The assumption is Iran would have followed a different path with a Republican in office.
Carter was and still is a weak-stick-twig but Iran was destined for their current predicament.
The Shah needed to be more like Hussein if he wanted to stay in power.
Anything short of Saddam’s full blown ruthlessness would have been a losing proposition.
Now THAT truly is an intelligent proposition (I’m not being sarcastic.) Does someone have to be as evil as Saddam to be a leader in that part of the world? Very good point, MD.
If that’s the case, then the whole Iraq ordeal is a waste. Is the culture in that part of the world incapable of having a peaceful democracy? Food for thought! Thanks, MD![/quote]
The answer to that question is a resounding YES!
Democracy has take decades more than 100 years to stablilize in every instance it has been implemented.
Maybe democracy will stabilize in 120+ years from now in Iraq but I do not think it is worth the lives of our fine young Americans to kick start this long and arduous process.
I personally have friends that are Muslim from this region and they think that Saddam and dictators like him are the only answer short of dividing Iraq up into Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan.
Three separate countries may not make much of a difference as none will agree to give up oil revenues.
The Kurds would have oil fields and the Shia would have oil field but the Sunni area does not currently have any viable oil fields.
There really is no good solution.
The Neo-Cons have run for the exits and Bush is left holding the bag.
The buck stops at the Oval Office!