Any top ten list of presidential blunders, which does not include the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran by the CIA under Eisenhower’s watch is seriously lacking. A blowjob gets on and not an event that has caused an immense amount of fallout and instability in a region where he desperately crave it?
- Andrew Jackson’s abolishment of the national bank: this et back the US economy a good 25 years
- McKinley’s occupation of the Philippine Islands; we should have left Aguinaldo in power and left!
- Woodrow Wilson’s alliance with France and England in WWI: we should have sold arms to both sides, and sat it out!
- FDR’s (tacit) alliance with Great Britain (WWII)-we should have stayed out!
- JFK’s failure to support the Cuban patriots 9bay of Pigs); with US aircover, castro would be toast. instead, we condemned the Cuban people to 50 years of slavery, under the ruthless dictator Castro (and they have to listen to 6 hour speaches!)
- LBJ’s failure in Vietnam: either offer NV an ultimatum (and back it up with an invasion of NVN), Johnson waffled-and 56,000 Americans died.Of course, he could also have declared victory and pulled out.
- Carter’s humiliation by iranian terrorists: either write off the hostages, or give an ultimatum: deliver the hostages or Tehran is vaporized.
8)Clinton’s ignorance of al_Queda and their threats; yes Mr. president, we cannot convict him! In any case, a policy of unrestricted war against OBL would have had him delivered to us on a platter - Clinton’s dalliance with ML: should have refused to answer anything
- Bush’s ignorance of Iraq (and consequences of removing saddam hussein)
You cannot seriously believe that. We have had such a policy for four years and bin Laden remains free.
You have blown my sarcasm meter. Are you serious? Or am I being whooshed?
Before criticizing Jackson for killing the B.U.S., ask yourself how you’d feel today if the Federal Reserve–with its monopoly on central banking and note issue–were run by and for the benefit of private investors. The free-for-all that followed the death of the B.U.S. was less than ideal, but so was the bank itself. The optimal solution for the times was the system of competing private national banks established during the Civil War.
Okay, I can see these being on the list of an isolationist. But then we get:
Huh? I could maybe see Cuba being justified even in an isolationist viewpoint (due to proximity), but Vietnam? Dude, if we had stayed out of both WWs, what military do you think we would have had in the 60’s and 70s’s to do anything with?
Terrorist attacks using automobiles under the Clinton Administration: 2
Terrorist attacks using automobiles under the Bush Administration: 0
Yipee. :rolleyes:
Oh, wait…
Terrorist attacks against the WTC under the Clinton Administration: 1
Terrorist attacks against the WTC under the Bush Administration: 1
Horay! :rolleyes:
You know, I’ve never really approved of the ‘we’re neutral…but we’re going to help out the British’ policy that the US had before both wars. Christ, take a stand either neutral or not. But we had to get involved in WWII.
Sorry, but this is factually wrong at best or an outright lie at worst.
The government was not communist. Mossadegh’s party was the National Front, which was not the same as the communist Tudeh party. In his second term, Mossadegh was forced into a political alliance with Tudeh, but it was strained at best. Not only that, but the government was not threatening any American interests in the region. In fact, it had fairly close relations with the Truman administration. They wanted control over their own oil production and that’s it.
The coup happened solely because the British and the US wanted someone who would leave control of the oil fields to them. That’s it. That’s the reason.
I think he’s referring to the pro-British anti-German “neutrality” that the Roosevelt administration practiced from Sept. 1939 to Dec. 1941, not our participation in WW2 after Dec. 1941.
How exactly was the United States not getting involved an option after Japan and Germany declared war?
I would feel damn great. Of course, I’m assuming a government that suppresses coercion. Probably too much to ask…
I’m not questioning Clinton’s veracity. I’m assuming he told the truth. But if the standard is that Bush should have done something with his knowledge, why isn’t the standard that Clinton also should have done something with the same knowledge?
One cannot grant an institution an exclusive national charter and a monopoly over central banking and note issue without coercion.
Well, we could have surrendered…
You might want to settle down before you get your skirt over your head. Or at least get a better grip on the facts.
From Wikipedia (which is always risky, but they at least show that there are opinions that disagree with you):
See also Wikipedia on Operation Ajax:
So Wikipedia states that the British lied to the Americans about Massadegh’s communist ties and aspirations, but Wikipedia also says the US believed that Iran was moving towards Communism. Others believe that the British were telling the truth, which is not an unreasonable belief, especially when you admit that the ruling party formed an alliance with the Iranian communists and were nationalizing Iran’s most vital (and profitable) resources.
It wasn’t? You don’t think the Americans had an interest in maintaining Western control over the Iranian oil industry? The Brits were one of our strongest allies. We could depend on them to maintain the oil flow to America at a reasonable price. We had no reason to have the same confidence in Iran.
In addition to the immense importance of Iranian oil, the country also sits at a strategic location. The location was important enough that after WWII, the Soviets refused to withdraw their troops from the region, leading to the first truly important UN conflict (the Soviets eventually withdrew).
Not to mention that the Iran that was overthrown was not as democratic as some would have you believe. Also from Wikipedia:
So according to Wikipedia, Mossadegh dissolved the Iranian parliament (likely through a fixed election) and granted himself “emergency powers.”
To quote another poster that I’ve heard around here, “Sorry, but this is factually wrong at best or an outright lie at worst.” British control over the oil was the primary reason the Brits initially opposed Massadegh. However, there were a number of other factors that led to his eventual overthrow, including his own political missteps. For example, according to this BBC World feature, the Brits initially refused to renegotiate their ownership and control over the Iranian oil. Eventually, the Brits gave up that claim and just demanded just compensation for the nationalized industry, which was standard operating practice at the time. However, the Iranians refused to give them anything. So add irrational, rhetorically heated (apparently with good reason), and vindictive to a list that includes nationalizing important industries, strategic location, cozying up with the Communist party in his own nation, and possibly cozying up with the Soviets.
And yet, is what ended up in Iran any better? The Shah, the Ayatollah?
By the way, exactly what was it that President Reagan did to get the hostages released? Nothing. The hostages were released while he was still on the Inaugural podium. Meanwhile, Tehran (and its innocent citizens) were not vaporized and the hostages were not “written off.”
I don’t think so. But I never said I did. I just said his ideas were defensible at the time. Note this portion of what I said:
And anyway, I don’t think the decision was any worse than a lot of other blunders (in retrospect) that US Presidents have made in the Middle East. *See, e.g., * the Clinton and Carter actions I referred to in my original post. Again, those blunders were remarkably similar, both in the fact that they were defensible at the time, and in that we’re still dealing with the consequences today.
He might even be responsible for *delaying * it. The October Surprise conspiracy.
Reagan didn’t do anything wonderful to get the hostages released. But Carter’s actions – which included a botched military rescue – certainly didn’t help matters, and probably made matters worse. He provoked the Iranian terrorists, and they didn’t suffer any consequences. That’s almost the worst he could have done.
In the end, it worked out ok in that the hostages were eventually released, but he didn’t exactly dissuade terrorists from doing it again in the future.