or over his limit as a governor.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
He was a rebound President. After Watergate and all the scandals the Americans voting for him just wanted someone that was a fresh start, an outsider. Even then he didn't win by all that much and four years later we corrected things.
I believe he really wanted to do the right thing but didn't know how to play in the big leagues. He was a small town politician that was at or over his limit as a governor.

That's how I've always viewed him. Well intentioned and earnest but, overwhelmed by the world stage and situations. He reflected many in politics where people wanted a fresh face to turn-the-page from the messy issues of Vietnam, Watergate and the national recession. Unfortunately, for all the good he was able to achieve by bridging peace between Egypt & Isreal in the Camp David Accords, they forgot about the 2nd & 3rd order effects of the Palestinians and the burgeoning problems within Iran.

If there's one positive he did, it was supporting Adm Rickover in his efforts to shape and grow the submarine force to what it is today; he understood it's importance and significance to national defense.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
An even bigger mistake long term was his handling of the Shah of Iran.
Like everyone over there, he was a thug. But he was a relatively moderate thinker, pro-USA and pushing his country out of the stone age of religion.
I think JC was one of the more well intentioned presidents but he was way too naive to be in that position.
Long term he will be shown to be in the bottom 10% of presidents.

I was stationed in Iran 1969-1971 (USAF) and it was amazing how much Westernizing of Iran was taking place under the Shah. Iranians were quite friendly to Americans and life there was not uncomfortable. When I left in 1971 I actually had plans to go back in 10 years to see how much farther their movement into the 20th Century had come. Of course, the regime change in 1979 nixed those plans as the country retrogressed hundreds of years politically.

oddball's post following the one I'm quoting is also spot on. The change over there is almost unimaginable.

flashguy

Well, without Carter, we probably never would have had the chance to elect Reagan, Hughes Amendment notwithstanding.

Jimmy Carter- We live the results of his failed presidency-
1) The Fall of Afghanistan to the russians with no response.
2) The fall of iran with no response. Iran is continually listed as the world leader in state sponsored terrorism.
3) 1 china policy which will come to a head shortly.

The long term effects of carters failed presidency make me wonder about the long term effects of obama's failed presidency.

I think iran will see the results shortly.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:... and it was amazing how much Westernizing of Iran was taking place under the Shah. Iranians were quite friendly to Americans and life there was not uncomfortable.

That's the irony that many can't seem to grasp. For all the shit that was going on in the 60-70's, Muslim majority nations like Egypt, Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan, were quite modern and encouraged by western dress, culture, and style. Today, it's gone retrograde: the religious extremists took over, morality police run rampant, social boundaries and strict adherence dominates, and Beirut once the Paris of the Med is the cross-roads to constant warfare. Cozying up-to and placating the Saudi's and the other Gulf states, has resulted in the extremists from those parts, to export their special brand of bigotry and hate.

You have to wonder, what the results would've been had the Halloween Massacre not happened under Ford, and Colby remains DCI at CIA, GHW Bush remains as a political appointee and Rumsfeld is not promoted to SECDEF....

Carter was the wrong president for events that were taking place. My HS sophomore paper on his first 2 years outlined the issue he faced and how he was faring. Got an A on it, and it was not pro-Carter. Today had I written it on Obama, I'd have been expelled or my parents would have been called in,, got an F- or all 3.

Elk is pretty much on target. I have a book written around '66 that talks about Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan until '66.

The Shah was going the land redistribution thing - taking the Islamic's lands and giving them to the people. This was the Church's primary income - some 10,000 such land areas. Khomeini, head of the Church saw the power disruption due to the fiscal losses, mounted a revolution against the Shah I'm '66, on a religious holiday no less, but it was crushed by forces loyal to the Shah. Khomeini went in to exile in France, until his return 13 years later.

Like the Bolsheviks who took over Russia after 6 months of the deposing of the Czar, defeating the Mensheviks in the eventual 4 year Russian civil war, the communists in Iran were to do the same.

15 or so years ago I had a fascinating 2 hour discussion on all of this with a former Iranian Air Force officer - his own story would make a good movie.

One thing he told me was his view in where the Shah basically signed his own death warrant.

One - Allowing Students to attend European Universities, which were full of Communist indoctrination efforts.

Two - While Iran did not partake in the '73 oil embargo, Iran did also raise their oil price to the west.

Three - The Shah also wanted to industrialize Iran, especially in the emerging electronics industry. Iran I understand was selling lots of sand to the west for the manufacturing of silicon based chips.

Time has proven over and over that when a puppet of the west tries to cut his strings from control of the puppeteer, the puppeteer starts looking for a new puppet. The officer today still claims the 2 USN F-14's escorted Khomeini's plane to Iran. The puppeteer's thought they had their new puppet and just need to complete the string attachment. OOppss.

Let's not forget that the Shah was put in power, after the democratically elected PM of Iran, made a bad move, for the west at least, and nationalized the Oil companies in Iran. Had he not done so, perhaps Iran may have been a democratic republic earlier - the issue of breaking the Church's power was still open.

The history of Iran/Persia since 1905 is pretty interesting; Imperial Russian involvement from the North and British Empire involvement in the south. Is it any wonder with such a history of foreign meddling in Iran for 100 years, leads them to pursue Nuclear weapons? Same reason Israel pursued and got them.

Carter is still the Worst President ever and second worst goes to Kenyan.

Carter in addition to what was said above also pardoned the Nam Era drafted dodgers which was I slap to the face of every American citizen allowing these POS to return to our country. Canada welcomed them with open arms but wanted them out after 13 years.

That sorry SOB gave back the Panama Canal.

Does anyone know how old Khomeini is?
He has to be up there...

His passing will be interesting.

I cannot agree with the thread title more. For what it's worth, the Carter administration orchestrated the downfall of the Shah.
It was this ill conceived act that started all of the woes in Middle East. The epicenter as you will. The world is still paying for it.

CW

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
Does anyone know how old Khomeini is?
He has to be up there...

His passing will be interesting.

He would be 116 but he died 29 years ago.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 220-9er,