Jimmy Carter: Just War-or a Just War?

It is uneasy for me to criticize Mr. Carter since he was once a President of the USA (and I have great respect to the people that have ever held this office), but IMHO, he has already caused damage to the country he led by non-preventing the Islamic revolution in Iran. I hope, this will be the last damage caused by this politician (I do not have any doubts in his good intentions, but I am not sure of his ability to implement these in favor of the USA).

Stessd, do you really think Jimmy Carter or anyone else could have stopped the Iranian Revolution---except the Iranian people themselves?

Of course. Do not forget that the CIA is reporting to the President, and he is also a Commander-in-Chief of the Army. The Iranian revolution developed in weeks, but the preparation period took, IMHO, much more time. If the appropriate information was shared with Shah, the leaders of revolution would be treated by the royal security services. And there would be in favor of the American interests to help to the political emigre Khomeiny to get to the hell prior to his returning to Iran. Unfortunately, nothing was done, and Iran in 1979 transformed from pro-American country into the anti-American terroristic regime.

Steissd, your argument could not be more wrong. The Shah *was* the problem and the primary cause of the Iranian revolution. The revolution was far more "democratic" than our support for this unjust and unpopular despot.

"Ever notice that we only try to give 'democracy' to our enemies. We never offer it to our friends." (paraphrased from Jay Leno)

Well, if Shah was a probem, he should be replaced, and his replacement should be under control of the CIA. When such a serious decision was left to Iranians, the results became disastrous.

Your world view, steissd, is refreshingly 19th Century.

Keep Iran under the control of the CIA? Or is your last post meant to be satire. If so, it's pretty good. But if it's meant seriously, it certainly isn't...

19th century? Surely. The decolonization that occurred in the second half of 20th century was, IMHO, irrelevant: majority of nations having received independence are not ready for it. There are only few exceptions, like India, Malta or Israel.
The Iranian regime represents 14th century. If we have to choose between two obsolete epochs, I would prefer 19th century to the 14th.

The shah was overthrown by a popular revolution, whether it's one the US wanted or not. Keeping him in power was untenable, although maybe that could've been done in the 19th Century.

The US cannot choose the gov'ts we want for countries all over the world, though our current president seems to think otherwise. Assuming Bush succeeds in overthrowing Saddam, he'll learn how hard it is to control what happens next...

What do you mean that the Shah "should" be replaced. Are you basing your opinions on what is best for the US. If you are implying that the US was ever interested in what was best for the Iranians... well that is laughable.

And besides saying that Israel was part of the "decolonization in the second part of the 20th century" is indefensible to all but the most biased.

In fact Israel has never experience decolonization or independence.