What is a "War Criminal"?

Is it only as the dictionary says...



Or is it something a little less vague... like simply being the "loser"... are "war criminals" only the "losers"... and "war heroes" only the "winners"... is that the only thing that separates the two?... the ones left alive write all the books, so to speak?...

Or is it more of a perspective kind of thing... like "he's a brutal heartless killer, but he's our brutal heartless killer, so he's a "hero" and not a "criminal"...

I ask you all for an opinion... and I submit mine own... that there is absolutely no difference beyond the names and the perspectives... and who are the "winners" and the "losers"... by whatever means...

I ask because it seems to me that we hanged quite a few "war criminals" for the very things that our current administration has done... but of course, they did have over half a nation cheering them on while they did these things... but I imagine that the "war criminals" that we hanged had at least that also... that support was also based on lies and mass denial of facts... and extreme nationalistic "hope" that "we're the "good guys"... and "it'll all be for the best in the end"... and "God is on our side"... and "our superior weapons will defeat them"...

If we do in fact start WWIII and the nukes/chemical/bio/genetic weapons start flying... and all life on Planet Earth dies... what "victory" is there in this?... what "heroes" or "criminals" would/will be "victorious" then?... I submit that we are the main driving force in the current arms buildup throughout the world... and the upcoming WW... if this all comes to ultimate fruitation, will we still consider ourselves as "heroes"?... even if we did happen to survive?...

I imagine that our returning troops who state "we are not heroes" could elaborate on this topic quite a bit... but it would probably be quite painful... and not the stuff that our popular news media would make a major story out of...

Is a "war hero" one who overcomes a vastly superior force... valor and courage in the face of certain destruction and all that... or is a "war hero" one who USes overwhelming force to kill those of a vastly "unsuperior" force?... if so, then what differentiates them from a "war criminal"...

Or is a "war hero" one who takes out a major target with minimal losses... considering that the "terrorists" of 9-11 took out a huge target with a minimal loss would mean that they are in fact "war heroes" by that definition(that is if it wasn't our own version of the "Reichstag "... heh, that should stir up some deep thoughts... what if it was a few of our boys who gave up their lives to take out a "terrorist" target... would we celebrate them as "heroes" or as "criminals"... hmmmn...

BTW... does this sound familiar?
Reichstag

I believe in mine heart that an honest evaluation and conclusion would clarify who are the real "heroes" as far as "war" goes... especially if you consider that our "Christian" nation supposedly worships a deity who tells US to "love our enemies" and to "turn the other cheek" and to "pray for those who persecute US"... and to "put down the sword" because "those who live by the sword will die by the sword"...

I gotta ask all ya "Christians" out there if the Martyrs were jUSt "losers" or "winners"?... "heroes" or "criminals"?... should they have made war to overcome their oppressors or should they have done jUSt as they did... as Jesus told them to do... if they had all at once rejected their "religion" and "God", and brutally attacked and killed the bloody Romans and took over the whole nation in glorious victory... and hanged or stoned the "war criminals"... the "losers"... would they then be any different than their oppressors... would there be any real glory in that... any real change and/or hope... what would the world be like if they had done this...

I submit that "Christianity" would not be... and all the principles that we claim to believe in would not exist... I say that as if our nation were in fact a "Christian Nation" which did in fact hold the doctrines of the Christ dear... which is an utter blasphemous hypocrisy... as we have shown by our utter and outright rejection of the fundamental principles(and God) that we claim to hold dear...



Like the Jews of Christ's and John's day... we seem to see God as "the" warrior king triumphant... our "Savior"... our "Messiah"... who will/would deliver US by destroying all our enemies with a simple sweep of his mighty sword... and even having the benefit of knowing that the "Messiah Savior" did not at all come in this manner... he instead came in all humility... serving those who were far below him... washing the feet of his servants and not the other way around... and never picking up the sword at all and never telling those who followed him to do so either... and ultimately defeating all of his enemies by his sacrifice of his earthly life... the "good shepherd"... who willingly gave up his life for his flock... and asks them to do likewise...

What more real valor and courage and sacrifice can there be... what Alexander or Pharaoh or Caesar or General ever had such valor and courage... to give his own life to save all his friends from war and murder... and his enemies as well... what "war hero" that has conquered and killed thousands and thousands can claim such honor?...

I submit that we have a fundamental misperception that has put US against the God whom we claim to serve... and that it is indeed that very fundamental misperception and our lies to support it that will ultimately be our undoing...

It is mine opinion that the fact that we are guilty of extreme hypocrisy and blasphemy cannot be argued... that we are guilty of everything that we claim to stand against is a fact undeniable... that there is absolutely nothing that separates US from our "terrorists" beyond our overwhelming power and technology... which, in fact, makes painfully clear that as far as valor and courage, we do not even amount to our "enemies", who despite our overwhelming force and weapons, continue to fight US... against all odds... I guess we'd understand their illogical rebellion better if it was US that was preemptively invaded and all of US who opposed the invaders was systematically killed or imprisoned...

At least the Muslim and Jewish religions somewhat condone making open war and utterly destroying their enemies... ours does not... neither of them are the hypocrites that we are... woe to US, and ohh how the mighty art fallen...

I jUSt gotta ask... what would the world be like today if after 9-11, we had in fact followed the principles of the Christ whom we claim to serve... what if we had "turned the other cheek"... "prayed for our enemies"... and truly trUSted in our God to defend US... what would've happened?... would we not now still enjoy the sympathy and admiration of the world entire... would not even our enemies be touched and changed... would we have not truly shown our worthiness to be the only "world power"?... but alas, I guess we shall never know now... as we have already shown that there is nothing special about US... nothing different... only more power and technology... we're still cavemen... only now with more and more terrible weapons than man has ever had before... with which we might destroy all that God has so generously given US...

Who are the real "war heroes" and who are the real "war criminals"?... and jUSt what is it(if anything:~) that separates them?

What is a "War Criminal"?


Platitudes aside, it's what the winner decides it is.

Heya, CharlieRay. Didja round up Eddie yet? Cyal8r!

A war criminal?

I can think of a few things.

A soldier that steals from his buddies.

A soldier that loots a store or house or something in a war zone.

A soldier that shoots a surendering enemy.

A soldier that mistreats prisoners or civilians. (IMHO doubly so for officers and politicos that give the orders)

A soldier or officer that does not observe the Geneva conventions. (yeah war is hell but we're the good guys.)

I'll think some more and get back.

Dispute Over ICC Hampers United Effort on Darfur

# The international court should have war crimes jurisdiction, argues the EU, but the U.S. says no. Meanwhile, the dying continues in Sudan.


By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A dispute between the Bush administration and European allies over whether to allow the International Criminal Court to try Sudanese war crimes suspects is complicating efforts to resolve the crisis in the Darfur region, diplomats and activists said Friday.

The European Union this month called for the U.N. Security Council to give the International Criminal Court jurisdiction to try those responsible for atrocities in Darfur. The ICC, based in The Hague, was set up in 2002 to try cases of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Ninety-seven countries are members.

The Bush administration opposes the ICC and has said it does not want to legitimize the court by allowing it to prosecute those responsible for what the United States calls genocide in Darfur. Instead, the administration wants to set up an ad hoc war crimes tribunal in East Africa, run jointly by the African Union and the United Nations.

The issue is coming to a head at the Security Council, which is considering a U.S.-drafted resolution to put 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers as well as 715 civilian police in southern Sudan to monitor a cease-fire there. The resolution also would give the peacekeepers the right to protect civilians from violence in the 23-month-old conflict.

Lawmakers and diplomats said the U.S.-European dispute over the ICC, as well as Russian and Chinese objections to imposing sanctions on the government of Sudan, have created a bottleneck that could delay U.N. action for weeks — at a time when an estimated 320 people are dying in Darfur each day.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said the dispute over who should try war crimes suspects is distracting policymakers from the real issues.

"Every day you debate, you get more people dying," Brownback said. "We need to bring the debate to how to get African Union troops on the ground and real sanctions to bring pressure on [the Sudanese government] now."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...headlines-world

Before you can have war criminals, you gotta have a war, Charlie.

No wonder congress hasnt declared war, as is its wont, since WWII.

They'd have to take responsibility if things went wrong. As is they can vote for action, then whine because it didn't go like clockwork.

However, that doesn't excuse the gross negligence factor.

I think AV has it right CharlieRay. It's whoever the victor says it is.

Honor dictates that somebody should accept resposibility. Am I right?

Yeah I like history as long as it is honest, and I read Heinlein and many others..

Regardless of sematics, the proof is in the pudding.

Responsibility for what? With today's news capability and the Dem's standards Ike wouldn't have made it to D-day, and FDR would have been impeached.

The "dems standards"???

Whats that?

Pretty much no casualties.

Yeah, Dems will go after their own, if they've done something wrong.

You'll never see that from a Republican.

"No casualties? Are you serious?

Different time and place but I just dont see how nowadays there could be no casualties. Yeah sure clinton and them would work toward something like '"no casualties", but unless one foregoes the whole "diplomatic" approach there is no their option.

HEY!

The post before this one was me so eff you all!

That's right Miz. Every casualty is a Dem talking point.




I know. I see all, know all, don't tell much.

Yeah, that's why "the Dems" pushed for joining the ICC and "the Reps" wormed out of it.

That's right Miz. Every casualty is a Dem talking point.

Oh? How so when yer party reaps all of the benefits? Talk about a parasitic relationship.


[/i]I know. I see all, know all, don't tell much.[I]

Ya do alright. Do me a favor and stay objective as ya do.

The Dems would hand over sovereignty to the UN if they could get away with it.

Not really, they'd just honor the agreements they have made and international law.

Dems could reap the benefits if they wanted to. Some do. Just being against isn't helping the party at all, and it gives the enemy hope.

Well yeah, the "democrats" as a whole probably would since they probable feel as though the "sovereignity" is beholden to filthy reich wing interests (and they would be right) and they have no other option.

It would be even easier if there were such a thing as the "liburul media", no?

You might have a point there. Today's Dems probably would rather have foreign leftists in charge rather than Republicans.

You say that as though there is a basis in fact. Is there? Even remotely?

I read your posts.

Loop loop loop (back to where we started).

And?...

Are we back to where you tell me what a pile of filth this country has become? I think that's what "real Americans" say.

They certainly would if they had an objective honest honorable bone in their body. If they were Americans before they were filthy republican bushlovers.

Besides, what are you talking about.

Wow... a lot of posts... not sure if I'm up to this or not... ya'll know that I get kinda carried away... but here goes nothin'...

Art(and sweet Bee:~)...



So being a "war criminal" simply means that one has been judged by the "winners"(for trying too hard to make them the "losers":~)... hmmmn...

Lil Bart...



Nope, I have not read hide nor hair from him... but I have not looked... BTW, hiya

Bart...



Then there mUSt also be a war in order to have "war heroes" then, ehh?

Mizilus...



So a "war criminal" is pretty much jUSt an ordinary criminal... but functioning as a soldier or officer or politico in wartime... and thus a "war criminal"?... I'll have to think about that one... and get back to ya...

Davis...



Interesting story... I think that our government shows weakness with our opposition to the ICC... I mean, what are they so afraid of?... that some of US might actually be accused of being "war criminals"?... I think this whole US/ICC thing is a real example of part of what I was getting at in this morn's writing... that the only thing that really separates the "war hero" from the "war criminal" is the names and the perspectives... and perhaps who are the "winners" and the "losers"...

Et al...

What I was really trying to get to in the writing this am was that there is no real difference between the "war hero" and the "war criminal" beyond perspective... especially considering that in our upcoming "Armageddon" there will be no "winners" at all... only losers... as far as the eye can see and far beyond... only losers...

Some will claim that it will be a "victory for God"... now, I jUSt gotta ask(and try not to curse while I do so:~), what *#^$#*& victory is there for God if 99.9% of his creation is destroyed... by his creation?... and only a few might be saved through his grace and mercy... what great "victory" is this?... when by his own whole birth/life/death on this planet, he showed US all what real victory is all about(changing hearts:~)... make no mistake, Armageddon is no victory... for US nor for our enemies... nor for the kingdom...

Know ye not that what the creator hath created... that also the creator mUSt can destroy... here on earth as it is in heaven... it's not jUSt our own fate thats on the line here... but also those of all of our ancestors and all of our children and our childrens children... forever and ever amen... the kingdom of heaven is at hand... here and now... and they're all depending on US to do the right thing... and Armageddon jUSt isn't it...

You have heard that there was a war in heaven... you marveled not at this, for it is as such in the world you were born into... you have been taught that war and murder are a part of life... and you have accepted this and even learned to celebrate and glory in the war and murder... among other things...

The word came to tell US the truth... but we have rejected the truth... rejected the word... and followed the sword... and our own lies and ambitions...

God created the sword also... and God loved the sword... but the sword loveth not but it's own power... and so God put the sword away... forever and ever amen... we would be well advised to do likewise...

In the beginning, they were here with US also... carrying clubs then... and beating their brothers and sisters into submission... they were criminals then... jUSt as they are now... they were liars,thieves and murderers then... jUSt as they are now... the only difference between now and then is that they have accumulated the power to destroy the whole earth that God has so generously given to all of US... that they(we) now do it all in his blessed name is an ultimate slap in the face of God... rebellion, hatred and rejection worthy of satan hisself... imagine that they(we) might progress beyond the earth and ultimately make our war in the heavens...

Consider the scientist who discovers/creates a new virus in his lab... if he finds that virus to be only a very real and dangerous threat to all of his world... does he not throw it into the fire?... even if he loves it... what happens if he does not do this?...

I think that because we think God should come as "the" triumphant kingdom conquering Savior Messiah ruling over all with an iron fist... slaying all the armies of the earth with abandon... perhaps he jUSt might will do as we so wish... ever hear "be careful what you wish for"?... maybe before he puts that ole sword away he'll USe it jUSt one more time... for all the old times, so to speak... and because we soo wish and desire it to be jUSt so...

I guess I could cut the preaching and sum up what I was really trying to say in the post previous with this...

Please consider that there are no war heroes... except those who do no war... and there are no war criminals except those who do... all "winners" and "losers" aside, because it simply doesn't matter... what is won, even if we gain our lives and the whole world(and judgement over the "losers":~)... but yet lose our soul...

When you go to war... war changes you... you don't change war... beyond strengthening its death grip on your world...

A song for your consideration...

From "Movin' the Movement"...

And when the forces are gathered for the battle...
and the silence before the storm is in the air...
that's when you'll soothe your soul...
saying "I am a good guy"...
"and the evil doer mUSt die"...

Next thing you know, you're grappling with the "bad guy"...
in the struggle of who will live and who will die...
the moment of truth comes when you look in his eye...
and there ain't no lie then... no, there ain't no lie...

He's saying "I am a "good guy"...
"and the evil doer mUSt die"...

CharlieRay
:~)

Heroes wasn't in the question, Charlie.

I had an idea where you were going with the question. I thought the article was was an example of your point.

I'm watching a little of the The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib on BookTV which is on CSPAN 2.

It is relevant to your question. If you have a chance catch some of that.

I watched a bit of that. I didn't really see the point of getting together a bunch of people who all thought the same. It was kind of boring. But I suppose if all you really want is what you already think reinforced it was quite informative. I missed the begining. Did they ever agree on what torture was?

Most of our enemies make no effort to even find out what crimes their soldiers might commit, much less punish anyone. The US seems to have an entire party devoted to almost nothing else. I'd say for winners we do a lot more than the minimum.

Winners write the history. If you deal in facts that's just the way it is.

What's the point? Iran/Contra mentality is running rampant.

Loving every minute, aren't you?

That is the main difference between you and me. I hate the Iran/Contra type black ops. You are a real big fan.

Sorry your boys lost in Nicaragua. Get over it.

I actually value the constitution. You and your disgusting Iran/Contra lovers use it as toilet paper.

I would never advocate trading thousands of missiles to Islamic terrorists for any US hostages. I don't mean to be heartless, but you can't deal with kidnappers. If you do that once, you are screwed. I certainly wouldn't advocate using drug smugglers or drug lords as allies either. As manosteel said once, I think he regretted it, you either obey the law or you don't. That whole episode was a black mark on the US and the people who escaped prosecution by plausible deniability or presidential pardon (gag) are now employed by Bush or his administration.

It's a new decade for you and your type. Enjoy it. I, for one, will never embrace that mentality. My concience is clear.

They were our allies before Carter effed it all up. You guys effed up in Iran AND Nicaragua.

Losers.

Is this an example of the "winners" rewriting history?

It's a matter of what happened.

I guess I would need to know what you mean when you say that Carter effed up Iran. I see that revolution as the product of 25 years of rapid social change in a previously medieval society bringing about a reaction.

The reaction against the Shah was as natural as say, the rightward swing in the US since the sixties.

Rôle of President Jimmy Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran


http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/jimmy_carter_irans_king.html


- By Alan Peters - Monday, March 15, 2004

Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office. 1 GIS.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

Pres. Carter’s anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carter’s name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was “trying to be helpful”. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.

The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent “management fee” a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carter’s friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the “personal” management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.

Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters — as well as in some US minds — at the time and later that Carter’s actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.

Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, “megalomaniac” projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.

In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehran’s Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.

Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.

A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding — but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power — Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: “We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in State and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources.” Not even after 25 years.

Historians and observers still debate Carter’s reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.

The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carter’s 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to “buy” the presidency for Carter.

In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US’ most powerful ally in the Middle East, this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carter’s next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.

Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.

Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carter’s focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.

Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by “students” of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.

The mostly “rent-a-crowd” group of “students” organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.

When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.

The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. “He helped us, now we help him” was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.

In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: “We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.” 2.

Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man — as he himself claimed to be — and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian “pope” and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.

Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic “green belt” to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.

Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same “quietist” Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistani’s “Khomeini” equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.

According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that “Reagan’s successor”, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.

1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name “Alan Peters” is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.

Hell, David Rockefeller and friends undermined the Shah to get back bad loans he made to Iran during his brief and disastrous term as CEO of the family bank. It worked to; he got back his almost 700,000 million plus an additional 300,000,000 the Iranians still want back. Never mind that it totally screwed up that area of the world.

So AV says Carter was wrong to enable the ouster of a tyranical regime then. What about now?

Where would have Iran gone under the Shah? Where would it be now?

I'd wager a much more stable situation, and not in the hands of the fundamentalist Shia movement, the same eff'en crowd we just let win the election in Iraq.

Morons

These fools are knee deep in quicksand and arguing wading further into the pit is the way to solve their problems....too proud to admit they have eff'ed up royally.