Feeds

back to article ANOTHER Huawei partner accused of slipping US tech to Iran

Documents offering to supply embargoed technology to Iran have been unearthed by Reuters, showing Huawei partner Skycom Tech Co Ltd bidding to provide HP servers to an Iranian mobile network - in breach of sanctions. The bid, seen by Reuters, was submitted in 2010 by Skycom to Mobile Telecommunication Co of Iran (MCI) and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge
Facepalm

NOoo? Really!?

"The US wants to restrict the flow of computing hardware into Iran to hinder the country's nuclear programme"

I think this should read

"The US wants to restrict the flow of computing hardware into Iran to appease Israeli lobbyists"

Since the latest "Hagel is an ANTISEMITE!! LOOK!!11" flap against the guy who had the temerity to say that he is an US senator, not an Israeli senator (implying that he would behave accordingly when in office), I think even the last cavedweller should know what's up.

20
11
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: NOoo? Really!?

I think you'll find, if you remove the blinkers and actually read some quite recent history fromt he Sixties and Seventies, that the US had it's own problems with Iran quite disassociated from Israel. But then I suppose it's easier for you to look at things through that big "Eeeeevuuuul Jooooooos" lens, right?

9
13
Gold badge
Unhappy

Re: NOoo? Really!?

""The US wants to restrict the flow of computing hardware into Iran to appease Israeli lobbyists""

No.

That's what co-developing stuxnet was for.

1
0
Happy

Re: "Eeeeevuuuul Jooooooos"

"Iranian–Israeli relations have shifted from close ties between Israel and Iran during the era of the Pahlavi dynasty to hostility since the Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini" (Daily Regurgitation)

" Mohammad Mossadeq, was overthrown by a coup organized by MI6 and aided by the Central Intelligence Agency. This was followed by an era of close alliance between Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's regime and the American government, which was in turn followed by a dramatic reversal and hostility between the two countries after the 1979 Iranian Revolution."

"In the 1960s and 1970s, Iran's oil revenues grew considerably. Starting in the mid-1960s, this "weakened U.S. influence in Iranian politics" while strengthening the power of the Iranian state vis-a-vis the Iranian public." So the US's problem was that Iran was making mucho petro bucks.

Beside losing influence in a increasing rich oil producing nation, that shared a long border with the USSR, America's archenemy, would you elucidate some of the other problems of the 60's and 70's America had with Iran?

[In the mid-sixties I was going out the revolving door at the Fifth Ave entrance to the Plaza Hotel in NYC when I saw (I swear) the Shah of Iran standing on the landing before me (he was in town for the UN) and he was smiling at me as I pushed around the glass door. As I walked by he smiled, but continued to look at the door. I discretely turned and looked and out of the door emerged the Empress Farah Pahlavi]

3
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: NOoo? Really!?

"Eeeeevuuuul Jooooooos", huh?

Did I say anything about Jews? No I didn't. And I would hope some non-blinkered people would be able to make a distinction between the ideas of Jewish ancestry/religion and the increasingly ugly apartheid state that sits atop an area formerly inhabited by, among others, a lot of non-Jewish semites.

4
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: "Eeeeevuuuul Jooooooos"

".....would you elucidate some of the other problems of the 60's and 70's America had with Iran?....." You fail to comprehend the reason behind the Americans' loss of influence was largely due to the rise of anti-Western feeling, largely as a result of Ruhollah Khomeini, starting with his resistance to the White Revolution in 1963. The CIA correctly identifed the rise in Shia Islamism represented by Khomeini as even more dangerous than Nasser's pan-Arab nationalism (which had been easily derailed by exploiting endemic Arabic corruption and inter-clan bickering). Islam only had two dominant houses - Sunni and Shia - and looked to provide a much harder nut to crack than multi-facted Arab nationalism. The CIA's worries were crystalised by Khomeini's declaration of the US as "evil" on 26th October 1964. The rest, as they say, is history.

0
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: NOoo? Really!?

".....apartheid state...." Hmmm a quick compare of Palestine Mandate "states" - in Israel, Israeli Arabs can vote, own land, and are treated equally by law; in Jordan or the PNA or the Gaza Strip, it is illegal for Jews to own land, the current Jews left in residence are threatened with eviction out of the "state", and they are have no rights other than to be attacked upon sight. You must be referring to the PNA, Jordan or the Gaza Strip, or obvioulsy do not understand the concept of Aprtheid.

0
2
Happy

If I understand you, the problems the US had with Iran in the 60's and 70's was the growing desire of a portion of the Iranian population to step out from the influence of the West, have a revolution, depose the Shah and take their huge reserves of crude oil with them when they went. (As the Iranian Revolution would be a religious one, it didn't bode well for Iran's relations with the fledgling state of Israel, which were good, and may have been partly responsible for the fall of the Shah.)

There are similarities between the US and the Shah in 1978 and Russia and Assad today. Ginormous oil fields leaving the sphere of influence of the former and a crucially located ally in the case of the latter.

1
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Local Dupe

".....problems the US had with Iran in the 60's and 70's was the growing desire of a portion of the Iranian population to step out from the influence of the West, have a revolution, depose the Shah ....." Yes, but in that the US realized there would be no way to have a constructive dialogue with a fanatic-led theology. It's rather hard to influence/bribe someone with even development aid when their stock response is "Die corrupting spawn of Satan!"

"......and take their huge reserves of crude oil with them when they went....." No. That was actually more of a concern to the Brits who had dominated Persian oil production through BP. The US was more worried at losing access to a country geographically close to the southeran flank of their prime foe, the USSR, in a Mid East it was worried would fall to Soviet intervention and guile.

".....it didn't bode well for Iran's relations with the fledgling state of Israel....." This actually didn't factor in the US analysis. Unlike you they did not have a singular fascination with Israel. Israel was actually guardedly in favour of a strong Shia Iran as it wanted a counter-balance to Iraq, which had been party to the attacks on Israel in 1948, had supported the Fakeistinian terror attacks through the '50s and '60s, and was continually threatening to bring their big army down through Kuwait and Jordan to attack Israel. Amusingly, the only factor stopping Iraq doing so was the other Arab kingdoms in the way - Kuwait and Jordan - didn't trust the Iraqis not to conquer them as well. In Kuwait's case there were existing boundary disputes with and distrust of Iraq long before the rise of Saddam.

0
2
Happy

Re: Local Dupe

I'd have included the fact that the problems between the US and Iran were self-inflicted by the US.

"and take their huge reserves of crude oil with them when they went".... The US wasn't exactly indifferent to the loss of control of that production, was it?

"it didn't bode well for Iran's relations with the fledgling state of Israel"....Some Israeli pundits think Israel made several hundred million in arms sales to Iran during the 80's. And that was when a million dollars was real money. :-)

2
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Re: Local Dupe

"......The US wasn't exactly indifferent to the loss of control of that production, was it?....." The US was more concerned with Saudi Arabia, Dwight Eisenhower actually having deferred to the Brits a lot over Iranian oil.

".....Some Israeli pundits think Israel made several hundred million in arms sales to Iran during the 80's...." During the Iran-Iraq war, there were certainly times Israel was happy to keep Iraq busy by helping the Iranians. One area of interest was suspected assistance in getting parts for the Iranian F-14s and helping the Iranians modify their Hawk SAMs into AAMs. Helping with defensive tools such as their Hawk missiles didn't pose a threat to Israel or the US, but did give Saddam more problems. The Israelis did so with US compliance, being part of the mechanism used by the US to send supplies to Iran as part of the Iran-Contra Affair. As Henry Kissinger summed up the unofficial US view regarding Iran and Iraq, "It's a pity they both can't lose" - by prolonging the War, Israel weakened and distracted two powerful enemies, and was essentially the winner, along with the other Gulf states worried about possible Iranian and Iraqi aggression.

0
1

Re: Local Dupe

" The US was more concerned with Saudi Arabia, Dwight Eisenhower actually having deferred to the Brits a lot over Iranian oil."......."As a condition for restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the U.S. required removal of the AIOC's monopoly; five American petroleum companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were to draw Iran's petroleum after the successful coup d'état—Operation Ajax in 1953"

Wherever you look, there's the outstretched hand of the US expecting a small gratuity.

"In 1973, following US support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, the Saudi Arabian government acquired a 25% stake in Aramco. It increased its shareholding to 60% by 1974, and finally took full control of Aramco by 1980, by acquiring a 100% percent stake in the company. Aramco partners continued to operate and manage Saudi Arabia's oil fields." (In 1979 the Iranian Islamic Revolution shook up the oil consuming nations.)

On the one hand, it appears that by 1980 the US was finally prepared to pay an oil producing nation (the Saudis) a fair price for plundering their resources.

On the other hand, in 1980 the US also began its Ponzi-like MO of selling bonds to pay for everything they wanted, but couldn't afford to pay for. Of course, with no intention or ability to ever pay off those bonds. !6 trillion and still counting.

1
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Re: Local Dupe

"....the U.S. required removal of the AIOC's monopoly; five American petroleum companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were to draw Iran's petroleum after the successful coup d'état....." BP still dominated oil-drilling for years, the US being unable to evict it in favour of American companies, and the presences of the Fwench and Dutch also underlining that the Yanks did not control the Iranian oil.

"....In 1979 the Iranian Islamic Revolution shook up the oil consuming nations...." I think you'll find that the way the Arabs used the oil weapon in 1973, having started another doomed war with Israel and seeking to punish the West, was a far bigger "shake up" than the minor road bump of the Iranians. The Iranians were still unable to refine their own oil (still can't) and had to export all of it through an international market tied to US dollars - not much of a loss to the Yanks. As I already pointed out, the loss of a possible base right next door to The USSR was much more strategically worrying to the Yanks. Indeed, until Islamists got stupid and invaded the US embassy in Tehran, the US reaction to the whole Revolution was pretty muted. In comparison, the shock of the '73 oil shortage has shaped the US's attitude to "securing resources" ever since.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Alert

Re: Local Dupe

"BP still dominated oil-drilling for years, the US being unable to evict it in favour of American companies".... are you saying that when BP went from 'privately held' to 'dominant player' in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company that it was a step up?

"As I already pointed out, the loss of a possible base right next door to The USSR", I am grateful to you for pointing that out. I never could have thought of that myself.

"the shock of the '73 oil shortage has shaped the US's attitude to "securing resources" ever since.".... Let's see, what else happened in 1973 that shaped the US's attitude toward planet petroleum? Hmm? Oh yeah, the scientific community"s acceptance of Hubbert's theory of Peak Oil. His prediction of US Peak Oil in the early 70's.was now a fait accompli

.

Imagine the reaction of the military at the Pentagon was when they learned that Hubbert was right? Remember those guys get paid to be paranoid. Somebody said "we've got to reverse demand for oil until we figure this one out." So somebody called the Saudi King. It wasn't the shortage of oil that sent the price of a barrel from $3.60 in 1971 to 37.42 in 1980. It was the US stifling demand for oil, by the price increase of Saudis raise and blaming it on the '73 war.

0
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Re: Local Dupe

"......Hubbert's theory of Peak Oil....." Are you seriously replaying that broken record? Peak Oil had nothing to do with the 1973 oil shortage, it was an oil embargo declared by OAPEC (the Arab equivalent of OPEC) in a planned attempt to punish the US and other Western countries if they supplied arms to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The Arabs talked themselves into the fantasy that they could control the US by threatening to trash the US economy by cutting off oil supply. Their second objective was to STOP the peace process. The result was quite different - the US started expanding other resources and took great care to make sure that Saudi Arabia was firmly under the thumb militarily, and maneuvered Egypt into a peace accord with Israel. Far from leaving Israel unprotected, the oil embargo actually made Israel more secure. After the depression of 1973-74 the US made sure that the Western members of OPEC had enough power to make OAPEC an irrelevance.

Because the Shah's Iran and Venezuela were parties to the OAPEC embargo in 1973, it meant a lot of Americans began to view them as "enemies", whereas Iran had previously Been considered the number one US ally in the area (hence why Iran got F-14s and Israel did not). The result was that many American agencies that should have been worried by the Iranian Revolution simply saw it as removing a problem. If the Shah hadn't talked about driving up the price of a barrel of oil to "ten times the current price" he might have got a lot more US assistance in the lead up to the Revolution.

The 1973 oil embargo was another case of the Arabs collectively shooting themselves in the feet. Post-embargo, the US started seriously looking at securing resources, reducing dependency on overseas oil, and reducing oil consumption through more efficient vehicles. It was the driver behind many alternative fuel and power schemes, such as the Brazilian ethanol project and US investment in wind and solar power development. Gas and coal were prioritized for power stations in Europe and there was a resurgence in interest in nuke power stations. It also damaged the Western viewpoint on the Israeli-Arab conflict - people in the US that previously hadn't cared one way or the other were having to push their cars to the gas station, "because of the Arabs"; in the UK people could only heat one room in the Winter of 1973-74, "because of the Arabs"; in the Netherlands you could be sent to prison if you used more than your quota of rationed electricity, "because of the Arabs".

Anyway, it's a long way off the topic of the thread, which was to do with the "illegal" supply of embargoed US technology to Iran.

0
0
Happy

Re: C'est la soupe qui fait la soldat. Today it's petrol.

There is a huge difference in Peak Oil today and Hubbert's shocking prediction in 1956 that US consumption would outstrip production by 1970, which it did. The US Military, the largest consumer of crude in the world, was at that time losing a war to the Vietnamese. And obviously in no mode for more surprises. Global consumption must be curtailed until they could properly consider the situation,

So 1971 -72 they decide to cut consumption and demand for crude oil by having the Arabs, who had just had their clock cleaned by Israel in 1967, start another war with the Chosen Few. A war which they would certainly lose. So they had the Saudi King underwrite another alliance. Then with a new cartel, the Arab producers boycotted oil sales to the US, the prosperous European nations and Japan(?) for helping Israel in the war. Rather than shoot themselves in their feet, after the boycott they charged $12.00 a barrel, where they had been getting only $3.00. And by 1980 they were were getting over $30.00 per barrel.

The world's economy did not drop dead from $12.00 or $30.00 or $50.00 oil. But you can imagine what it would be like if oil had stayed at $3.00

"If the Shah hadn't talked about driving up the price of a barrel of oil to "ten times the current price" he might have got a lot more US assistance in the lead up to the Revolution."... The Shah was toast no matter what: "November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." But at the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department and the White House staff believed the revolution was unstoppable but largely went unheard until Ambassador Sullivan issued the "Thinking the Unthinkable" telegram, which formally discussed policy options if the Shah were to fail to quell the fervor.[86][87] After visiting the Shah in the autumn of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[88] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support.

Sociologist Charles Kurzman argues that rather than being indecisive, or sympathetic to the revolution, the Carter administration was consistently supportive of the Shah and urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" even after the government's cause was hopeless.[89]

Many Iranians believe the lack of intervention and the sympathetic remarks about the revolution by high-level American officials indicate the U.S. "was responsible for Khomeini's victory." It was Plan B for the US. The Iraq-Iran War.

@Matt:"Post-embargo, the US started seriously looking at securing resources, reducing dependency on overseas oil, and reducing oil consumption through more efficient vehicles. It was the driver behind many alternative fuel and power schemes, such as the Brazilian ethanol project and US investment in wind and solar power development. Gas and coal were prioritized for power stations in Europe and there was a resurgence in interest in nuke power stations."

Hardly an Arab shot in the foot. Rather exactly what the US Army wanted from the get-go in 1972. Conservation. Reduced consumption. Stifled demand. Until they could figure out what Peak Oil meant for the Army.

We should quit. I'll take the last word now. You can have it next time.

0
0
Silver badge
Pirate

Re: C'est la soupe qui fait la soldat. Today it's petrol.

".....But at the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department and the White House staff believed the revolution was unstoppable....." Not really. If the CIA had put its mind to it the Revolution would have been dead in its tracks. Khomeini was never well enough protected, even when in Iraq, and there were rumors at one point that Saddam even tried to sell him to the US for advanced weapons. Where Carter went wrong - in EXACTLY the same way Obambi has in Egypt and Libya - was that Carter assumed the Iranian intelligentsia in the cities would not let the raving peasants and the mullahs take over. Carter was so blinded by the thought he was doing good he couldn't see the possible bad outcomes. Carter was wrong, hence the panicky last minute call to the Iranian military to stage a coup. Obambi has a similarly obtuse view that he can somehow depend on the "educated" Egyptians and Libyans not to succumb to the "will of the masses", which is really the will of the Islamists controlling the masses. The problem is Obambi and co, just like Carter, expected people in the Middle East to hold the same values and act in the same way as Americans - they do not. It is a fundamental problem in the US administration, call it wanting only to see the good outcome, but until it gets fixed you will see more events like the attack on the Libyan embassy, where people that should have known better just couldn't see the threat until Americans on the ground were dead.

"....Hardly an Arab shot in the foot....." The Arabs wanted three things - to force their will on the US government; to stop aid to Israel and leave it defenseless in the face of the 1973 attack; and to ensure control of their oil. The aftermath saw the US ensure that the key Arab oil producers such as Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar became the US's bitches; Israel was restocked during the Yom Kippur War and defeated the Arabs so convincingly that Egypt was persuaded to seek a peace treaty with Isarel, which effectively removed the threat of a two-front war; and the Yanks made sure they could put a fleet off any Arab state that got uppity about selling oil to the States. If that's not shooting yourself in both feet I'd love you to explain how losing on all three goals was a good thing for the Arabs.

0
0
Angel

Re: C'est la soupe qui fait la soldat. Today it's petrol.

"In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini."...."The Shah will later comment in exile, “I did not know it then, perhaps I did not want to know? But it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted. What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.”"...http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=seyyed_ruhollah_khomeini

"On Thursday, 1 February 1979, Khomeini returned in triumph to Iran, welcomed by a joyous crowd of up to five million people,estimated in at least six million (!!!) by ABC News reporter Peter Jennings, who was reporting the event from Tehran." Not only would the CIA have a problem with the outpouring for a charismatic leader like Khomeini, but Hermione Granger, had she been around, wouldn't have had a spell for a crowd that big.

The Germans got an abrupt halt to fighting on the eastern front for letting Lenin travel back to Russia. What did the Western powers get for letting Khomeini return to Iran from Paris? A month of wishful thinking?

"Where Carter went wrong." Where did Carter go right? is more to the point. Can't remember but may have voted for Reagan in 1980.

"The problem is Obambi and co, just like Carter, expected people in the Middle East to hold the same values and act in the same way as Americans." Problem is Obambi and co, just like Carter and all the Presidents before and between them, going all the way back to Truman... There, fixed it for you.

"The Arabs wanted three things - to force their will on the US government; to stop aid to Israel and leave it defenseless in the face of the 1973 attack; and to ensure control of their oil." Number 1, 'force their will' on US government. Very funny . You made me laugh. :o). Dude, the men still wear dresses over there! Number 2, 'stop aid to Israel'. The weak, oil rich Arab kingdoms depend on Israel to convert all of their citizens' democratic activity and anti-regime energy away from overthrowing these medieval monarchies into the hatred of Israel and driving it into he sea. It's worked very well. If I were more conspiratorial, I'd say that's why the UK (with US approval and the UN rubber stamp) put the Chosen People where they did and not in Paraguay(?) Number 3, 'and to ensure control of their oil. The aftermath saw the US ensure that the key Arab oil producers such as Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar became the US's bitches.'.... "In 1973, following US support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, the Saudi Arabian government acquired a 25% stake in Aramco. It increased its shareholding to 60% by 1974, and finally took full control of Aramco by 1980,[15] by acquiring a 100% percent stake in the company. Aramco partners continued to operate and manage Saudi Arabia's oil fields." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco

Yeah, Matt, they don't have a clue about being America's bitch. Poor buggers.

You shoulda quit when you were less behind.

0
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Re: C'est la soupe qui fait la soldat. Today it's petrol.

"....But it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out....." Exactly as I stated - the Carter administration was too focused on getting rid of the Shah to think about what happened after he was gone. All you're doing is agreeing with exactly what I said.

".....What did the Western powers get for letting Khomeini return to Iran from Paris?...." We'll, you have to assume the Fwench thought they were sticking it to the Yanks. The Carter administration were simply too obtuse to realize the danger.

"....and finally took full control of Aramco....." And locking the Sauds into the American cash system is bad for who? Where is the money going to go if not back into investments in the US? The level of reinvestment in Saudi is ridiculously low.

"....Yeah, Matt, they don't have a clue about being America's bitch...." Yes, and Amercia doesn't get as much oil as it needs, and has no control over the oil market, and no military bases anywhere near any Arab states - oh, hold on a sec, the US has all three. The Saudi royal family knows their very existence is dependent on US assistance. If they get too uppity then you'll suddenly see a lot of US politicians threatening to get all moral and talking about human rights in Saudi, and maybe removing the props that hold up the Al Saud regime. The Sunni Arabs that actually control the majority of oil in the Mid East are more worried about the meddling of Shia Iran as that threatens their privelaged existence.

".....You shoulda quit when you were less behind." Sir, you are a behind.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Pirate

No buttery here, Sir

"Yes, and Amercia doesn't get as much oil as it needs, and has no control over the oil market, and no military bases anywhere near any Arab states - oh, hold on a sec, the US has all three."

And why would America want the fourth: up to 49% of the profits of Aramco, the largest corp in the world, - Oh wait a minute, that would be Sour Grapes. Aramco is the largest as far as tangible assets go. Before Google, Microsoft and Facebook there used to be something called tangible assets, Matt. Remember?

"And locking the Sauds into the American cash system is bad for who? Where is the money going to go if not back into investments in the US?"

I don't know why they stayed in the dollar and invested in the USA? Was it because there was no other currency and no other place to invest huge sums? Goldman Sachs advised the Saudi King to move into the Venusian Pengo, but they didn't.

".We'll, you have to assume the Fwench thought they were sticking it to the Yanks."

I'll let you and Elmer Fudd assume that. I won't dignify it with a reply..

"Exactly as I stated - the Carter administration was too focused on getting rid of the Shah to think about what happened after he was gone." F A I L

Why would they be focused on getting rid of the Shah? The Iranian people were doing it for them.

But they were focused on what would happen after the Shah was gone. And all the possibilities caused mass projectile vomiting in the cabinet room.

The best plan was to let Khomeini travel back to Tehran unmolested and pray that he hated communism more than he hated the West. There's the answer to the Fwench Connection

0
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: No buttery here, Sir

<Sigh> How easily you forget. "....Aramco is the largest as far as tangible assets go....." The US administration didn't care as much about those assets (which didn't even belong to the US government but to private investors) as it did about ensnaring the Saudis in the US-dominated global economy and keeping the oil flowing.

".....Why would they be focused on getting rid of the Shah?...." Let's just saying Carter's handwringer mindset meant he was happy to let the Shah fall without having to get his hands dirty, but then realized there were worst outcomes than the Shah.

".....The best plan was to let Khomeini travel back to Tehran unmolested and pray that he hated communism more than he hated the West. There's the answer to the Fwench Connection." Wrong. The Fwench had massively invested in Iraq, they had zero interest in putting an enemy in power right next door. Remember, it was Saddam Hussein that told Khomeini to get out of Iraq. They'd only let Khomeini stay in Paris as a misguided attempt to curry favour with Iranians not already pro-American, they had no intention of actually letting him take power in Iran. Khomeini's desire to create an Islamic theocracy was unknown to the French, they simply thought that he would increase French influence in the new Iran. Instead, Khomeini used his Islamist base to take control after the Shah had been chased out by more moderate groups. The Iran-Iraq War saw the end of French influence in Iraq and gained them none in Iran. Having stuffed their chances with the Israelis and lost influence in Syria, the French found themselves without a buddy in the Mid East.

Meanwhile, worried that the Arab nations were falling under Soviet control, the US redoubled their efforts to keep the Saudis tied to the US. After all, they reasoned, Saudi princes busy driving Ferraris are unlikely to support a revolution, either Islamic or Communist.

0
0
Childcatcher

You're toast and you don't even know which side you're buttered on.

"The US administration didn't care as much about those assets (which didn't even belong to the US government but to private investors) as it did about ensnaring the Saudis in the US-dominated global economy and keeping the oil flowing."

The US cares very much for the taxes owing on 25% to 49% of Aramco's profits. It's like that Victorian gentleman who, after dining, moistens the tip of his pinky finger with his tongue to capture the last few morsels on his plate before dabbing the corners of his mouth with his napkin.

"(Carter) was happy to let the Shah fall without having to get his hands dirty"

Hello? The Shah had been falling before Carter was inaugurated in 1977. We were just waiting for him to go splat. Maybe Ford should have done something?

ME "The best plan was to let Khomeini travel back to Tehran unmolested and pray that he hated communism more than he hated the West."

YOU" Khomeini's desire to create an Islamic theocracy was unknown to the French, they simply thought that he would increase French influence in the new Iran."

Really, is there a dime's worth of difference?

"end of French influence in Iraq and gained them none in Iran."Who promoted Iraq to invade Iran? The USA. Who gained influence in Iran after the war? The USSR. Talk about shooting yourself in the feet.

"worried that the Arab nations were falling under Soviet control, the US redoubled their efforts to keep the Saudis tied to the US."

In 1974 during the last severe recession, I heard an expression referring to the stock market, when it had over a 50% haircut: "It's the only game in town." Meaning "The stock market was the only one of its kind available for people to invest savings. For the Saudis, Matt, the US economy was and is the only game in town. Or on the planet.

"Saudi princes busy driving Ferraris are unlikely to support a revolution, either Islamic or Communist."

Or unlikely to want their heads chopped off.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: You're toast and you don't even know which side you're buttered on.

"......The US cares very much for the taxes owing on 25% to 49% of Aramco's profits....." Oh my sides are aching after that one! You're seriously going to pretend that the US based their foreign policy on a few million tax dollars!?!?!? Yeah, I think we'll just file that reply under "desperate".

".... The Shah had been falling before Carter was inaugurated in 1977...." And Carter sat on his hands for two years and let the Shah go down the plughole. Concentrate now, it's the maths bit; 1979 - 1977 = 2 years.......

".....Really, is there a dime's worth of difference?...." Yes, your version did not reveal the ineptitude of the Fwench in thinking they could manipulate Khomeini, and the fact that Khomeini took care to keep his intent to force an Islamic theocracy on Iran. In fact, the warning signs were there, Khomeini had made several lectures to Islamic audiences and even written a book on it, but the Fwench (and the Carter administration) were too busy to bother looking into what Khomeini was actually all about.

".... For the Saudis, Matt, the US economy was and is the only game in town. Or on the planet....." Oh, so you finally agree that getting the Saudis playing the stock market was a good idea? Oh, no, you're agreeing without actually saying you agree and that I was right. Plenty of other dictators have lived lavishly and not played the stock market, such as Kim Jong-il. Tell you what, before you dribble anymore, why don't you go read this article at the BBC on Qatar and how their Emir realised being bestest buds with America was the only way to keep their monarchy going (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20890765)?

Class dismissed!

0
0
Holmes

Re: Are you sure your sides are aching from my comment...

and not from that ginormous bong hit you took and the ten minute coughing fit that followed?

"You're seriously going to pretend that the US based their foreign policy on a few million tax dollars!"

Matt, you're not just the pretender, you're the Great Pretender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2k5TLvEK-0

Remember when you used to prance around your flat holding your spliff like a microphone and singing that one?

"And Carter sat on his hands for two years and let the Shah go down the plughole." THE SHAH NEEDED NO HELP GOING DOWN THE PLUGHOLE. US Forces couldn't beat the North Vietnamese Irregulars after how many years -- give me the math on that?

"your version did not reveal the ineptitude of the Fwench in thinking they could manipulate Khomeini, and the fact that Khomeini took care to keep his intent to force an Islamic theocracy on Iran. In fact, the warning signs were there, Khomeini had made several lectures to Islamic audiences and even written a book on it, but the Fwench (and the Carter administration) were too busy to bother looking into what Khomeini was actually all about."

Unadulterated HUMBUG, Sir. You should be arguing with Ebenezer Scrooge. Feh.

"so you finally agree that getting the Saudis..." You must have meant that you finally agree with ME!

You missed your calling, Matt Bryant. You should have worked for Enron or Goldman Sachs. Your dimestore su knowledge of a wide range of things whose superficiality you have concealed so well, your ability to read a comment on your computer while at the same time googling Wikipedia on your laptop. Your bluster and excitability. These are things I prize in other humans. And to paraphrase the Bard:

"Your cannabutter baked brain did coldly serve you munchie handfuls of Cap'n Crunch right out of the box."

0
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Re: Are you sure your sides are aching from my comment...

".....from that ginormous bong hit you took....." Unlike you I am not a druggie.

"..... THE SHAH NEEDED NO HELP GOING DOWN THE PLUGHOLE....." Too true, but a bit of diplomatic effort/bribery of many of the more moderate elements of the groups that finally toppled him would have defused the Revolution into a more controlled hand-over to democracy without Khomeini and his fellow loons getting involved. Putting two in Khomeini's chest and one in his head whilst he languished in France would also probably have been a good idea, especially as it could have been painted as any number of Khomeini's enemies doing a little delousing. But Carter wasn't for "getting involved".

"......Unadulterated HUMBUG, Sir. You should be arguing with Ebenezer Scrooge....." Oh dear, time to add to your reading list. So as not to overload you too much, here is Wikipedia's summarization:

".....In early 1970, Khomeini gave a series of lectures in Najaf on Islamic government, later published as a book titled variously Islamic Government or Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist (Hokumat-e Islami : Velayat-e faqih). This was his most famous and influential work, and laid out his ideas on governance (at that time)..... A modified form of this wilayat al-faqih system was adopted after Khomeini and his followers took power, and Khomeini was the Islamic Republic's first "Guardian" or Supreme Leader. In the meantime, however, Khomeini was careful not to publicize his ideas for clerical rule outside of his Islamic network of opposition to the Shah which he worked to build and strengthen over the next decade....." So it is clear Khomeini had both the intention of forcing a Sharia-based theocracy on Iran long before his return from exile, and that he tried to hide it from - amongst others - the Fwench and American governments. There is, however, reason to believe that when Saddam kicked Khomeini out of Najaf for agitating the local Shias, Saddam gave the CIA information on Khomeini's plans, which begs the question of how much did Carter not know and how much did he ignore?

".....You must have meant that you finally agree with ME!....." I am only agreeing in that you are now agreeing with me.

".....You should have worked for Enron or Goldman Sachs...." Well, I have contracted for one of those companies.

"......Your dimestore su knowledge....." Really? Well, seeing as I don't seem to have any trouble in exposing the shortfalls in your knowledge, and debunking your many frothing arguments with ease, I would have to suggest your knowledge is sub-flea market, verging on bankrupt. More extra schooling for you!

0
0
Happy

Re: Are you sure your sides are aching from my comment...

"a bit of diplomatic effort/bribery"

After Nixon resigned his office in Aug 1974 the American People had a brief encounter with honesty and conscience and in November 1976 they elected Carter to the presidency. The same way "Khomeini was careful not to publicize his ideas for clerical rule," Carter kept private his deep belief in Christianity, which became public only after he took office and began to govern.

"Putting two in Khomeini's chest and one in his head whilst he languished in France would also probably have been a good idea"

France would not do that without American approval and Carter was incapable of allowing it. Not because he didn't want to get involved in the Iranian succession; but because it wasn't Christian to do so. So Christian-based democracy was responsible for the Sharia-based theocracy in Iran. According to MB interfering in the Iranian Revolution was a slam dunk and there was no chance of 'unintended consequences'.

"but the Fwench (and the Carter administration) were too busy to bother looking into what Khomeini was actually all about."

"There is, however, reason to believe that when Saddam kicked Khomeini out of Najaf for agitating the local Shias, Saddam gave the CIA information on Khomeini's plans, which begs the question of how much did Carter not know and how much did he ignore?"

"Reason to believe".... "Begs the question"... You need to do better than that.

" am only agreeing in that you are now agreeing with me."

I'm sure I mentioned Saudi 'investment' first in this thread. But I will go back into the comments to see and if you did I will certainly acknowledge it.

"I have contracted for one of those companies."

I assume it was the latter.

"Well, seeing as I don't seem to have any trouble in exposing the shortfalls in your knowledge, and debunking your many frothing arguments with ease, I would have to suggest your knowledge is sub-flea market, verging on bankrupt. More extra schooling for you!"

Hey, your Tourettes is getting better. Nice.

0
1
Facepalm

Re: Are you sure your sides are aching from my comment...

@MB "And locking the Sauds into the American cash system is bad for who?"

@LG "Where is the money going to go if not back into investments in the US?" "For the Saudis, Matt, the US economy was and is the only game in town. Or on the planet."

And I also agree with you that the ocean is wet.

0
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: Re: Are you sure your sides are aching from my comment...

".....France would not do that without American approval...." Nope, the Fwench were going through one of their regular periods of doing anything to prove the independence of France, regardless of whether it was in France's actual interest or not. You also have to understand that France had suffered much worse than the US from the 1973 Oil Embargo, to such a point that the Giscard goverment had implemented the massive nuke power station building projects to ensure at least electrical power in the event of another Arabic spasm. The DSG was all for ejecting Khomeini, and certain more right-wing members of the French Giscard government even conspired with Tehran and looked at assassinating Khomeini in return for political favours (it's mentioned in the Wiki article I linked to earlier). The Carter administration was not included in those discussions. When the Shah wouldn't concede the French what they wanted (allegedly preference for French arms sales and oil companies) they left Khomeini to his own devices.

".....but because it wasn't Christian to do so. So Christian-based democracy was responsible for the Sharia-based theocracy in Iran...." I think you'll find Roosevelt, Truman (who nuked Japan), Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush Snr and Bush Jnr, and even Bill Clinton, were all Christians presidents, yet not as given to sitting on their hands as badly as Carter. Clinton may have been a bit late getting the message, but when he did he was ready to swing the hammer. It was not being Christian that was Carter's problem, it was his obtuse belief that non-Western people would behave, act and hold the same values of equality and rights as Western people, despite the decades (centuries in Europe's case) of evidence of how that just didn't work in the Middle East.

"....According to MB interfering in the Iranian Revolution was a slam dunk and there was no chance of 'unintended consequences'....." No, it would have taken considerable thought and energy, but Carter didn't even try. The actual Revolution was largely the work of non-Islamic progressives that had no intention of instituting the theocracy that Iran became - if Carter had simply put some energy into cultivating that democratic, secular vision, maybe the people of Iran could have been saved the years of oppression that followed. No slam dunk, but just sitting back made it far too easy for Khomeini and co.

"....You need to do better than that....." Khomeini's preachings, including his vision of an Islamic theocracy, had been distributed throughout the Iraqi Shia population, which Saddam had riddled with spies. But even more damning than the Saddam link was that Khomeini's manic views were even reported on in the West. Khomeini's book was published in 1970 and copies were available in Islamic bookshops in Europe (especially London) by the mid-'70s. If that was not enough, Berkeley professor Hamid Algar was very knowledgeable about it (later doing an English translation) having met Khomeini in Paris, and Algar gave four lectures in English on the subject in London long before Khomeini made his move in Iran, these being published as the book "Roots of The Islamic Revolution in Iran" in 1979. At the time MI5 were watching all parties at the Islamic Institute at which Algar gave his lectures in London, and sharing their intelligence with the FBI and CIA, so it is almost certain that the contents of Algar's detailed lectures on Khomeini would have reached Langley via MI5 even if they were not aware of Khomeini's book already. The question is whether the information reached Carter's desk.

".....Hey, your Tourettes is getting better...." Sadly, the visual impairment of those chips on your shoulder does not seem to have lessened.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Are you sure your sides are aching from my comment...

".....And I also agree with you that the ocean is wet." Ah, but you are assuming I would believe so, seeing as I am certain I have not posted that the ocean is indeed wet. You should always confirm rather than making assumptions, otherwise you fall into the Carter trap of thinking "hey, seems reasonable to me, why would anyone else think otherwise?". In this case I agree the ocean is wet. Unless Chuck Norris says it is not.

0
0
WTF?

Re: Aha So that's the way Christianity works.

You just call yourself a Christian and then anything goes. "I think you'll find Roosevelt, Truman (who nuked Japan), Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush Snr and Bush Jnr, and even Bill Clinton, were all Christians presidents..." (You probably would have included Nixon for his bold use of napalm, but didn't because of the resignation.) If Hitler and Stalin (Eastern Orthodox) had called themselves Christians, you'd disqualify them on the grounds that their murderous numbers were over the top,

If you denominate yourself Christian, does God have the right of refusal? Or is He stuck with your decision? And if you are a Christian because you call yourself one, do the teachings of the faith have any importance or are they optional? I was not born into the Christian faith and am curious about your thoughts on the subject.

Here is the famous Carter interview in Playboy. It's off the subject but can we extrapolate his views on 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' to 'Thou shalt not kill'?

Jimmy Carter The Playboy Interview - Excerpt November 1976

Because I'm just human and I'm tempted and Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times.... This is something that God recognizes, that I will do and have done, and God forgives me for it. But that doesn't mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who's loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degree of sinfulness.

Would any other president on your list have gone public like Carter did?

0
1
Facepalm

I knew Carter wasn't sitting on his hands.

"In 1977 the Shah responded to the "polite reminder" of the importance of political rights by the new American President, Jimmy Carter, by granting amnesty to some prisoners and allowing the Red Cross to visit prisons. Through 1977 liberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the government.[75]"

"The Iranian revolution was the last straw for the disintegrating relationship between Vance and Brzezinski. As the upheaval developed, the two advanced fundamentally different positions. Brzezinski wanted to control the revolution and increasingly suggested military action to prevent Ayatollah Khomeini from coming to power, while Vance wanted to come to terms with the new Islamic Republic of Iran. As a consequence, Carter failed to develop a coherent approach to the Iranian situation. In the growing crisis atmosphere of 1979 and 1980 due to the Iranian hostage situation, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and a deepening economic crisis, Brzezinski's anti-Soviet views gained influence but could not end the Carter administration's malaise. Vance's resignation following the unsuccessful mission to rescue the American hostages in March 1980, undertaken over his objections, was the final result of the deep disagreement between Brzezinski and Vance."

Somebody else was sitting on Carter's hands.

0
1
Stop

Re: Are you sure your sides are aching from my comment...

"The actual Revolution was largely the work of non-Islamic progressives that had no intention of instituting the theocracy that Iran became"

"The first militant anti-Shah demonstrations were in October 1977, after the death of Khomeini's son Mostafa. Khomeini's activists numbered "perhaps a few hundred in total", but over the coming months they grew to a mass of several thousand demonstrators in most cities of Iran."

If those first anti-Shah demonstrations began at his son's death with a few hundred and grew to several thousand, what would Khomeini's assassination have brought about? 5 to 6 million Iranians demonstrated in Tehran when he returned.?

<<<< "A CIA analysis in August 1978, just six months before the Shah fled Iran, had concluded that the country "is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation.">>>>>

I'm sure you don't dislike Carter any more than I do and while he's responsible for many mistakes, I don't blame him for things he wasn't responsible for.

0
1
Facepalm

Come On Light My Fire

Isn't that the name of Chuck Norris' candle and incense shop in Brighton? Or am I thinking of a different Chuck Norris?

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Re: Aha So that's the way Christianity works.

"......You probably would have included Nixon for his bold use of napalm....." Nope, I simply chose a list that had direct dealings with the whole Middle East issue in one form or another. And Nixon was neither the original approver of napalm or the prez in office when it was first used, that "honour" goes to Roosevelt. I also included Roosevelt as I know it will make a died-in-the-wool Libtard like yourself rotate like a top at the idea of having to bitch about a Liberal icon like Roosevelt.

"..... If Hitler and Stalin (Eastern Orthodox) had called themselves Christians, you'd disqualify....." No, I have no problem with either of them calling themselves Christian as I have no ties to that religion. You're doing that assumption thing again.

".....If you denominate yourself Christian....." I don't so your barking up the wrong tree. As usual. I'm agnostic. Sorry, not even a follower of the Great Spaghetti Monster.

".....Would any other president on your list have gone public like Carter did?" Carter's naive handling of a Playboy interview doesn't exactly get him off the hook for his rediculously naive handling of foreign policy. But Obambi is even worse - he actually grew up in a Muslim country and learned all about the implacable nature of Islam. He was right in that stroking their egos in the Cairo speech by saying what great accomplishments Islam had made (ignoring that they were all off the back of Greek, Persian and Roman achievments), but he was way wrong in thinking this would somehow make them malleable to his will. It was like patting a rabid dog on the head and saying "good boy, great teeth" after it had spent several hundred years savaging everyone within reach, including other dogs.

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: I knew Carter wasn't sitting on his hands.

".....Brzezinski wanted to control the revolution and increasingly suggested military action to prevent Ayatollah Khomeini from coming to power, while Vance wanted to come to terms with the new Islamic Republic of Iran....." OK, concentrate real hard - Brzezinski was National Security Adviser, Vance was Sec of State, Carter was the President, which one was not only the boss but the one supposed to make final decisions? No-one was sitting on Carter's hands, he was just such a bad president he didn't know he should have been using them to slap his staff into shape and get on with the job. Carter was a nice guy, and probably not too shabby a politician and diplomat, but about the only good thing about Carter as President is that he just about guaranteed Ronald Reagan's election.

0
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Are you sure your sides are aching from my comment...

"....If those first anti-Shah demonstrations began at his son's death...." They weren't, that's just the way the Islamists want the story to be told. October 1977 was when Khomeini began mobilising his stooges. Opposition to the Shah had been bubbling for years, with probably the first big protests back in 1971 at the celebrations of the founding of the Persian Empire, which were extremely lavish at the same time as many poor Persians were struggling to put sangak on their tables.

".....what would Khomeini's assassination have brought about?...." Khomeini was a unique at that point - the majority of the Shia priesthood with political aspirations had already been killed off or imprisioned, and there was simply no-one that could have stepped into his shoes. Khomeini was not only charsimatic to his followers, but also a very good organiser and good at predicting the reactions and weaknesses of his opponents in both the Shah's administration and the opposition. There was already a government in power, that of PM Bakhtiar, that had removed the Shah before Khomeini even returned from France. All Khomeini did was remove that government and replace it with the figurehead administration of PM Bazargan, a moderate that Khomeini had duped into believing Khomeini would allow a secular and democratic government. Having got rid of Bakhtiar, all Khomeini did was to out-manouvere the ineffectual Bazargan and the rest of the opposition, who were too disparate in thought to oppose him, and force the theocracy down the Iranians' throats.

"......5 to 6 million Iranians demonstrated in Tehran when he returned....." If Khomeini had been killed prior to his return, especially if he'd been killed in Iraq, you may have had "5-6million" (a much quoted figure never verified) angry Iranians, but without anyone to manipulate, guide and focus them they would flounder and fail in the face of more capable Iranian politicians in the opposition. The Shah would almost definitely still have fallen but a more moderate administration, not completely hostile to the West, would probably have replaced his rule.

".....I don't blame him for things he wasn't responsible for." Sorry, but Carter's overall responsibility for the American failure in the lead up to the Revolution, culminating in the bungled handling of the run up to the Iranian Hostage Crisis and subsequent failed rescue, was his responsibility as Prez. As another Roosevelt put it, "speak quietly and carry a big stick" - Carter didn't even do the speaking part, letting Khomeini spread lies about the "Great Satan" without a murmur, and was far too nice to use the stick.

0
0
Facepalm

Jimmy Carter nice guy but doofus

"that's just the way the Islamists want the story to be told." The same way our government wanted Saddam's WMD story to be told to us. 1) Bush: "Iraq has WMD." 2) Hans Blix: "There are no WMD in Iraq." 3) CIA: "We made a terrible, terrible mistake when we told Bush about WMD." By the time we were told 3, our army occupied many oil fields and tens of thousands of Iraqis were dead.

"there was simply no-one that could have stepped into his shoes." This why I like you, Matt. Who else would make such an outrageous claim? Actually, it could of been someone even worse and younger than Khomeini.

""5-6million" (a much quoted figure never verified) angry Iranians."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/1/newsid_2521000/2521003.stm

"On Thursday, 1 February 1979, Khomeini returned in triumph to Iran, welcomed by a joyous crowd of up to five million people,[72] estimated in at least six million byABC News reporter Peter Jennings, who was reporting the event from Tehran."

"without anyone to manipulate, guide and focus them they would flounder and fail in the face of more capable Iranian politicians in the opposition." And yet it happens all the time. Mubarak after Sadat, for example.

"the American failure in the lead up to the Revolution, culminating in the bungled handling of the run up to the Iranian Hostage Crisis and subsequent failed rescue, was his responsibility as Prez." For the second time: "A CIA analysis in August 1978, just six months before the Shah fled Iran, had concluded that the country "is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation." Now if this really was the CIA analysis in August 1978, what was their opinion in March 1978? In October 1977? Did you want Carter put on a jellabiya and go to Iran to check it out?

"The Shah would almost definitely still have fallen but a more moderate administration, not completely hostile to the West, would probably have replaced his rule." You must mean the anxiously awaited Bashir al Goldilocks administration: Not too Western, not to Islam. Not too pro-Israeli, not too anti-Israeli. Not too nuclear, not too conventional. Yes, that would have been very lovely.

Carter's biggest mistake of was that he ran for president in the first place. His religious beliefs prevented him from doing what had to be done. The American people bear the responsibility for having elected him. And had Nixon not covered up the Watergate crime and resigned, the Republican nominee would have prevailed in 1976. There's plenty of blame to go around. Success == a thousand fathers, failure == Jimmy Carter.

0
1
Paris Hilton

Carter and Reagan. Opposite sides of the same coin. (a slug)

"The only good thing about Carter as President is that he just about guaranteed Ronald Reagan's election." And why is that good? The reverse is also true. Ronald Reagan makes Jimmy Carter look good.

"Ronald Reagan, Commander in Chief. "The Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War, when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen."

"Ronald Reagan, Space Cadet in Chief. "The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when Space Shuttle Challenger (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members.... Administration officials have strongly and repeatedly denied speculation that there was pressure from the White House to launch Challenger, and NASA has insisted it was not under pressure to okay the launch, which ended in the the deaths of Challenger`s crew of seven.... Former Secretary of State William Rogers, chairman of the commission, issued the statement that the decision to launch the doomed space shuttle ``may have been flawed``..... Two of the Thiokol engineers involved in the launch, Allan McDonald and Roger Boisjoly later testified that they had opposed the launch. Boisjoly had done work on the shuttle's booster rockets at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Utah in February 1985, at which time he noted that at low temperatures, an O-ring assembly in the rockets eroded and, consequently, failed to seal properly."..."At launch time, the temperature at the Kennedy Space Center was 36 degrees Fahrenheit. This was 15 degrees colder than any previous Space Shuttle launch. All of Challenger's pre-launch preparations were routine, with the exception of tremendous ice buildup on the launch pad that formed as temperatures dipped into the low 20's overnight." I'm sure there's a lot of googlicous stuff where NASA, Morton Thickol, and the White House deny there was any pressure.

Ronald Reagan, Noble Laureate in Economics. Selected stalwarts such as Art Laffer and Grover Norquist. A preeminent period in American Economic history, and Ronald Reagan almost tripled the national debt.

Ronald Reagan, Thespian. "Bedtime for Bonzo." Reagan's famous speech. "And all for nothing—

For Bonzo!

What’s Bonzo to him or he to Bonzo

That he should weep for her?"

0
1
Thumb Down

Reagan Redux

"the only good thing about Carter as President is that he just about guaranteed Ronald Reagan's election." I don't understand why you think that it was good thing. Except for the comedy part. And that someone with incipient dementia can be elected president of the most powerful nation in history. And, of course, Voodoo Economics.

Give me a hint. Did it have to do with the Iran-Iraq War? Did you admire his acting? What?

0
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Jimmy Carter nice guy but doofus

".....The same way our government wanted Saddam's WMD story to be told to us...." Typical Local Dupe tactic - "can't win that argument, better schwing off on a tangent I feel more comfortable with. SCHWING, SCHWING, SCHWING!

".....Actually, it could of been someone even worse and younger than Khomeini....." Tell you what, you go do some research and supply a list of alternatives, then your reasoning as to why they wouldn't descend into infighting or be scared to step forward after Khomeini was made an example of? That should keep you busy for a few weeks.

"....Mubarak after Sadat, for example....." Anwar Sadat realised what side his bread was buttered on and made peace with Israel, landing himself the US's approval and shedloads of aid. Mubarak was carefully groomed by Sadat, with US approval, as Egyptian Vice Prez. That was over a course of many years, whereas Khomeini's followers would only have a short time to produce a new leader before the moderates would have gained control.

"..... In October 1977?....." Go watch "Argo". You're much more likely to believe it on the silver screen than in history books, but it does recount (with a few added dramatics) the rediculously vulnerable position the US embassy was left in at that time, as outlined by one of the CIA operatives there (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21003432). For a start, a 26-acre compund with only 13 Marines as trustworthy guards sounds an awful lot like the recent mess in Libya.

"....the anxiously awaited Bashir al Goldilocks administration...." Nope, the administration of Mehdi Bazargan, actually. Whilst no lapdog of the West (he supported the nationalisation of the oil companies) he was not anti-West either (he studied in France and volunteered to fight with the French against Nazi Germany). He was an acceptable choice with Western governments because he was seen as educated and honest, and popular with Iranians as he was religious and trusted. But, unfortunately, Khomeini chose him to usurp Shapour Bakhtiar as prime minister because Khomeini knew that Bazargan could be browbeaten into not standing in the way of Khomenini's hidden theocratic ambitions. Bazargan resigned when he realised that Khomeini had no intention of reaching an accommodation with the West and was using the US embassy hostages to deliberately ratchet up tension with the US. He later expressed his horror at the route the Iranian government had taken in an open letter to the Iranian speaker of parliament in 1982: "The government has created an atmosphere of terror, fear, revenge and national disintegration.... What has the ruling elite done in nearly four years, besides bringing death and destruction, packing the prisons and the cemeteries in every city, creating long queues, shortages, high prices, unemployment, poverty, homeless people, repetitious slogans and a dark future?"

"....His religious beliefs prevented him from doing what had to be done....." No, his lack of ability was his failure, not his beliefs. Christianity has not stopped a lot of people doing all kinds of brutal deeds they deemed necessary. Forget the examples of the Christian presidents I gave you, go read up on Torquemada (no, not the one from "Nemesis the Warlock" comics).

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Carter and Reagan. Opposite sides of the same coin. (a slug)

".....Ronald Reagan makes Jimmy Carter look good....." Are you living in an alternate reality!?!?!?!? I won't even dignify the rest of that fail of a post with a response, it is beyond depserate.

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Reagan Redux

".....I don't understand why you think that it was good thing....." For a start, whilst many choose to ignore it, Reagan actually had a BA in Economics and Sociology, which, along with having served as Governor of California, made him one of the most qualified presidents the US has had for a long while. Far better qualified than Obambi. I like your cherry-picked list of his "achievemnts", I guess you missed these what with your ideological blinkers and all:

1. Reaganomics - the US economy perfromed better during the Reagan years than either before or after, as judged by money for the average family. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

2. Faced up to the Soviets and supported pro-democracy groups such as the Poles, leading to the end of the Cold War.

3. Signed and acted on the nuke arms limitation treaties that actually allowed Gorbachev the political elbow room he required. Reagan did so without looking like an appeaser and without folding to Soviet demands.

4. Signed in immigration laws that both gave an amnesty to existing immigrants, recognsing their value and efforts, but at the same time limited future illegal immigration.

5. Wasn't afraid to tell the Arabs the truth whilst also being diplomatic enough to retain the support of the Saudis. Wasn't afraid to use the military option when he bombed Libya, which put a serious check on Ghadafi's terrorist actions. After the Libyan bombing in 1986 Ghaddafi reduced his involvement with anti-Western groups such as the Red Army Faction.

6. And probably the one that upsets you most, the War on Drugs. Whilst you can argue all you like about the effectiveness in the US itself, the War on Drugs gave the CIA the tools it needed to massively reduce funding for narco-terroist groups like FARC. With the FARC now on their last legs and peace finally in sight in Colombia, what's the betting that if a Colombian peace treaty happens this presidential term there will be zero admittance from Obambi that Ronald Reagan was the man that was willing and able to start the ball rolling.

I'm tired of doing your homework for you, go do your own reading. After all, how do you expect to learn anything if I keep having to lay it out on a plate for you?

0
0
Bronze badge
Meh

Meh.

Chinese company selling Chinese made products (all-be it American branded) to trade friend.

Since Huawei seem to have no chance working with the US, they may as well work against them and make some money out of the deal.

12
0
Silver badge
Pirate

Re: Meh.

Yes, but you should note how cleverer they are than IBM in that Huawei at least put a front company between themselves and their "illegal" acts, whereas IBM didn't (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/29/ibm_sec/).

Anyway, it's all politicial theatrics. One of the amusing stories that did the rounds was from post-invasion Iraq, where the IAEA was doing the rounds trying to work out how far Saddam had got down the nuke weapon development route. One of the facts missed by the journos looking for the smoking missile was that the IAEA turned up shedloads of Western computer kit in Iraq, all too young to be pre-embargo, and a lot of it registered and sold via resellers in Canada, Europe and even supposedly "friendly" Arab countries. The fact that even America's allies were happilly flogging Iraq embargoed kit was quietly swept under the carpet, and I'm sure there is a lot of similar "illegal" activity going on with Western kit to Iran that is being quietly ignored UNLESS it happens to fit a certain political agenda. Bashing Huawei seems to be high on the US political agenda.

4
4
Mushroom

Oh wow

Preventing a Billing server from being sold to a Mobile network. Thats really going to put the Nuclear programme on hold. Well done America!

11
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh wow

Well, neocons needn't worry. It was an HP server, and chances are the Rainians will struggle to get it to work. Should they call HP support, the call will be routed to a third world hell hole (admittedy not as hellholey as Iran), and they'll not be able to understand the call centre oik. Should they be a bunch of cunning linguists, and overcome the language barrier, then they'll find the support is so basic that it still won't help them.

Arguably shipping HP kit to Iran is helping stop them doing anything. Certainly works for the company I work for.

7
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Oh wow

".... It was an HP server, and chances are the Rainians will struggle to get it to work..... Certainly works for the company I work for." Strange, hp seem to be the number one x64 vendor, and their kit comes with quite simple installation requirements, indeed we often leave racking in and setup to newbie staff just to get them some confidence. I've had school leavers on placement install and setup Proliants, Dell Poweredge, even IBM kit, all with no issues, so I'd have to suggest that the problems at your company must lie with its employees such as yourself.

2
4

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.