If Carter hadnt abandoned the Shaw , This whole MooSlum thing wouldnt have happened.

[olevetonahill]

Let me rephrase that a bit, Moren Likely wouldnt have happened .

When that peanut farmer turned his back on the Shaw, those crazy assed Ayatollahs got into power and nothings been sane since

[SicEmBaylor]

Yep, that was pretty much the first domino. However, there was a lot of resentment in Iran for the correct perception that we were meddling in the internal affairs of their country by so obviously backing the Shah in the first place.

We basically doubled f'd ourselves in the Iranian situation. We screwed ourselves over by meddling in their affairs in the first place thus pissing off one half the population and then we undermined the Shah during the Carter years and pissed off the other half.

The biggest reason we have such hostility today in the Muslim world is because for way way too long we stuck our nose in their business and nobody likes that. That is a legitimate grievance on their part.

HOWEVER, what is not a legitimate grievence but nonetheless inflamed not only Bin Laden but a generation of anti-American jihadists was our presence in Saudi Arabia. If we hadn't been there at the request of Saudi Arabia itself then they'd have a point.

[badger]

History is paved with lost opportunities. It's how we learn.

But, I don't think anything could have stopped the rest of the world from being angry and jealous at the U.S., whether it be religion-based or otherwise.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Let me rephrase that a bit, Moren Likely wouldnt have happened .

When that peanut farmer turned his back on the Shaw, those crazy assed Ayatollahs got into power and nothings been sane sinceHorrible indeed. I remember what absolutely galled me was when Jimmuh gave control of the Panama Canal to the Chicoms. I was incredibly relieved when Reagan wiped Carter's culo on the floor, 1980.

[Soonerjeepman]

History is paved with lost opportunities. It's how we learn.

But, I don't think anything could have stopped the rest of the world from being angry and jealous at the U.S., whether it be religion-based or otherwise.
yup

[olevetonahill]

History is paved with lost opportunities. It's how we learn.

But, I don't think anything could have stopped the rest of the world from being angry and jealous at the U.S., whether it be religion-based or otherwise.

Badg, This wasnt a 'LOST" opportunity. It was one colossal Cluster **** by an Idiot He managed in ONE **** up to Pizs the whole Mooslum world off at us.

They were rockin along all happy and **** until he Kicked the Props out from under the Shaw AND Quit the Payments to the Mullahs

[SicEmBaylor]

Horrible indeed. I remember what absolutely galled me was when Jimmuh gave control of the Panama Canal to the Chicoms. I was incredibly relieved when Reagan wiped Carter's culo on the floor, 1980.
Giving the Panama Canal back was borderline treasonous.

[SicEmBaylor]

Badg, This wasnt a 'LOST" opportunity. It was one colossal Cluster **** by an Idiot He managed in ONE **** up to Pizs the whole Mooslum world off at us.

They were rockin along all happy and **** until he Kicked the Props out from under the Shaw AND Quit the Payments to the Mullahs

Carer was an epic f'n moron. He believed the Ayotollah was trustworthy as a fellow "man of God." Holy **** on a cracker.

[olevetonahill]

Giving the Panama Canal back was borderline treasonous.

By a Spineless POS

[SoonerStormchaser]

I blame Ike

[rock on sooner]

Let me rephrase that a bit, Moren Likely wouldnt have happened .

When that peanut farmer turned his back on the Shaw, those crazy assed Ayatollahs got into power and nothings been sane since

Dint completely turn his back...let him in the country for extended health care in 1979.
If anything, looks like because Carter did that, the Iranians got all exercised and did the
embassy thing.

[rock on sooner]

Giving the Panama Canal back was borderline treasonous.

Giving the Canal away was at least stupid, if not Sicem's phrase...

[SicEmBaylor]

I blame Ike

This is either a bad joke or in reference to the Suez Canal debacle in the 50s. If the latter, that's actually very perceptive of you and I applaud that level of analysis.

[KABOOKIE]

The moolahs are an ungrateful bunch. We've benifited them many times over and their payment is a big aller ackbar and a bomb. Its a shame to think what a progressive Iran could have become without the islamo radicals taking over.

[rock on sooner]

This is either a bad joke or in reference to the Suez Canal debacle in the 50s. If the latter, that's actually very perceptive of you and I applaud that level of analysis.

Actually, some blame Ike for Viet Nam, since he sent 300 "advisers"
there in 1958.

[SicEmBaylor]

Actually, some blame Ike for Viet Nam, since he sent 300 "advisers"
there in 1958.
I blame Kennedy for Vietnam though there's enough blame to be spread among he, Johnson, and Nixon.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The moolahs are an ungrateful bunch. We've benifited them many times over and their payment is a big aller ackbar and a bomb. Its a shame to think what a progressive Iran could have become without the islamo radicals taking over.The rise of Islam has indeed been a shocker to the world, and cost economies billions, maybe more.

[KantoSooner]

Or how about blaming Balfour?

It's so ... insightful ... to think back to Mossedeq as some sort of watershed moment. And, yes, Kermit Roosevelt riding into Tehran on top of a tank to overthrow a democratically elected head of state was a bit, oh, lacking in subtlety. But, hey, WWII was not long in the past and the Soviet bear really was prowling around looking for new territory. We were in the bizness of reforming the world to suit our pleasure.

And, yes, it pissed the Iranians off (some of them at least, another 49.9% of the population breathed a sigh of relief and went on about their business. They live in Los Angeles and Paris today).

But our involvement in the MidEast has really NOT been one of rampant adventurism. And, Mossadeq aside for the moment (and remember, the Iranians are not well loved in the rest of that area. A lot of the Arabs thought our actions there were funny as hell), our original sin has been to support Israel. Just that simple. Want to hit 'reset' and figure out how to avoid much of the current mess? Go back and refuse to support institution of the state of Israel. Yeah, you'd have to have watched an early wave of Jewish settlers get murdered, but you'd be way more popular in the MidEast today. And, yes, you'd have to have done something with the Jews who were leaving Europe one way or the other after getting liberated from the camps. I'm thinking, oh, maybe Montana.
But there were ways we could have avoided being the focus of so much bad press. And it would have been really neat if we could have arranged for the Ottoman Empire to collapse with less...messyness. Leaving all these proto-states just out there like blobs with carefully decapitated ruling classes was so ungracious of the Turks. Damn their eyes.

We get a bad rap for being the world's current version of an adult. The kiddies never like to have their party broken up early. Live with it, manage the best we can and don't waste too much sweat and excitement over it.

Oh, and it's about time for the Kurds to get a damned country. Strangely they are, along with the Palestinians, one of two quasi-civilized ethnic groups over there. And neither one got a country when the League of Nations did the big divvy. Still strikes me as odd.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I blame Kennedy for Vietnam though there's enough blame to be spread among he, Johnson, and Nixon.

I blame Truman for not turning Korea into a glass parking lot, thusly showing the red presence in the area not to **** with us.

I'm a firm believer had Truman pulled the trigger like he considered, Vietnam never would've happened.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Well had the whole Iran thing turned out better for Carter, Reagan might not have been elected.

[KantoSooner]

Well had the whole Iran thing turned out better for Carter, Reagan might not have been elected.

Now THAT'S a terrifying concept.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I blame Muhammad.

[SoonerProphet]

What about Munich? The PLO wasn't exactly jihadi, but still terrorists. Ronnie didn't help out much. Sure made sure the Saudis got theirs. Armed and trained a bunch in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. Enough blame to go around, especially on the House of Saud.

[StoopTroup]

I blame Truman for not turning Korea into a glass parking lot, thusly showing the red presence in the area not to **** with us.

I'm a firm believer had Truman pulled the trigger like he considered, Vietnam never would've happened.

Had the French not been a bunch of pussies and left a state of genocide in that part of the World.....

[StoopTroup]

Well had the whole Iran thing turned out better for Carter, Reagan might not have been elected.

Nobody wants to give old Jimmeh any credit. It's ashame they still want to shat all over him when he's basically stopped Guinea Worms from occurring. He's a damn good man with a huge heart and I hope he and Bill Gates continue to use their names and clout for good instead of worrying about the past. It's better to deal with what life is dealing now instead of sitting around in a shack upset about something that you didn't care for 30 years ago IMHO.

Just watched ARGO and its good that CIA Operative got his Intelligence Award from Clinton after that operation was declassified. Dude risked his life to bring our people Home.

[olevetonahill]

Nobody wants to give old Jimmeh any credit. It's ashame they still want to shat all over him when he's basically stopped Guinea Worms from occurring. He's a damn good man with a huge heart and I hope he and Bill Gates continue to use their names and clout for good instead of worrying about the past. It's better to deal with what life is dealing now instead of sitting around in a shack upset about something that you didn't care for 30 years ago IMHO.

Just watched ARGO and its good that CIA Operative got his Intelligence Award from Clinton after that operation was declassified. Dude risked his life to bring our people Home.

You just cant resist can you?
Pitiful

[jkjsooner]

Kanto's observation is spot on. This predates the Iranian revolution. It goes back to Israel although the fundamentalist Islamic revolution goes back further than that. Also, since there is a huge Shiite and Sunni split I think it's hard to claim that the Iranian affair has much to do with the Islamic terrorism we now face.

And if you have to blame our dealing with Iran then you have to go back to the questionable things we did long before the late '70s.

Other than Israel, a lot of it traces back to how the middle east was stuck in a battle between the US and USSR.

[olevetonahill]

Some of Yall take this shat way to ****in serious.

[SicEmBaylor]

Nobody wants to give old Jimmeh any credit. It's ashame they still want to shat all over him when he's basically stopped Guinea Worms from occurring. He's a damn good man with a huge heart and I hope he and Bill Gates continue to use their names and clout for good instead of worrying about the past. It's better to deal with what life is dealing now instead of sitting around in a shack upset about something that you didn't care for 30 years ago IMHO.

Just watched ARGO and its good that CIA Operative got his Intelligence Award from Clinton after that operation was declassified. Dude risked his life to bring our people Home.
Carter was a disgrace to his office and a disgrace to himself. He was worse than useless -- useless would have been an upgrade. I'm glad someone in the government was willing to risk something to save our embassy personnel because his vapid ineffectual leadership gave Iran strength every single day that he was in office.

Jimmy the Peanut Farmer's post-presidency would be just as bad if he actually wielded any sort of power or influence.

[swardboy]

I blame Sarah. Stupid idea to have Abraham have a child by her handmaid, resulting in Ishmael, the progenitor of arabs. Messed up.

Now the Persians (Iran) are a different story.

[olevetonahill]

I blame Sarah. Stupid idea to have Abraham have a child by her handmaid, resulting in Ishmael, the progenitor of arabs. Messed up.

Now the Persians (Iran) are a different story.

:loyal:

[TitoMorelli]

I blame Sarah. Stupid idea to have Abraham have a child by her handmaid, resulting in Ishmael, the progenitor of arabs. Messed up.

Now the Persians (Iran) are a different story.

Palin had a handmaid? ;)

[ouwasp]

Carter was a useless POS and is the reason I'm registered Republican. Can you imagine winning the Cold War with him in the Oval Office? But Reagan should have ordered some air strikes once he took office just on general principles...maybe the would have preempted the crap we had to deal with in Lebanon.

There's gonna be a payday, someday for Iran. Those smirking mooslem pigs can't be the Teflon Nation forever.

[SicEmBaylor]

Carter was a useless POS and is the reason I'm registered Republican. Can you imagine winning the Cold War with him in the Oval Office? But Reagan should have ordered some air strikes once he took office just on general principles...maybe the would have preempted the crap we had to deal with in Lebanon.

There's gonna be a payday, someday for Iran. Those smirking mooslem pigs can't be the Teflon Nation forever.

I agree. It was an act of war for which Iran has not yet had to atone.

[StoopTroup]

You just cant resist can you?
Pitiful

Nope. You can't either. Must be a tie.

[StoopTroup]

Carter was a disgrace to his office and a disgrace to himself. He was worse than useless -- useless would have been an upgrade. I'm glad someone in the government was willing to risk something to save our embassy personnel because his vapid ineffectual leadership gave Iran strength every single day that he was in office.

Jimmy the Peanut Farmer's post-presidency would be just as bad if he actually wielded any sort of power or influence.

I just would like you to remember...I didn't vote for him nor am I a Democrat. I've been a registered Republican since I was 18. I thought Nixon did the right thing by getting us out of Vietnam because it had become such a unpopular War since nobody running it could get our POWs out of harms way and they couldn't for some damn reason explain what we were doing there. You have to win over Americans if you want to go to War. Bush had a no brainer and he got one started just like his Dad did. Dad ended his to early and his Son let his go on to long after declaring Mission Accomplished. They both were bigger screw ups than Carter.

Were you even born when Jimmeh was POTUS?

[SicEmBaylor]

I just would like you to remember...I didn't vote for him nor am I a Democrat. I've been a registered Republican since I was 18. I thought Nixon did the right thing by getting us out of Vietnam because it had become such a unpopular War since nobody running it could get our POWs out of harms way and they couldn't for some damn reason explain what we were doing there. You have to win over Americans if you want to go to War. Bush had a no brainer and he got one started just like his Dad did. Dad ended his to early and his Son let his go on to long after declaring Mission Accomplished. They both were bigger screw ups than Carter.

Were you even born when Jimmeh was POTUS?
1)You're making the mistake of assuming that I'm a Republican.
2)You're making the mistake of assuming that I approve of George W. Bush.

Having said that, H.W. Bush was infinitely better than Carter. They're not even in the same category. W. Bush and Carter are a toss-up as to which is worse, but I have to give the edge to Carter since he degraded the office in ways that Bush didn't. Bush was always very respectful of the office regardless of his disastrous policies. Carter is another matter -- Carter was a walking insult to the very concept of Americanism. Everything from those ridiculous sweater vests in the Oval Office to not using the Oval Office (daily) because he considered it to be too ostentatious. And then there was the stupid "thermostat" policy but the very worst of it was the "Malaise" speech. Christ-O, there should have been people in the streets with pitchforks over that.

And, no, I wasn't alive during Carter's administration. I thank God that I'm a Reagan baby. I also wasn't alive during the Lincoln administration nor was I alive during FDR's tenure. I wasn't alive when Washington or Jefferson were in office or Tyler or Coolidge. Are all of those subjects off limits for me? What's the rule for when someone can't speak of something unless they were alive during that time period? Does that go for all time? I wasn't alive during the middle ages -- is that one off limits?

I really liked dinosaurs as a kid. I wish someone had bothered to ask me, "Were you even alive when brontosaurus was roaming North America?"

[StoopTroup]

1)You're making the mistake of assuming that I'm a Republican.
2)You're making the mistake of assuming that I approve of George W. Bush.

Having said that, H.W. Bush was infinitely better than Carter. They're not even in the same category. W. Bush and Carter are a toss-up as to which is worse, but I have to give the edge to Carter since he degraded the office in ways that Bush didn't. Bush was always very respectful of the office regardless of his disastrous policies. Carter is another matter -- Carter was a walking insult to the very concept of Americanism. Everything from those ridiculous sweater vests in the Oval Office to not using the Oval Office (daily) because he considered it to be too ostentatious. And then there was the stupid "thermostat" policy but the very worst of it was the "Malaise" speech. Christ-O, there should have been people in the streets with pitchforks over that.

And, no, I wasn't alive during Carter's administration. I thank God that I'm a Reagan baby. I also wasn't alive during the Lincoln administration nor was I alive during FDR's tenure. I wasn't alive when Washington or Jefferson were in office or Tyler or Coolidge. Are all of those subjects off limits for me? What's the rule for when someone can't speak of something unless they were alive during that time period? Does that go for all time? I wasn't alive during the middle ages -- is that one off limits?

I really liked dinosaurs as a kid. I wish someone had bothered to ask me, "Were you even alive when brontosaurus was roaming North America?"

I never assumed you were at all. I'm pretty sure your an Independent now and a Ron Paul leaning libertarian. If not....it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that you were the President of the Young Repubs or something when you were at Baylor right? Now you've left the Party and gone rogue and really don't seem to take the good with the bad or realize that Presidents get put in tough situations when in office. That said, I think guys that have been a POTUS or VP have had the unique opportunity to sit in a chair where they are bombarded with some of the craziest crap that anyone in our World has to deal with. They sometimes have to even make decisions they don't personally agree with too.

For me, the last perfect person on Earth was crucified by Pontius Pilot and the only other one I knew was my Mom. :wink:

I didn't agree with everything Carter did. The mess he had with the Shaw, I never understood when I was a kid. I thought the Shaw probably had lots of blood on his hands. There is even a personal story I have about a couple of Iranian Brothers would were here in the 70's for an education. I tolerated them and later kind of felt bad for them as they didnt have a Country to go back to. The place they grew up at as kids was basically gone forever.

Seeing them except that they must probably stay here for the rest of their lives because of the hatred the new Iranian Regime had for all who might have been supporters of the Shaw left me a bit confused. Would you want to live the rest of your life knowing you supported not giving these two kids and their family asylum and returning them for certain death? I know I couldn't. The received asylum. As far as I know, they are all still here in the States. I know their names as they are in 6 years of my Jr and Sr High yearbooks.

We all have different experiences in life and mine was a bit different that maybe some. Maybe others have even experienced things I haven't. Thing is...I think that Carter had some really tough decisions and even though 444 days and a botched rescue really made him look bad, most everyone returned Home eventually. The Body count was probably much less than if we had invaded them or gone to War then.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

By the way, persian chicks have beautiful eyes but I can't get past the moustaches.

[C&CDean]

Anyone supporting Carter is an idiot and completely out of touch with the reality of those days.

I was in the military during Carter's reign of wuss. Terrible time to be in. No equipment, no ammo, WWII barracks, worst morale in the history of the military. Our C-Rats were dated from the 1940's and 50's. Our howitzer ammo was dated from the early 50's. I remember signs by every light switch telling you to turn it off. Gas lines to get your alloted 10 gallons.

The worst for me was my time in Panama. I was there during the height of the tension. If you did go downtown (Colon for us) you had to go in groups of 5+ and you still weren't safe. "Yankee go home" spray painted everywhere. Soldiers were getting falsely arrested for marijuana possession and thrown in ****hole jails until we could raise $300 to get them out. If you were a dick, you would end up spending several days in the hoosegow because nobody wanted to chip in to make your bail.

I voted for Reagan in 1980 (as a democrat) and when Iran released the hostages the day after Ronaldus was sworn in I knew he was a different breed of president/man/leader/statesman/commie asskicker. Basically he told the muslims dickheads if the hostages weren't released they were toast. By 1984 I had switched parties and have never looked back - except to wonder WTF was wrong with me for voting democrat.

Would the muslims be as ****ed up as they are? Who knows? I just know that Carter was as bad a president as there's ever been.

[KantoSooner]

Yep, Jimmy was probably the worst president we've ever had. And he's compounded his sins of inaction by running around the world during his seemingly endless dotage trash talking his country. That the man didn't simply pass on in his sleep several decades ago is a compelling argument that God has a cruel sense of humor.

[SoonerProphet]

If people think that Jimmy is singularly responsible for unleashing Islamic, nationalist, Red Brigade, or whatever boogie men terrorist on the global scene, they have a rather myopic view of how the world operates.

[olevetonahill]

If people think that Jimmy is singularly responsible for unleashing Islamic, nationalist, Red Brigade, or whatever boogie men terrorist on the global scene, they have a rather myopic view of how the world operates.

But is WAS his fault. You Dayum Lib you.:monkey:

[Curly Bill]

One thing Obammy has accomplished in his time as POTUS is relieving Carter of being our worst POTUS ever.

...and if someone already said that I apologize cause I didn't read the thread.

[olevetonahill]

One thing Obammy has accomplished in his time as POTUS is relieving Carter of being our worst POTUS ever.

...and if someone already said that I apologize cause I didn't read the thread.

:pirate:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

One thing Obammy has accomplished in his time as POTUS is relieving Carter of being our worst POTUS ever.

...and if someone already said that I apologize cause I didn't read the thread.Agree that the Obear is the worst, but I believe Wilson and FDR were legit challengers to Carter for worst award prior to the arrival of Obeary.

[jkjsooner]

I remember signs by every light switch telling you to turn it off. Gas lines to get your alloted 10 gallons.

How much of this was Carter's fault and how much was it OPEC? I remember the lines (on TV not personally) and I know OPEC had a lot to do with it but I don't know what role our government played.


I voted for Reagan in 1980 (as a democrat) and when Iran released the hostages the day after Ronaldus was sworn in I knew he was a different breed of president/man/leader/statesman/commie asskicker.

I hear this often but I simply don't get it. The hostages were not releases because the Iranians were scared of Reagan. They were released that day as an "eff you" response to Carter. They hated Carter.

As I see it, if those dickweeds disliked Carter that much then how is that bad?

Historians point back to some mistakes Carter made like telling the Iranians how great of a friend the Shah was with the US (prior to the revolution). Many feel that being so out-of-touch with the Iranian populace was the failure that helped create the crisis. But that doesn't compute with all those here who say we didn't support the Shah enough.


Basically he told the muslims dickheads if the hostages weren't released they were toast.

I do not think that that is accurate.

[KantoSooner]

Carter was not personally responsible for most of the bad things that happened on his watch. Most of them had roots that went far deeper than that. On the other hand, his views on most everything were wrongheaded and informed bad policy (example: his famous statement that Komeini was not going to be a problem because he sincerely believed in God). And his refusal to accept any role for the US in the broader world save that of apologetic sob sister encouraged bad actors with balls to push the envelope and see what they could do.
He was not responsible for everything bad that happened or has happened since...but he has done nothing in his entire life to contribute to anything good happening.

Note before the apologists start: His 'work' on behalf of the poor in various countries is nice. Pity it's work with other people's money. And his 'contribution' to democracy by endorsing any election he can parachute into has been, at best a mixed bag. He's 'certified' bad ones as well as good ones. Just so long as news cameras were nearby. I think he realizes how despised he is by his own countrymen and is increasingly frustrated that his frenzied efforts to do something with his life continue to fall on sterile ground...as the clock runs out on him.

[olevetonahill]

Yea well his brother made shatty beer, so there.

[KantoSooner]

I think he just advertised it. I don't think Billy had the mental wherewithal to actually make it.

Only one of the whole family who was worth a damn was Rosalyn. Now SHE could have been a president.

[olevetonahill]

I think he just advertised it. I don't think Billy had the mental wherewithal to actually make it.

Only one of the whole family who was worth a damn was Rosalyn. Now SHE could have been a president.

I disagree, She was stupid enough to marry Jimmy.
I have a can of Billy beer around here somewhere. Never been opened yet its empty.

[rock on sooner]

Yea well his brother made shatty beer, so there.

That puts this whole thread into perspective!

[olevetonahill]

That puts this whole thread into perspective!

Yup sad part is Billy was a better beer brewer than Jimmy was a Pres.:strawberry:

[KantoSooner]

you make a point regarding Rosalyn.

She did have bigger balls than Jimmah, though.

[TitoMorelli]

I don't hold Carter responsible for all the bad things that happened during his time in office. And I imagine almost anyone else would have acted as he did concerning the Shah.

But allowing assbag Michael Moore to sit with you at your party's convention? Claiming that all is above board in Venezuelan elections while casting doubt on the outcomes of U.S. voting? I used to say for years after his term in the WH that Carter was just too good/decent of a man for the office. If he'd just figured out how to keep his yap shut and kept hammering nails with Habitat for Humanity, I'd probably still feel the same way.

[ouwasp]

Carter was so bad he could be considered the Buchanan of the 20th Century. At least he didn't help a civil war come about... unless you count The Reagan Revolution!

[cleller]

Carter was weak, which is like blood in the water to men who live in a brutal world. Weakness is interpreted as a flashing neon sign to attack.

[FaninAma]

Double post.

[FaninAma]

I disagree with Vet. We ****ed up when we assisted with the coup against Mossadegh. The Shah and his Savak secret police were brutal and insured we would be hated by all those persecuted by these animals. Sure Carter could have propped up the Shah a short time longer but we couldn't hold back the developing tsunami of rising Muslim fundamentalism much longer. In fact, our actions in the Middle East shortly after WW II and during the Cold War probably was one of the biggest factors in the rise of the Islamacists since we basically destroyed the emerging secular government in Iran and encouraged the fundamentalists to fight a proxy war with the Russians in Afghanistan.

Actions have short and long term consequences as we are learning the hard way.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, I agree with your statement that actions have consequences, not all of which can be foreseen at the time a decision is made. To be fair, you need to look at all the consequences, however. Our support for involvement of religious whack jobs in Afghanistan vs. the Russians did accomplish two rather important things: it kept the Soviets from driving to the Indian Ocean. Wouldn't we love a Soviet navy base in what used to be Pakistan? And, second, the effort of that war was a final nail in the Soviet coffin. The same Soviets we'd been fighting a cold war against (at massive cost) for 50 plus years.

Perhaps we shouldn't have walked away from Afghanistan after the Sov's pulled out. It was not a failure, however.

[SoonerProphet]

Fanin, I agree with your statement that actions have consequences, not all of which can be foreseen at the time a decision is made. To be fair, you need to look at all the consequences, however. Our support for involvement of religious whack jobs in Afghanistan vs. the Russians did accomplish two rather important things: it kept the Soviets from driving to the Indian Ocean. Wouldn't we love a Soviet navy base in what used to be Pakistan? And, second, the effort of that war was a final nail in the Soviet coffin. The same Soviets we'd been fighting a cold war against (at massive cost) for 50 plus years.

Perhaps we shouldn't have walked away from Afghanistan after the Sov's pulled out. It was not a failure, however.

yeah, cause the Paks would've just invited them on down. your analysis also has another issue, carter nsa was Brzezinski who signed up on giving aid to the Mujahadeen. kinda punches a hole in your one sided view of the Carter's administration.

[KantoSooner]

The likely pathway to the Indian Ocean was through Baluchistan, the province of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan and Iran. It's been in semi-revolt since 1947. Any speculation on how long it would have taken for them to declare 'independence' and then an alliance with the Soviets?
As to Brzezinski, he and Carter did several things. They boycotted grain shipments and began providing money to the Mujahedin in early 1980, about a year before Carter left office. Interestingly, you'll note that the aid provided was largely monetary and flowed through the Saudi's and through Pakistan's ISI as well as through several armed non-governmental groups. This support was not, however, very large iin nature. The heavy support didn't begin until Reagan was elected.
My comments were to make the point that while our involvement in Aghanistan has yielded some undesireable results, it also accomplished some very good, and planned, ones. From your comments above, it would seem that, on that point, we are in perfect agreement.

[FaninAma]

The Soviet Union was doomed to collapse from the moment it came into being just as this country will collapse if we continue down the road of socialism.

There are certain economic tenets and human traits a governmemt can ignore for only so long. Taking from responsible producers and transfering it to irresponsible non-producers leads to social instability was a fact we should have learned from The early pilgrims. Apparently we didn't.

Establishing a priviliged, entrenched ruling class leads to social unrest is something we should have remembered from our own revolutionary history as well as the French.

[Midtowner]

If the French had been just a little more socialistic, the Bourbons would still rule to this day.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, I think the case of China vs Soviet Russia is interesting on precisely this basis. We're coming up now on the Chinese Revolution being as old as the Soviet one was in 1989. And yet the Chinese, for all the fragility of their regime seem not very close to economic collapse or mass upheaval. Their injection of capitalism (albeit an extreme form of crony capitalism) seems to have rejuvenated their society.

On any rational scale, however the US is so far healthier economically and socially that real comparisons are virtually impossible. Go check out the alternatives and we'll talk. This country is far, far away from anything more than annoying problems compared to most nations.

[FaninAma]

The Chinese are way more capitalistic than we are. I would actually label the current Chinese system of government a corporate fascist state similiar to the Nazi's sans the concentration camps(well at least since Mao died)

Kanto, the US is so economically vibrant we need $85 billion a month printed by the Fed to prop up our debt burden. Personally I think it is way more than that. I think at some point we will learn that the Fed is not only monetizing treasury and mortgage debt but is also monetizing the equity markets. There is no way the equity market should be going up as millions of baby boomers start to withdraw from stocks for safer investments.

[KantoSooner]

(facepalm), you do realize that Nazional Socialism (or Nazi-ism) was simply another version of socialism and thus had little to do any remotely connected to capitalism?
What's happening in China today is a hiving off of monopolies to well connected folks, direction of government controlled capital (loans) to the same and a withdrawal of the government from small scale enterprise with retention of an enormous internal police capacity. It's far more capaitalist that Nazi Germany, but still nowhere in our time zone. For one thing, there is no law in China and sanctity of contract is a pretty major capitalist concept.

[FaninAma]

Double post.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, actually there are several forms of fascism and the way the Germans practiced it was not socialistic. They definitely did not redistribute wealth and they were mortal enemies of socialists and communists so please save the face palms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[KantoSooner]

On the contrary, the core belief of socialism has nothing to do with redistribution but is rather the notion that the economy should be organized through centralized planning run by the government. Read or reread Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom'.
The Nazi's were utter socialists, they were just enemies of Russia...and would have been no matter what Russia called it's system of government.
They were enemies of anyone with a competing notion to that of government by the Nazi party. And they were twenty years behind the Russians in controlling the formal 'communist' organizations globally.
Analytically, there is little to distinguish the Russian Communists from the Nazional Socialists. They are peas in a pod.

[SicEmBaylor]

On the contrary, the core belief of socialism has nothing to do with redistribution but is rather the notion that the economy should be organized through centralized planning run by the government. Read or reread Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom'.
The Nazi's were utter socialists, they were just enemies of Russia...and would have been no matter what Russia called it's system of government.
They were enemies of anyone with a competing notion to that of government by the Nazi party. And they were twenty years behind the Russians in controlling the formal 'communist' organizations globally.
Analytically, there is little to distinguish the Russian Communists from the Nazional Socialists. They are peas in a pod.

I agree with all of this except you seem to be glossing over the differences between nazi style "socialism" and Soviet "socialism." The nazis did believe in a directed economy, but fascism is more of a collusion between government and private industry in which capital is still raised, made, and spent. In fact, a fascist economy is essentially what the United States currently is to a degree. There's very little difference.

The Soviets, on the other hand, did redistribute everything and they nationalized everything in ways that the Nazis and Fascists did not and likely would not have. There's something of a big difference there. The two types of socialist systems were also very different based upon the reasoning and justification of each system. The Nazis/Fascists were decidedly nationalistic while communism was then and remains today a post-nationalist/universal political idea. That difference helped make the Nazis and Soviets bitter enemies. The Soviet system represented the very antithesis of the Nazi system.

Make no mistake -- they were bitter reasons on ideological grounds.

[KantoSooner]

Sicem,
don't forget that the Nazi's only controlled Germany for a scant ten years. Looking at Soviet Russia, you still had lots of privately owned factories in 1927 and the full horror of de-Kulakization had not even hit.
Nationalism, likewise, was a feature of Soviet propaganda from day one. It was a nationalism of the party, to be sure, but one nonetheless.
Happily, the Nazi's did not get the chance to show us much of what they'd do in peacetime, but I doubt it would have looked any different from what the Soviets acheived.
The key principle in both flavors of socialism is the centralization of all important decision making, economic, poliitical and social. Neither one relied on redistribution for anything other than domestic, and international, propaganda.

The distinction drawn between the Nazi's and the Soviets was extremely important to a generation of academics, intellectuals and politicians who had eaten the poisoned fruit and bought into the concept that 'Experts' and 'Specialists' could somehow run things better than the sum total of a society's individuals making individual decisions. Reporters and others visiting the Soviet Union were breathlessly reporting that, "I've been to the future, and it works" and shouting down nay sayers by pointing out that the Tzar hadn't left much of anything in very good shape. When later faced with the same system turning Germany into a monster, it was imperative to put as much daylight between Naziism and 'Communism' as possible. Because if the one was awful...and the other was starting to stink like week old fish....then what did that say about the philosophical underpinnings of all centralism?
You then saw Keynes, Manchester and a long host of other 'intellectuals' do the most interesting word smithery trying hard to draw distinctions between Germany and Russia.
They were not, as Manchester slyly convinced a generation of school children, different ends of a spectrum, they were in fact brothers occupying one end of a spectrum anchored on the other end by the tenets that informed the American Revolution and our country in its better moments.

[SoonerProphet]

Agricultural policy offers a contrast as well, blood and soil of nazism vs. the forced collectivism of soviet ag. policies.

[SicEmBaylor]

All fair points.

Not that I want to appear sympathetic to the Nazis, but I'd rather live under that system 7 days a week/365 days a year if my only alternative was the Soviet state.

[C&CDean]

All fair points.

Not that I want to appear sympathetic to the Nazis, but I'd rather live under that system 7 days a week/365 days a year if my only alternative was the Soviet state.

That's cause you already look like someone who's spent the past 5 years in Auschwitz.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That's cause you already look like someone who's spent the past 5 years in Auschwitz.John Wilkes Booth prolly said something about proper diet: Skittles, cigars and Zima.

[jkjsooner]

Then why did the Nazis have such a dislike for the social democrats and the communists within Germany? I don't think they saw them as just an extension of the Soviet Union. They clearly disliked their political ideology.

Everything I've read directly contradicts what you have said, Kanto. Most of the nationalized programs existed prior to the Nazis taking over. Hitler removed any hard core socialists from the party and essentially changed the party's platform to one of ethnocentrism. Hitler despised the leftists. He destroyed the unions. Many large businesses were supporters of the Nazi party.

There was some nationalization simply because of the war but that is to be expected.

I don't know the roots of the Nazi party but as I understand it Hitler pretty much transformed the party when he took over.

Or here's a quote from Mein Kampf.


The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight.

[SicEmBaylor]

Then why did the Nazis have such a dislike for the social democrats and the communists within Germany? I don't think they saw them as just an extension of the Soviet Union. They clearly disliked their political ideology.

Everything I've read directly contradicts what you have said, Kanto. Most of the nationalized programs existed prior to the Nazis taking over. Hitler removed any hard core socialists from the party and essentially changed the party's platform to one of ethnocentrism. Hitler despised the leftists. He destroyed the unions. Many large businesses were supporters of the Nazi party.

There was some nationalization simply because of the war but that is to be expected.

I don't know the roots of the Nazi party but as I understand it Hitler pretty much transformed the party when he took over.

Or here's a quote from Mein Kampf.

I only have a couple of issues with this. I urge caution when using the term "nationalize" with the Nazis. They did not nationalize industry in the sense that the government took fully operational control over all of German industry -- they did not. They directed their wartime economy in much the same way that FDR did in the United States (with exceptions like sending slavic and jewish slave labor to fill out the work force). Like I said, the Nazis colluded with big business rather than usurp it.

The only other point I'd like to make is that the Soviet Union banned and didn't allow unions either. From their perspective, the country already belonged to the working class making unions redundant.

[KantoSooner]

jk, Don't get hung up in the wording. Naziism had a nifty little fairy tale to justify itself and create roots in German-ness. It didin't really hold up under inspection, however. Goebbels, for instance, was hardly a master racer, and neither was Adolf himself.
The core of what they were doing was creating a totalitarian state built around ethnicity.
The Soviets, on the other hand were building a totalitarian state based around class identity.
In neither case, however, did one's membership in the supposed favored group either guarantee you memebership or protect you. Lots of Russian aristocrats served in the Soviet machine, and lots of peasants were ground underfoot. Likewise, there were jews in positions of power in Germany and more than a trivial number of the purist of the pure went to the showers.
What was consistent in both cases was a governmental takeover of industry, economic planning, social life and political affairs.
The owners of the great industrial houses of Germany were permitted to keep their businesses, but, then, so were the Russians...in the beginning. Nazi Germany simply never got out of 'the beginning' before they started a war; and once that happened, they could not risk the dislocation of mass confiscation.
Their antagonism was not so much due to their their opposition in philosophy but due to the parallel and exclusive nature of their philosophy. They were both bound to be THE model for the future, not one among many. That, and a nearly common border, made conflict inevitable.

[SicEmBaylor]

The most important difference is that the Nazis had much much sharper looking uniforms.

[KantoSooner]

Coco Chanel, baby, Coco Chanel

[FaninAma]

On the contrary, the core belief of socialism has nothing to do with redistribution but is rather the notion that the economy should be organized through centralized planning run by the government. Read or reread Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom'.
The Nazi's were utter socialists, they were just enemies of Russia...and would have been no matter what Russia called it's system of government.
They were enemies of anyone with a competing notion to that of government by the Nazi party. And they were twenty years behind the Russians in controlling the formal 'communist' organizations globally.
Analytically, there is little to distinguish the Russian Communists from the Nazional Socialists. They are peas in a pod.
Kanto, this is a pretty extensive description of the various types of socialism and the the German Nazi government is not included as a sub-type of socialism.

Private companies were not taken over by the government. They remained private although they did work closely with the Nazi's in their plans. The Nazis actually increased profits of private corporations in the country. labor unions were reorganized to help corporations become more profitable. The economy was not socialized in the way modern socialist countries have organized themselves today.

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

Specifically refer to citation [42]

i do find it interesting that Hitler's economic planners used Keyensian tactics to improve the economy and prepare for war. I've always thought this country has recently exhibited more than a few characteristics of past ultra-nationalistic, imperialistic regimes. In fact it is quite interesting to read the section on the Pre-war economy and compare what the Germans were doing in the decade leading up to WWII and where this country is today.

Fascism cannot be pigeon-holed into a single economic philosophy but classical fascism seem to trend toward a government supported corporatism. And when I use the term "socialism" I am referring to the economic practices or philosophy of a country or society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, I'll see your wikipedia and raise you one Hayek. Start with The Road to Serfdom, written specifically on this very point and see what you make of it.
My take is that our entire debate has been successfully warped by a generation of academics who sold out to 'socialism' largely due to a failure of bravery to cede power to common people (and, the inverse, a desire to hold on to power for 'the experts' i.e. themselves.) For them, recognition of the common socialist roots of Naziism and Communism (and thus the commality of the results to be expected from imposition of either) was anathema and all effort was to be devoted to distinguishing one from the other.
If you disagree, fine, but do the reading.

[FaninAma]

I will. BTW, would you admit there are many similiarities between the pre-WWII German approach to the economy and corporations and what we are seeing in this country today?

[KantoSooner]

Fanin,
The one point I'd highlight is that powerful monied interests have been very successful in both in shielding themselves from risk. That role of the central government as 'winner picker' is incredibly corrosive.
The Nazi's were, however, much more intrusive about it than even the Roosevelt admin. Worlds apart.
Go do your own research, however, on the topic of just how friendly the Nazi's were to the major banking or industrial families in Germany. My personal conclusion was that a lot of the friendliness between the wealthy and Nazi's existed more in the minds of their contemporaries in academia in Britain and the US than in reality.
There are always bigots to spare and you never know what's going on in another person's mind, but it's good to remember that, for example, Armand Hammer, American industrialist and later head of Oxidental Oil, was during this era, setting up factories in the Soviet Union with central government support and making tons of money and that more than a few native Russian tycoons operated quite happily in Mother Russia until the Stalinist purges. Can I imagine a similar outcome in Germany? Yep.