PDA

View Full Version : US "arrogant", says former President Carter


CHOCO
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:15 AM
16/11/2002 09:23 - (SA) E-mail story to a friend

US "arrogant", says Carter

Washington - Former US president Jimmy Carter, this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, on Friday called US foreign policy "arrogant", saying the United States would do well to destroy its own weapons of mass destruction.

"One of the things that the United States government has not done is to try to comply with and enforce international efforts targeted to prohibit the arsenals of biological weapons that we ourselves have and others have and also to reduce and enforce the agreement to eliminate chemical weapons, and the same way with nuclear weapons," Carter said during a taping of Larry King Live, scheduled for broadcast later on Friday on CNN.

"The major powers need to set an example," he said, as the United States confronts Iraq over its alleged possession of these banned weapons.

Carter, who founded the Carter Centre in Atlanta, Georgia, 20 years ago, is to receive the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10 for his efforts in seeking negotiated settlements to head off violent conflict.

Carter said the United States has given other nations reason for resentment.

"There is a sense that the United States has become too arrogant, too dominant, too self-centred, proud of our wealth, believing that we deserve to be the richest and most powerful and influential nation in the world," the 78-year-old Carter said.

US interests, too often based on oil or other resources, ignore many truly poor countries, while the United States is the stingiest contributor of foreign aid.

"For every time an American gives a dollar, a citizen of Norway gives $17," he said.

"Quite often the big countries that are responsible for the peace of the world set a very poor example for those who might hunger for the esteem or the power or the threats that they can develop from nuclear weapons themselves.

"I don't have any doubt that it's that kind of atmosphere that has led to the nuclearisation, you might say, of India and Pakistan," he said. - Sapa-AFP

Shane54
Nov 16th, 2002, 07:43 AM
Good stuff from a man who got BITCH SLAPPED by Reagan in 80. Yeah, good idea idiot Jim. Let's get rid of our weapons. LMAO. Yes, let's have gun control too so law abiding citizens will be defenseless against those criminals who don't obey the law. Same logic if we get rid of our weapons.

Red white and blue forever

Strong national defense
Strong armed forces
More foreign trade and less foreign aid
Close the borders


....these are a few of my favorite things.........

CHOCO
Nov 16th, 2002, 12:10 PM
I think ex-President Carter is to be admired for taking this strong stand and pointing out the hypocracy in the US policy.

nasty nick#2
Nov 16th, 2002, 12:11 PM
obla dee obla daa-life goes on.

Mercury Rising
Nov 16th, 2002, 12:18 PM
Now this is an intelligent guy, I'm thinking excactly the same!

Mercury Rising
Nov 16th, 2002, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Shane54
Good stuff from a man who got BITCH SLAPPED by Reagan in 80. Yeah, good idea idiot Jim. Let's get rid of our weapons. LMAO. Yes, let's have gun control too so law abiding citizens will be defenseless against those criminals who don't obey the law. Same logic if we get rid of our weapons.


LOL, the typical American :rolleyes:

disposablehero
Nov 16th, 2002, 01:37 PM
Carter has been underrated for decades now.

ptkten
Nov 16th, 2002, 02:02 PM
no...it's not the typical American, it's the typical Republican American ;)

Half of us aren't that bad ;)

CHOCO
Nov 16th, 2002, 04:42 PM
President Carter without a doubt is one of my alltime favorite presidents.

Barrie_Dude
Nov 16th, 2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by ptkten
no...it's not the typical American, it's the typical Republican American ;)

Half of us aren't that bad ;)

And You Just Proved The Point About How Arrogant All Americans Are!

Shane54
Nov 16th, 2002, 04:58 PM
Barrie Dude-stick to your posts about Jennifer:)

The "arrogant" crew": Myself, Jennifer, Lindsay, Serena, Venus, Chanda, Monica, Meghann,.....

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 04:59 PM
Oh yes, the USA should really keep up with their own mass destruction weapon development, while going into other countries saying that they can't do it :rolleyes:

The hypocracy sickens me, as much as do those who support it.

Sorry :)

Shane54
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:06 PM
Rebecca, no one is going into China or Israel and telling them to destroy. The most important point is who is in power. If Iraq had a stable peace seeking leader then there would be no problem. Yes, the U.S. is not perfect. But if we destroy our weapons, what will happen when Saddam is left with his. What we will do then? Liberals out there tell me? To just say let's all destroy our weapons is like saying "everybody throw away your medications and let's stop producing vaccines, then all the sickness and disease in the world will disappear" This is not Utopia folks.....Thank God there are some people out there that don't buy into all this crap liberals are tossing out there...and by the way I admit Jimmy Carter was a good man, but sucked as a president.

Barrie_Dude
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:12 PM
But The Point That Carter Wasw Making Is That As Wealthy As America is, They Are Dead Last In Providing Economic Aid To Developing Countries As Based On A Percentage Of GDP! And, If Thet Would Spend More Time In Helping These Developing Countries, They Would Have Fewer Problems! Besides, The Only Reason That America Cares About Iraq Is The Oil! If Thet Were Concerned About Every Country With A Ruthess Dictator, They Would Be Quitw Busy In Africa!

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:15 PM
I don't think that I was saying eveyrone should destroy their weapons.

I just dont' think that country A who has them, as the right to go into other countries and call for war, because country B also has them.

Its SO dumb, it baffles me.

*okay, i'm aware there is a little more to the war on iraq than that (aside from access to those rich oil feilds, money money money, of course), I'm generalizing*

Barrie_Dude
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:17 PM
Did You See Carter On Larry King Live/CNN Becca?

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:19 PM
nah, I didn't watch. I only watch if I happen to flick by and see someone interesting.

I saw Halle the other day, but that's totally irrelevant for this topic ;)

Shane54
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:19 PM
Yes, Barrie Dude good point. But none of those African countries have mass weapons of destruction. Yes, Sadamm has oil, but that will do the world absolutely no good if he goes mad and starts pushing the buttons to unleash his warheads. And as for foreign aid, I just "love" the idea that we give to nations and they use the money to fight against us, such as terrorist groups from Egypt and the middle east. The world screams how arrogant we are, but yet they say we don't aid enough. But they come to Uncle Sam for money.

I am just tired of people lambasting the U.S. We are not perfect and I don't agree with all its policies. But it sure seems we get alot of immigrants who make better new lives for themselves. I am sure you go to those people and ask them and they love this country....

ttaM
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:20 PM
If this is what Carter wants to believe, fine. But don't knock other President's foreign policies when his pretty much caused the Iran Hostage crisis. And the failed attempt to rescue the hostages ruined his image even more. The hostages weren't even released until R.R. got into office. I believe the captures even said they wouldn't release the hostages until Carter was out of office. Carter failed during his presidency. Many people in America at the time Carter was President didn't believe he had what it took to be a good, tough leader. His approval rating at one point was in the low 20's. Worse than what Nixon's was during his whole scandal.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:22 PM
I am just tired of people lambasting the U.S. We are not perfect and I don't agree with all its policies. But it sure seems we get alot of immigrants who make better new lives for ourselves. I am sure you go to those people and ask them and they love this country....

Well last time I checked immigrants came to Canada too. It isn't like the USA is the only country on earth that attracks immigrants. It certaintly doesn't give them anymore right to be in everyones business, everywhere, all the time :) I fail to see what people moving to the country to start a new life has to do with anything.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:23 PM
Just because his public approval ratings weren't very high, doesn't mean he is no longer entitled to an opinion on American policies in the present :rolleyes:

Barrie_Dude
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:25 PM
Look, I grew up in the States. Educated There. Love It There. Have Many, Many Friends And Relatives. But there is a flaw in the system when it comes to the USA. The only things they are taught there are from the American point of view, and, as a result, that is the only point of view that is tolerated. What Americans do not see is that there are different cultures out there, with different perspectives, differing points of view, all that are just as valid as the American point of view. And all the Americans do is waltz in when it suits them and do what they want to do, regardless of the consquences. Then, when something happens they are suprised.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:27 PM
Very nice post Barrie Dude, from someone who knows what they are talking about - having spent time in two different countries.

Anyhow - I've said what I had to say, my position is quite clear.

I'm not going to bother arguing and regurgitating what i do in every US foriegn policy thread.

Barrie_Dude
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:29 PM
Uhmmmmm....... Becca? Complimenting Me? On A Post? (Barrie Quickly Re Reads Post) "Where Is The Flaw In My Thinking?":rolleyes:

ttaM
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:36 PM
The Only Reason That America Cares About Iraq Is The Oil! If Thet Were Concerned About Every Country With A Ruthess Dictator, They Would Be Quitw Busy In Africa!

Most countries only care about Iraq for two things: Oil and Money. France and Russia, two countries who have strongly opposed military action, do so not because they care about the Iraqi people, but because they either have existing oil agreements with Iraq, or Iraq owes them money. Iraq owes Russia 7 billion dollars, do you think Russia would get that money if Sadam was gone? I don't think so. So the argument goes both ways.

Colin B
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by GoMonica
If this is what Carter wants to believe, fine. But don't knock other President's foreign policies when his pretty much caused the Iran Hostage crisis. And the failed attempt to rescue the hostages ruined his image even more. The hostages weren't even released until R.R. got into office.

The hostages where released because of delicate diplomacy by Carter; all ol' Ray-gun did was fly them home.
The attempted rescue raid did go wrong but as far as I recall, Jimmy wasn't flying the helicopters (that collided).

Scotso
Nov 16th, 2002, 05:54 PM
Go Jimbo! :D

Iconoclast
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Rebecca
I just dont' think that country A who has them, as the right to go into other countries and call for war, because country B also has them.

Its SO dumb, it baffles me.

Perhaps it does.

But you have to remember the historical context of the Iraq crisis. In 1991 the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 687 which ordered Iraq not to "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction. Practically the entire world, including Canada, supports the destruction of Iraqi biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

This is a non-issue. There's global agreement that the Ba'ath regime, which has a history of using nerve gas on its Kurdish population, should not be in possession of such devastating weapons. Therefore, accusations of hypocrisy against the United States are misguided.

It's simply not a case of the United States unilaterally wanting to disarm Iraq. As the newest U.N. resolution will also attest to.

Weapons inspectors will soon be back on the ground in Iraq, courtesy the Bush administration. Without the United States, and especially the thinly disguised threats of applying military force, this kind of progress would never have been achieved. The stalemate would still be effective, and Saddam could do whatever he pleased.

Hopefully, that will change soon.

Iconoclast
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Colin B
The hostages where released because of delicate diplomacy by Carter; all ol' Ray-gun did was fly them home.
The attempted rescue raid did go wrong but as far as I recall, Jimmy wasn't flying the helicopters (that collided).
It did take 444 days after all. But at least they came home alive. Personally, I find it hard to blame any one but the hostage takers for this ordeal. It took place for much more complicated reasons than Jimmy Carter, and it was practically impossible to solve militarily.

Iconoclast
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Barrie_Dude
What Americans do not see is that there are different cultures out there, with different perspectives, differing points of view, all that are just as valid as the American point of view. And all the Americans do is waltz in when it suits them and do what they want to do, regardless of the consquences. Then, when something happens they are suprised.
Sorry for interrupting your profound analysis of American society and the quality of its public discourse. But even to a non-American as myself it comes across as a rather narrow-minded view of the United States.

Hurley
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:17 PM
Barrie Dude has often made sweeping generalizations of all Americans which are best left ignored. :rolleyes:

ttaM
Nov 16th, 2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Colin B


The hostages where released because of delicate diplomacy by Carter; all ol' Ray-gun did was fly them home.
The attempted rescue raid did go wrong but as far as I recall, Jimmy wasn't flying the helicopters (that collided).

The hostages weren't released because of what you call "delicate diplomacy by Carter." Carter made the situation worse. After the take over Carter froze US assests into Iran, and halted oil imports. Later on he imposed a complete economic embargo with Iran. All of this made the Iranian's more upset. Add in the fact the rescue operation failed, a 2nd rescue operation would've been suicidal because the Iranian's were now on high alert. The hostages were free minutes after R.R. was sworn in as President.

And Carter is to blame for the failure of the operation. Pentagon planners surmised that what was needed was a simpler plan not involving the whole U.S. military.

Shane54
Nov 16th, 2002, 09:11 PM
Thank you Ionoclast for your posts! It is about time someone posts some fact based "real reason" why the U.S. is doing what it is doing. Thank you Go Monica for pointing out about Russia and France. Yet nobody is criticizing them. Thank you again Iono, your point about the B'aath regime is exactly what I was talking about. I think it says alot when polled that practically all Iraqi Americans want Sadaam out also.

I thank you Ionoclast again and you too GoMonica for some good ol' fashion common sense and logical posts. Too many time these days the world is missing that!

Hello Ionoclast and Go Monica:) :) :)

CHOCO
Nov 16th, 2002, 10:41 PM
President Carte was not a BAD president. In fact, one can argue next to President Kennedy he was the best in terms of his policies domestically. The fact that the Iranian hostage situation blew up in his face doesn't take away the many other good deeds he did in terms of his foreign policies.

One in particular that stands out is his outstanding job in brokering peace between Israel and Egypt and getting Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat to sign the peace accord in terms of Israel returning some land back to Egypt.

Also, he began to appoint Blacks and Woman to high positions in his cabinet and federal judges. Because of this, he made alot of enemies that to this day, they haven't forgiven him yet. President Carter was very progressive in his policies domestically. Also, he was definitely one of the most intelligent presidents that we ever had. Because of his military background, he knows of which he's talking. President Bush could only dream of the military background that President Carter has.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:08 PM
I thank you Ionoclast again and you too GoMonica for some good ol' fashion common sense and logical posts. Too many time these days the world is missing that!

Because those posts which disagree with yours are ILlogical? :rolleyes:

evadafan
Nov 16th, 2002, 11:51 PM
I CANNOT stand it when people bring up this "US Aid as a percentage of GDP" argument. Why? I'll tell you why. IT IS JUST ONE STATISTIC!!!! You have to add up all the things that the US does to contribute to the betterment of third world nations. One thing often ignored is the incredible amount of money put into US public universities where research and development has contributed a great wealth of information and technologies of medical, agricultural, environmental, and a host of other areas that improve the lives of the world's poor. Not to mention the millions of foreign students who come to the US for an education to then contribute to the betterment of their own lands.

It seems that most countries have a continual hand out and things like defeating the nazis and rebuilding europe just aren't enough. Of course, Jimmy would have probably just signed a "peace" treaty with Hitler after he controlled all of Europe and Africa.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:20 AM
Jimmy does have a point....even if you aren't willing to look at it.

Colin B
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Shane54
I thank you Ionoclast again and you too GoMonica for some good ol' fashion common sense and logical posts. Too many time these days the world is missing that!

PMSL

Shane, you're hilarious. I thought you guys weren't supposed to understand irony!

Colin B
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by GoMonica
The hostages were free minutes after R.R. was sworn in as President.

Precisely, the whole deal was 'done and dusted' whilst the Carter administration were in power but the Iranians, as an act of defiance, wouldn't free the hostages until he left office.
Incidentally, are you against the use of asset freezing and sanctions against Iraq?

And Carter is to blame for the failure of the operation. Pentagon planners surmised that what was needed was a simpler plan not involving the whole U.S. military.

The mission ended in an accidental collision between two aircraft; simple as that. I'm sure Jimmy would have had little hand in planning the fine details; that would be a military matter.

Colin B
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by evadafan

..... things like defeating the nazis and rebuilding europe just aren't enough. Of course, Jimmy would have probably just signed a "peace" treaty with Hitler after he controlled all of Europe and Africa.

Hey, don't forget the Russians - they lost more people in the fight against the Nazis than the rest of the allies put together (but then I doubt you will have been told about that)!
As every administration seems to have supported every right-wing, crack-pot dictator to have come along since WWII, I feel, sadly, that yes; one of them could well have signed such a treaty.

DeniseM
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:45 AM
What's news about President Carter's comments?

The U.S. has always been arrogant. Even if some Americans don't want to admit it.

Of course, there are also many good points about the Americans.

Canadians know only too well about the American's bad points, but even we can see their good points.

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:49 AM
Yes, we Americans have faults. But I am just as sure Canadians do but from comments from some of the Canadians here you would swear they were perfect. That to me sounds like arrogance also.

And just remember that there are thousands upon thousands of southern US citizens like myself who are of French-Canadian heritage. In fact, looking at my ancestral tree I am at least 85% French-Canadian

ttaM
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Colin B


Precisely, the whole deal was 'done and dusted' whilst the Carter administration were in power but the Iranians, as an act of defiance, wouldn't free the hostages until he left office.
Incidentally, are you against the use of asset freezing and sanctions against Iraq?



The mission ended in an accidental collision between two aircraft; simple as that. I'm sure Jimmy would have had little hand in planning the fine details; that would be a military matter.

There was no deal made between Carter and the Iranian's. The Iranian's just wanted to embarrass the hell out of Carter. If the Iranian's said to Carter, "We will let the hostages go if you leave office." Do you think Carter would have stayed one more day in office? The fact is the failed rescue attempt ended any negotiations between the two. And when Carter lost his reelection bid to Reagan in Nov. of '80, negotiations were started between the Reagan camp and the Iranian's. I believe the deal was to unfreeze the assets. So on the day Reagan was sworn in the hostages were set free. No deal was made between the Carter camp and the Iranian's

I never said I was against Carter freezing assests, etc. I stated those points to show the Iranian's were getting more upset at Carter for doing so, and were less willing to negotiate with him.

Carter was the mastermind behind the rescue attempt. The Commader-In-Chief has the final word in what goes. He wanted an operation that involved every military branch, and it failed. The US Military at that time isn't what it is today, or was even during the Reagan years.

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Rebecca

*okay, i'm aware there is a little more to the war on iraq than that (aside from access to those rich oil feilds, money money money, of course), I'm generalizing*

Of course there's a bit more to it than that. And I don't think it's to do with oil. The *really* cynical thing the US could have done is decide that Saddam is somehow a good guy, a friend in the war on terror, like those lovely Saudi rulers, and drop the sanctions against Iraq. The oil lobby would have bought this very happily, since it would have got them all that cheap oil.

I don't much like Bush, but these things *are* complex.

As for foreign aid, I heartily agree that rich countries such as the US, Canada and Australia should give more AS WELL AS trying to get rid of trade barriers.

disposablehero
Nov 17th, 2002, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by evadafan
I CANNOT stand it when people bring up this "US Aid as a percentage of GDP" argument. Why? I'll tell you why. IT IS JUST ONE STATISTIC!!!!

And an extraordinarily relevant one. So is "US Military spending as a percentage of GDP". I don't have the numbers, but I would bet if you spent 10% less on your military, you'd have enough money to triple your foreign aid. Guess its just easier to let them get pissed off at you and kill them then.

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 04:24 AM
Yeah, the world would really be a better place if the US spent less on its military. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!

I'm sure our allies would be thrilled by that (detect my sarcasm?).

Meanwhile you Canadians can continue to prosper due to the safety the US military has provided.

Every country wants more, more, more from the US. Then more, more, more of their people move here. Ah, we are so evil.

disposablehero
Nov 17th, 2002, 04:37 AM
evadafan, all of your comments in this thread remind me of how Rodney Garn described your recent election.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3842/wdyt_3842.html

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:06 AM
That's helpful disposable, your comments remind me of an envious Canadian. Meanwhile, all you Canucks can sit around your fires and talk about how the US has the nasty ol' George W. and the GOP while you all have the cold weather, mounted police, and the Stanley Cup. Oh, nevermind, the Red Wings have the Cup.

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:18 AM
Spend more money on foreign aid. ?????I say less foreign aid and more foreign trade. It really amazes me how "arrogant" we are..yadda, yadda, yadda, but yet these same people want us to give more aid. That is a bunch of crap. That is the problem in the U.S now too many people sitting on their lazy asses collecting checks. I am tired of supporting people like that off my taxes.
Oh, and disposable evadafan is right stop complaining and enjoy the protection that Canada gets. Let's see if Canada could go to war by itself. Guess who's gonna be coming to U.S. for help.

Oh and as for the recent elections people are starting to see through the "liberal" trash that is being preached....I thoroughly enjoyed the ass whipping Nov 5.

What's up evadafan?

Less foreign aid, more foreign trade
Out with Sadaam
More victims rights
Death penalty-alive and kickin'
Welfare reform
Strong national miltary
.....These are a few of my favorite things.......

disposablehero
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Shane54

Oh, and disposable evadafan is right stop complaining and enjoy the protection that Canada gets. Let's see if Canada could go to war by itself. Guess who's gonna be coming to U.S. for help.


This argument is asinine. You provide the assumption that all Canadians are happy with the irresponsible approach our governemtn has taken towards our military. A majority of us are demanding more.

But we also have the ability to understand that the military option can be often avoided by good foreign policy. Something your country seems increasingly more blinded to by the day.

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:25 AM
Yes I did read what Rodney Garn had to say .He sounded like an idiot...Sounds like sour grapes to me. He's pretty upset that people might be in danger of having to work for a living now instead leeching off the government. And I am pretty sure that is a liberal newspaper, because I can just as easily come up with those that are happy with the outcome.

Hey evadafan! You need to catch Rush, Bob O'Reilly, and No spin on conservative radio. It is down right awesome.

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:26 AM
Hey Shane!

I'm with ya'!

Lower taxes, less centralized government
Strong national defense
Open and free trade
Welfare and social security reform
More state's rights
And yes, protect the environment

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:27 AM
I love foxnews, finally an answer to the liberal bias in the media!

Special Report with Brit Hume is my favorite.

Hurley
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Shane54
Yes I did read what Rodney Garn had to say .He sounded like an idiot...Sounds like sour grapes to me. He's pretty upset that people might be in danger of having to work for a living now instead leeching off the government. And I am pretty sure that is a liberal newspaper, because I can just as easily come up with those that are happy with the outcome.

*blink* *blink*

You're so pretty. : hearts :

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:37 AM
Yes O'Reilly and some of them on fox news say they are independent. But we know better (wink)

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:57 AM
Listen, the White House needs to know that the US needs help and cooperation in terms of defeating terrorism. It can't take an unilateral approach to terrorism nor Iraq.

Some of these loud mouthed conservatives are the first to scream let's go to war yet they 've never served in the arm forces. They are willing to share other peoples' blood but their own.

If these conservatives don't watch out, they'll be thrown out like daddy Bush in 1993. When Clinton left office, there were billions of dollars in surplus. Now, the government has a multi-million doolar debt. How did that happen in such short time under a republican administration.

BTW, I hate Fox News, but I watch (wink wink) however, I love CNN (smile)

President Carter...you will always live in our hearts. You're a great humanitarian. How many US presidents have won the Nobel Peace prize twice besides Pres Jimmy Carter??

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:02 AM
Yes I am sure President Carter will live in the hearts of the "block vote" segment of the U.S. population....

....The Pied Piper of Hamlin keeps coming to mind on that one........

and BTW "loud mouth conservative"...and I guess the liberals are like Jesus-gentle, meek and mild???Laughing my ass off.......

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:05 AM
disposable - you're right on it about military spending.

I want a strong military but does the government needs to continue spending money on waste in terms of some of these defense contractors, robbing the goverment of literally millions of dollars.

The country is powerful enough to kill the world 100 times over with the weapons in our arsenal. It doesn't need to kill it 200 times. That money could go elsewhere ie. schools, jobs, infrastructure of cities and our friends abroad in development.

President Carter rocks!!

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:07 AM
"block vote" segment of the U.S. population....


What do you mean?

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:09 AM
You figure it out Choco...if you ever read the Pied Piper of Hamlin you made get it. Wink

You have to excuse me I am in a very feisty mood

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:27 AM
All I know is that A CERTAIN SEGMENT of the population didn't like President Carter at all after he beat the pants off the republican nominee in 1976. Also, they didn't like many of his appointees and domestic and foreign policies.

President Carter brokered peace between Israel and Egypt and won a Nobel Peace prize for his efforts. Now he has won another Nobel Peace prize for his good humanitarian works.

You can never confused peace and Bush together.

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 07:27 AM
with all due respect, I think Carter's contribution to the Israel-Egypt peace treaty is over-estimated. and as much as I still appreciate his contributaion, right now, what he looks to be doing most is kissing the European asses that gave him his new prize, and looking for a few more moments of media attention.
offering a viable alternative is one thing, but ignoring reality and throwing idealistic-but completly unhelpful "solutions" is another.

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 07:48 AM
Hey I girl. I forgot to mention some of my other favorite things is the nation of Israel. I am very pro-Israel! Shalom

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 08:06 AM
"with all due respect, I think Carter's contribution to the Israel-Egypt peace treaty is over-estimated."


How can it be 'over-estimated'? He was recognized all over the world for his efforts. It took great diplomacy for Carter to broker that agreement for Israel to return some of the land on the Sinai penisula. He took heat from both side yet he was determined to bring both sides together. Since then, not one US president has come close to achieving what Carter did between Israel and Egypt.

President Carter is a man of substance which is more than I can say about president Bush.

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 08:37 AM
I'll clarify: Carter played an important role in reaching the peace agreemant, but I still think his involvment is overestimated. I think the I-E peace treaty was the result of a number of factors, Carter's involvement not being the major one. don't get me wrong- I've always maintained (at the price of much disagreement with some of my fav americans on this board) that US involvement is CRUCIAL for any progress in the middle east. still, I think Carter was not "crucial" to that particular treaty. I think a very special situation was created back then in Israeli politics, that allowed for the acceptance of the "land for peace" formula by Israelis, and allowed for the treaty to be signed. that "situation" is what's at the core of this treaty, not Carter's endevours(sp). PM Begin was the all powerful leader of the the political right back then, and his party was not able to object to the sacrifices(sp) he was willing to make. the political left also recognized the importance of the moment, and rendered it's unconditional support, even at a grave political price (till this very day the political right in Israel uses every opportunity to remind the public that Israel's most important peace treaty was made by the political right, not the political left). at the other side you had Sa'adat. a brave leader, who, in all honesty, used his almost dictatorship powers to finally do some good. Carter was the "go-between" man, a very important role, but it wasn't him that enabled the agreement. just my thoughts on the subject, I'm sure many will disagree.

thanks Shane:).

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 08:43 AM
i-girl - I respect your opinion. (smile)

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 08:50 AM
that may not have been a very clear explanation. my feeling simply is that the I-E peace agreement was less the result of Carter's personality and political weight, than, say, the Oslo (B) agreements were the result of Clinton's involvevment. Clinton was so influential in those, he played such an important role. he himself was so liked and respected within the Israeli public, his very involvement "moved" the discussions. the Israeli people were simply more willing to trust an agreement reached by Clinton (it all ended quite badly, but that's a different story). that's the difference between him and Carter.

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 08:51 AM
thank CHOCO:). I guess the first explanation was clearer than I thought.

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:16 PM
no problem i-girl. (smile)

veryborednow
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:24 PM
I can't work out if Shane54 is taking the piss

Colin B
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:32 PM
Oh, I hope so!

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:13 PM
I have a question for the conservatives in this thread?

Are you socially conservative as well?

Such as.....

Do you favor women/gays in the military?

You support equal rights for gays?

Should women/blacks be allowed to vote?

Roe v Wade?

Brown v Board of Ed?

Jim Crow Laws

Civil War (and don't spout states rights....)

Just curious....because these are things Fox News (which you so love ;) <--wink that Fox News would love to make a point out of).

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:23 PM
do I count as a conservative in this thread? I'd like to think of it as realism.
anyway, I couldn't be less socially conservative.

(was this even a serious question? well, I answered anyway. I don't like to be called a conservative just because I'm not ignoring what I don't like to see just to be PC, and am not spoutting off meaningless "peace" slogans with no real substance).

Irish
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:36 PM
I agree with Evadafan, Shane, and I-girl.

I wonder if some Canadian posters do not know that their military is VERY involved with the US dealing with Iraq. I was deployed for four months and worked side by side with the Canadian military. Cannot tell anymore but believe me, these people are very much involved.

Irish
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:40 PM
And I am old enough to remember Carter's presidency and we counted the days until his term was over. Even Democrats in the US did not back him when he seeked reelection and he was slaughtered in the next election.

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 03:30 PM
If I recall, President Carter won the democratic nomination after his first term - so much for dissatisfaction from fellow democrats.

I also, the country went through a dark, lonely and terrible period under the presidency of Reagan. I'm not going to mention Iran-Contra.

Iconoclast
Nov 17th, 2002, 03:52 PM
Carter didn't receive the Peace Prize after Camp David. It was shared by Sadat and Begin.

The Chairman of the Nobel Committee, a Norwegian Social Democrat, succinctly stated that part of the decision to honor Carter should be interpreted as a criticism of Bush. Other members of the Committee denounced his statement, but it was an embarrassing revelation, nonetheless.

Earlier this year, another member of the Commitee publicly voiced her regrets about awarding the Prize to Shimon Peres in 1994. But his co-laureate that year, Yassir Arafat, did not upset her. Peres' crime was merely to be part of Sharon's coalition government.

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 04:13 PM
Carter awarded Nobel Peace Prize
Committee chief: Prize reflects criticism of current U.S. policy

ASSOCIATED PRESS

OSLO, Norway, Oct. 11 — Former President Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for his “decades of untiring effort” to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts and efforts to advance democracy and human rights. In an unusual move, the chairman of the award committee criticized President Bush’s Iraq policy.

Oct. 11 — The Nobel committee’s chairman made it clear that the award was also a statement against President Bush’s Iraq policy. NBC’s Tom Brokaw reports.

GUNNAR BERGE, the Nobel committee chairman, contrasted the 78-year-old Carter’s success in using diplomacy to negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel with Bush’s threats to use force against Iraq.
The award “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken,” he said. “It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee cited Carter’s “vital contribution” to the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt and his efforts in conflict resolution on several continents and the promotion of human rights after his presidency.
“In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development,” the citation said.
The award is worth $1 million.

BUSH CONGRATULATES CARTER
Bush called his predecessor to congratulate him, and the two spoke for a few minutes.
“It was a friendly conversation,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, adding that Bush was “pleased to be able to congratulate a former American president on winning such a prestigious award.”

When asked if Bush viewed the award as a barb aimed at his own campaign against Iraq, Fleischer replied “No,” without elaboration.
Although the committee has often used the prize to send a political message, it rarely makes such a direct comment. And Berge’s statements were not approved by other members of the committee.
The citation did not mention Iraq, and other members of the Nobel committee distanced themselves from Berge’s criticism of Bush, saying it was his own opinion and had not been part of the discussions leading to the prize.
“In the committee, we didn’t discuss what sort of interpretation of the grounds there should be. It wasn’t a topic,” committee member Hanna Kvanmo was quoted as telling the Norwegian news agency NTB.

‘FILLING VACUUMS’
In a statement posted on the Carter Center’s Web site, the 39th president said: “My concept of human rights has grown to include not only the rights to live in peace, but also to adequate health care, shelter, food, and to economic opportunity. I hope this award reflects a universal acceptance and even embrace of this broad-based concept of human rights.”

Earlier, Carter told CNN that when he left the White House he decided to “capitalize on the influence I had as the former president of the greatest nation of the world and decided to fill vacuums.” Carter refused to comment on Bush’s Iraq policy.
Carter has said his most significant work has been through the Carter Center, an ambitious, Atlanta-based think tank and activist policy center he and wife, Rosalynn, founded in 1982 and which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year.

CAMP DAVID: A CROWNING ACHIEVEMENT
Perhaps his crowning achievement as president was the peace treaty he negotiated between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Premier Menachem Begin. Carter kept them at Camp David for 13 days in 1978 to reach the accord; Sadat and Begin shared the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel committee said Carter, who was in the White House from 1977-1981, didn’t share in that prize because he wasn’t nominated in time.
The five-member committee made its decision last week after months of secret deliberations as it sought the right message for a world still dazed by the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the war on terrorism that followed and concern about a possible U.S. military strike against Iraq.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, one of this year’s nominees, had called a press conference in Kabul in advance of the announcement, but ended up congratulating Carter.
“He deserved it better than I, and he won it, and I’ll try for next year,” he said at his presidential palace in Kabul.
Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio said the prize was “a just reward” and “wholly deserved.” He singled out Carter’s efforts to find a peaceful solution for East Timor, a former Portuguese colony annexed by Indonesia.

ROLE AS ‘PEACEMAKER’
Carter, a Democrat and former Georgia governor, rose from a small-town peanut farmer to the nation’s presidency in 1976 after a campaign that stressed honesty in the wake of the Watergate controversy.
But he returned home after a landslide loss to Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980, his candidacy undermined by double-digit inflation, an energy crunch that forced Americans to wait in line for gasoline, and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran.






Monday on 'Donahue'
• Is war with Iraq the best thing for America? Or do al-Qaida and the struggling economy deserve sharper focus? Join Phil with a live studio audience. On 'Donahue'. Monday at 8 p.m. ET, 7 p.m. CT.








Carter overcame the voter repudiation and has doggedly pursued a role on the world stage as a peacemaker and champion of democracy and human rights.
He helped defuse growing nuclear tensions in Korea, then helped narrowly avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti in 1994, as well as leading conflict mediation and elections monitoring efforts around the world.

A WEEK OF PRIZES
Last year’s award was shared by the United Nations and its secretary-general, Kofi Annan.


2002 Nobel Prizes


• Medicine: 'Cell death' research recognized
• Physics: Researchers study X-rays, neutrinos
• Chemistry: Protein work helps fight disease
• Economics: Advances in decision-making theory
• Literature: Hungarian novelist honored
• Peace: Prize for Carter; message for Bush






The peace prize announcement capped a week of Nobel prizes after the awards for literature, medicine, physics, chemistry and economics were announced in Sweden’s capital, Stockholm.
The Norwegian Nobel committee received a record 156 nominations - 117 individuals and 39 groups - by the Feb. 1 deadline.
The list remains secret for 50 years, but those who nominate sometimes announce their choice with known nominees this year including Karzai, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The first Nobel Peace Prize, in 1901, honored Jean Henry Dunant, the Swiss founder of the Red Cross.
The prizes were created by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel in his will and always are presented on Dec. 10, the anniversary of his 1896 death.

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 04:28 PM
VS fan some of your question you ask conservatives were fair, but I think some were just down right silly. Like the one should blacks/ women be allowed to vote. You are seriously demented if you think just because someone is Republican that they believe that way. That is absolutely ludicrous. As a gay male, I do believe anyone should be allowed in military. However, keep your shit to yourself. If you want to go and flaunt it and say "Hey girl, this and hey girl that" your ass deserves to be out the military. I believe in equal rights for all people, but not "EXTRA" rights.

Oh and by the way back to the women/black questions- there is a growing number of women and surprisingly black Conservatives. This is due to the fact of the growing upper middle classes of both groups.

I believe in abortion for rape and incest but I am against it as a form of birth control. Partial birth-tell me the justification-it is absolutely disgusting.

I think it is really ashamed that the media has misguided so many people into this image of conservatives. And some people are buying it. I am proud to be a conservative and will make no apologies.

I believe in:
NO gun control-I have the right to defend my home
Less government
Welfare reform-Go to work you lazy f***
Strong national defense
Ban on partial birth abortion
Death penalty-alive and kickin'
Victims rights-We love you Doris Tate(Late Mother of the Forever Beautiful Sharon Tate)
Equal rights for all groups-Gays, Black, Whites, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.....But NO Extra rights


RONALD REAGAN-THE GLORY YEARS! GOP Forever baaabbbbyyy!

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 04:39 PM
Let's see if Canada could go to war by itself. Guess who's gonna be coming to U.S. for help.


Well, this was a totally useless comment. Seeing as Canada is so militant and always looking for another country to go to war with and all.

Gee it is good we have the USA on our side, for all those countries we are always trying to go to war with.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 04:41 PM
I wonder if some Canadian posters do not know that their military is VERY involved with the US dealing with Iraq. I was deployed for four months and worked side by side with the Canadian military. Cannot tell anymore but believe me, these people are very much involved.

I am aware of when our military goes to help. I do have freinds in the military or navy up here.

Thanks for assuming we are all ignorant, however.

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:30 PM
VSFan,

I agree with Shane that some of your questions are absolutely absurd in their insinuations. I know of no conservatives who wish to deny blacks and women the right to vote. in fact, Republican Congressional candidates only lost the female vote in this past election by 2%.

I am strongly in favor of women in the military, and I think any draft should also include women. As for gays, I support the don't ask, don't tell policy.

I support equal rights for all, but not special rights as Shane also mentioned. Why should the government make laws that apply especially to one group of people? Also, the gov't must be careful not to trample private rights of individuals.

I am pro-life, but of course there are exceptions. I don't know about going back on roe v. wade, but I definitely support a ban on partial-birth abortion.

Brown v. Board of Ed. and Jim Crow are again ridiculous and absurd questions. I also know of no one who would go back to the "old way."

And civil war? I'm not sure how that applies, but since you threw it in I'll give my opinion. I think the southern states had the constitutional right to secede. As did the border states such as Kentucky and Maryland where Lincoln imposed military rule (IN US STATES!) and imprisoned a large portion of the state legislature.

As to the slavery aspect of it, the southern states lived under a system that was supported by all US states up until the civil war. The more industrial North kept the South reliant on this system by not allowing free trade so that they would have cheap raw goods for northern factories. In fact, Lincoln at the start of the war was insistent that he was not out to free the slaves, only to restore the union. His emancipation proclamation did not apply to the border states that remained in the union, and a large percentage of the union army deserted at word of the proclamation. This points to something other than slavery as a reason for the war. Had the South won the war (which was really impossible given fewer industrial resources and Lincoln's military occupation of border states) the slaves likely would have been freed before 1900, given that most Southerners did not own slaves and many poor and middle class Southerners were growing distasteful of the slavery system before the war. Also, any hope of commerce with the rest of the world, would have forced an end to slavery.

Now to what I'm sure you are getting at, the flag issue. I do not support this elimination of historical symbols such as the Conf. battle flag from our society. I realize the flag is used by rednecks and klansmen and I find that repugnant. Maybe you should ask senior Senate Democrat Robert Byrd, a former KLANSMAN, how he feels about it. The US flag is also used in marches by the Klan (if they still march, I think the Klan is breathing its last breaths thankfully) , should we make a new US flag because the Klan chooses to use it??? When slaves were brought to this nation, they were largely brought by NEW ENGLAND ships and of course under the US flag, not the confederate flag. No slave ever came to this country under a confederate flag. I think the confederate flag is a historical symbol that should be preserved because it is a part of what we are and a symbol of yes, you got it, states' rights.

DeniseM
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:56 PM
I don't quite know how this turned into a Canada vs US thread.

Shane? Huh, Canada, in case you didn' t know it, has lost huge numbers of its own Canadian young men in wars. No, those weren't American soldiers dying for us. They were Canadian soldiers dying for the British, Dutch, Belgias, French, etc.

You didn' have to flee to Louisiana from Canada. Guess how many American blacks had to flee here!!!

Oh, let's not even mention double standards. Americans own so much of our country it is just ridiculous. They insist it is their right. But if there were anything even close to the same kind of ownership of American industries there would be an American outcry!!! And don't even try to tell me otherwise.

Oh, should I add that if an American in Main went to get gas a few kilometres across a border that crosses a town, and failed to go to customs because it was closed, and was arrested, don't tell me there wouldn't have been a huge outrage if he had to spend even one night in jail. Colin Powell would never had stood for it. Yet in the corresponding situation, the Americans think nothing of leaving the Canadian in jail for days and days.

Oh, there are many, many good things about the U.S. It's probably because of that --- and to a large extent because individual Americans can be great people --- that we think highly of them, DESPITE what they so often do.

DeniseM
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:59 PM
evadafan, the Confederate flag was a symbol for supporting racism long before the Klan. Oh, I acknowlege other issues were involved. Such as the States' rights. But racism was very much part of it back then too.

It isn't a Klan appropriation. The flag always had disgusting racist overtones.

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:24 PM
Denise, that is impossible given the Klan started pretty much right after the end of the war. But it has been used as a symbol of racism by other groups, and I again find that repugnant.

On another note about US humanitarian aid: I'm sure those statistics do not account for the great amount of non-profit and private tax dollars that flow into humanitarian aid from the US. I wonder how the figure would work out if all of this were included.

disposablehero
Nov 17th, 2002, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by DeniseM
Shane? Huh, Canada, in case you didn' t know it, has lost huge numbers of its own Canadian young men in wars. No, those weren't American soldiers dying for us. They were Canadian soldiers dying for the British, Dutch, Belgias, French, etc.


Denise, be fair. The Americans did eventually show up before those wars were over. The only reason they waited for us to soften the enemy up is because the lives of American boys are more valuable than our own. Surely you can respect that.

DeniseM
Nov 17th, 2002, 07:49 PM
evadafan, you're getting your time line backwards.

It doesn't matter when the Klan adopted it.

The Confederate flag was already a symbol of racism before the Klan came on the scene. It was a symbol of racism to other people.

And does it not occur to you that ONE of those "States Rights" that was being fought for just happened to be the "right" for a state to be racist, have laws that keep blacks down, and have slavery? There might have been some good "States Rights". But those "States Rights" were not all the good noble sounding things some people would like to make them out to be.

DeniseM
Nov 17th, 2002, 07:54 PM
I see your point disposable hero.

And the Americans have done so much for Switzerland. Just think of all the huge sums of money that are in Switzerland only because the Americans have paid so many Latin and South American dictators and generals to suppress democracy in that part of the world. It is only misguided individuals who think that has anything to do with American business and commercial interests making profit there. All the thousands and thousands of people who have been tortured, murdered, or otherwise suffered, were just unfortunate side effects. It is just American generosity to Switzerland. We should focus on that generosity. Huge sums have ended up in secret Swiss bank accounts.

And isn't that awfully generous of the U.S.?

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 08:53 PM
My time line is in order, Denise.

And I do realize that the southern states were fighting for a continuance of their (at least the wealthy) way of life, which included slavery. But the "laws to keep blacks down" were not unique to the South. I don't think blacks had a many rights in the north either. And as I said before, Lincoln repeatedly denied that he was fighting the war to free the slaves, and even offered the states peace if they would return to the union still with the institution of slavery. Lincoln realized freeing the slaves was what he had to do to win the war and bring the nation back together after the conflict. So it's a little misleading to say they were fighting for slavery, when they could have kept their slaves and returned peacefully to the union.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Nov 17th, 2002, 09:44 PM
Shane.....since you think that gay people should be kicked out for "promoting" their sexuality, do you feel the same way for heterosexual males and females talking about pussy and dick (respectively) all the time? I can understand your view as long as you are consistent with both people ;) <---- wink

I agree.....special rights should not be granted to gays, but EQUAL rights should. I think that is the mass opinion of gays and lesbians fighting for the end of "banning open gays in the military".


Now, about my pre-civil rights question. I live in SC, which happens to be about the most conservative state (aside from Mississippi) and now MANY MANY MANY people that would love to bring back the days of segregation and all that good stuff.

Being white, I'm not sure what a black person feels like living here, but many of my friends are black and can identify me, as an open gay man in the south just like a black man/woman in the south.

This whole confederate flag issue is a hot topic in SC. As a matter of fact, the retiring 100 yr old Strom Thurmond fought against the civil rights bill in the 1950's, thus the state of SC put the confederate flag on top of the statehouse as a sign of "the ******s don't deserve special rights."

I can understand being fiscally conservative, as I do agree on many points regarding that. However, when it comes to basic human rights, however trite they may be, I support equality NO MATTER WHAT.

Since the majority of repulicans and dixiecrats here don't support that, I am always on the offensive against conservatives, so please don't take any offense from my words.

;) <------another wink

Irish
Nov 17th, 2002, 10:57 PM
lol@Rebecca :bounce:

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 11:12 PM
Hey Evadafan!

VS fan,
I also agree about equal rights. As for the military, it is ok to be gay, I just don't believe you have to go and promote it. Just like when I go workout at the gym I don't have a sign saying "I'm a fag". I have a problem with gay men who go around acting like nelly, sissy queens. And unfortunately that is the image we have to overcome. Just act like a real man and you'll be fine in the military.

Oh and by the way Virginia I would consider the most conservative state WINK

As for the civil war stuff I will leave to evadafan. I don't feeling like going into that one and typing another page or two....

VS fan, Oh and by the way Republicans do support equal rights. I believe that no group deserves extra rights. So don't make accusations based on lies from the media that you and half the country have been brainwashed with.


Hey Evadafan! Good posts dude

CHOCO
Nov 18th, 2002, 06:35 AM
:)

LucasArg
Nov 18th, 2002, 07:17 AM
Kudos to Carter.:)

Halardfan
Nov 18th, 2002, 11:01 AM
We need to be focuded in our views to realise that liberal opinion around the world NEEDS a strong LIBERAL America...meaning that we should avoid blanket attack of the US which would alienate the tens of millions of liberal Americans.

That said we should spare no venom when its comes to Conservative America, which is obsessed with spending an obscene amout of money on 'defence', defending corrupt big business, while allowing the country to have an health service outperformed by Cuba's!

Generally speaking, Carter talks a lot of sense. Look too, at someone like Michael Moore, I don't agree with all he says, but he is a welcome radical voice coming out of America.

Less Defence spending,
Outright bans on Guns,
Greater investment in Health care and Education,
Facing up to the west's responsibilities in the 'third world'

These are a few of MY favourite things... ;)

i-girl
Nov 18th, 2002, 11:13 AM
I think gun control, health and education are American people's business. I wouldn't accept anyone telling me how Israel's health system should work. it's an internal thing. as for the war of Iraq, I've said it before: who says objecting to the war with Iraq makes you liberal? I consider myself a liberal, and I think this war is necessary. out of touch with reality does not equal liberal.

Halardfan
Nov 18th, 2002, 11:36 AM
The fact is, America is the most powerful country there is, and its direction affects the fate of all of us...its current conservative direction on a whole range of issues, domestic and international, must be of immense worry to the world, and we are certainly enititled to comment on it.

My list of 'favourite things' I would like to see apply to us all, not merely the US... :)

i-girl
Nov 18th, 2002, 12:07 PM
I agree outsiders can comment, but internal matters are just that- internal. Americans have the right to choose whichever internal policy they'd like. I think we would all agree they don't have the same right with regard to their foreign policy.
Chris, ofcourse you can have an opinion on gun control etc., I do too, but it's none the less "their business". Iraq isn't only their business.

gentenaire
Nov 18th, 2002, 12:34 PM
Gun control may be an internal issue, the way people think about internal issues affects the way they think about foreing policies. When you feel everyone should be allowed to own a gun, you basically say that everyone's allowed to take justice in their own hands, that violence is the best manner of defense. This viewpoint is still the same when talking about foreign issues.

i-girl
Nov 18th, 2002, 12:43 PM
that might be true, but still- the US gun control policy is an internal thing, and they have a right to choose whichever policy they want. anyone can critise, but it's only their decision.
I don't think we're in real disagreement here, Tine. I agree everything's up for discussion, but at the end of the day some things are simply not up to us, and shouldn't be up to us.

Josh
Nov 18th, 2002, 12:50 PM
Noga, I hope you agree with me that the right of the Iraqi people to choose their own leader if it comes to a war and Saddam is overthrown is an internal issue. I read somewhere that you said something about Hassan of Jordan becoming head of state of Iraq so I hope that was just an opinion and that the Americans (or NATO or UN or whoever is behind this) Haven't already decided to impose him onto the Iraqi's without consulting them first. Surely it's up to the people of Iraq to elect their own leader, just like Cubans have the right to support Castro (and communism) even if the US is not pleased with that, right? ;)

gentenaire
Nov 18th, 2002, 12:50 PM
If you feel we shouldn't be allowed to judge the US's internal issues, then we shouldn't judge internal issues in other countries either. So we should let dictators rule their country as they wish, let them abuse their own people and not breathe a word of it?

gentenaire
Nov 18th, 2002, 12:52 PM
jinx, Josh :D

i-girl
Nov 18th, 2002, 01:10 PM
no, Josh, it's not right. it's also a deliberate attempt to missunderstand me. Chris was criticising the war on Iraq and the american health care system in the same breath, and I was pointing out the difference. the US gun control policy does not affect your safety Josh (unless you're visiting the state, which makes it a risk you choose to take). you can dislike it all you like, but it has no affect no you. the person Iraqis choose to lead them (and I did not say they don't have the right to choose who will replace Saddam) affects everyone. yes, it's technically internal, but it's everyone's business. listen, I don't feel like starting all this again with you. it's exactly like the "why is it more dangerous to the world if Iraq and Iran might have the atom bomb than if the US has it" argument. pointless. you know exactly what the difference between the west's internal policy and Iraq's internal policy is. Iraq's internal policy includes attacking it's own citizens with chemical weapons. maybe hitler's concentration camps, the ones inside germany, were also an internal matter which the world should not have interfered with? I can't stand it when you ignore the obvious Josh. I'll spell it out: most internal things are a country's own business, some times they're not. if the US decided to go back to slavery tomorrow, I think even you would agree that's something the rest of the world should do something about. it's the same with Saddam. it's not the same with the american health care system.

Josh
Nov 18th, 2002, 01:36 PM
Sorry Noga but I disagree with you.

What's the real reason for this weapon inspections in Iraq?
The fact is that at the moment the US and Israel control the Middle East. Why? Because no Arab country can measure itself military against those two countries. If Iraq should have an atomic bomb or other weapons of mass destruction it would completely change the middle eastern policy because the Palestinians would be backed by a nation which posesses the same kind of weapons as the US and Israel. It's foolish to believe that Iraq will all of a sudden decide to use its atomic bomb or its long range missiles out of nowehere against any other country because they would simply be crushed. Saddam is a horrible dictator but he certainly isn't stupid. Yes he would use his weapons in case of a war but which country wouldn't? But I repeat it, the fact that they were creating weapons of mass destruction was for the same reason as the US, Israel or any other country posesses them : to scare others and to gain a better position during negotiations.

Yes you might point out that Saddam has shown signs of aggression and barbaric behaviour during the war aginst Iran, the killings of thousands of Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait. But let's not forget that he was an ally of teh west during the war against Iran, Iran was the big evil back then. And most of the technology and weaponry he posesses now, come from a time when he was supported by the west.

He also killed thousands of Kurds by using chemical and biological weapons (for which the technology was given to him by the west) but at the time of the war against Iran nobody cared. But now all of a sudden he fell out of the West's grace and we need reasons to justify a war. Note : I think it's a justified reason but I hate the hypocrisy of the West. When it suited them, they didn't care, now when it suits them, they do care but only for their own reasons not because they necessarily care about those killings.

Yes he invaded Kuwait but again this was at a time he was still allied with the West. He thought that the West wouldn't care about him invading Kuwait. Let's just say he thought they would see it as a "present" for his war against Iran. Well they did care and Saddam all of a sudden became a horrible and dangerous dictator. Can you spell hypocrisy?

The MAIN reason why the US doesn't want Iraq to have these kind of dangerous weapons is because of the fact that it would change its dominance in the Middle East. It's easy really, if you wanna control a region, be sure that all players in that region are weak so that you can enforce your dominance. And we all know that the Middle East is extremely important for the economy because of all the oil.

Why would the US allow Pakistan and India to have nuclear weapons? Is Pakistan so much more trustworthy than Iraq? I seriously doubt it. It would take one coup of a fanatic army general and all those A-bombs would be under his control. Not exactly a pleasant thought either uh?
But then again, Pakistan is not a real threat for the Middle East or Israel since it's worst enemy is India. So if Pakistan would ever use it's A-bombs it would be on India and that's much less important to the US.

I can certainly understand that you as an Israeli don't like the thought of Saddam controlling nuclear weapons or any weapons at all for that matter, because of what he did to your country during the Gulf War. Frankly, I don't like Saddam any more than you do and it would be much better if he was removed. But we must understand the real reasons for these weapon inspections instead of always believing popaganda. It sounds much nicer to say that a war against Iraq is necessary in the fight against terror and that it's necessary for the safety of all than to say that's it's necessary for strategic reasons.

You asked why it's more dangerous for Iraq to have an A-bomb than the US.....well imagine you're a Palestinian and the same question is asked to you...What would his answer be? :)

Josh
Nov 18th, 2002, 01:39 PM
Also the fact that we are made to believe that Iraq might sell its weapons to terrorists for attacks on the West is rather far-fetched. The CIA and other intelligence agencies have tried to link the recent waves of terror with the Iraqi regime but have failed.

I would be more concerned about those former Soviet states to be honest. They have all inherited military bases fom the Soviet time and many posess weapons they should really have. Plus security is not what it should be so it would be really easy for terrorists to buy or even steal weapons over there.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Nov 18th, 2002, 01:58 PM
LOL@Virginia being more conservative than SC

We could even argue about that Shane!

Anyways, the "flaunting" queers are who they are. I don't think anyone should have a problem with it, because that is who they are, such as the "redneck" boys down here or the "aristocratic" yankees.

That is what makes US, as Americans the best in the world - we are all different and manage to live together in a peaceful world. Thank GOD we both have differing opinions, otherwise this nation as we know it would be like Red China.

I am a bit bothered by your sterotypical roles for men and women. I am an effeminate man. Do I chose this? Absoultely not, but it is just what comes out of me when I am myself.

Am I proud of myself? You bet, and I would NEVER EVER let anyone think differently. In order to succeed, you have to believe in yourself, and with your notion that gay men should act like "real" men is very disturbing and creates the typical homophobia that currently exists in the military, which is a micrococism(sp?) of the nation as a whole.

Not all people are made alike - but we are all equal and should be treated as so regardless.

i-girl
Nov 18th, 2002, 01:59 PM
I don't care how Saddam got his weapons. I don't care if in the past he got away with Using Chemical weapons on his own people. all that matters is that he has dangerous weapons now, even more dangerous weapons coming up, and he doesn't have any restraints as to using them.
I'm not more worried as an Israeli about Saddam's weapons. I don't enjoy the thought of once again sitting in shelters with a gass mask, but right now he doesn't have enough to really hurt us. it's what he's planning to have in the future that worries me, and if he gets to where he wants to be, that's a problem to everyone. if you think Saddam wouldn't be a lot more willing to use an atom bomb than western countries, you don't have a very firm grasp on reality. how many conflicts were the US and Israel involved in where they never even dreamed of Using the A-bomb? do you think Saddam will do the same when faced with a conflict? do you really think that Iraq only wants it to defend itself "just like any country"? well, we've been having to defend ourselves for years now and never used the bomb. Saddam will.
control over oil? control over the middle east? maybe. I'm not any more naive about this conflict than you. all the other motives don't change the core of the problem: this man is capable of anything and he's getting too close to having the abilities to cause serious demage.

and this has nothing to do with my point about the american health and eduaction systems.

Josh
Nov 18th, 2002, 02:14 PM
I just wonder what makes you say this Noga :

this man is capable of anything and he's getting too close to having the abilities to cause serious demage.

Can you prove his intentions of using the A-bomb? Or are you basing this only on his previous actions, in casu, yhe use of chemical weapons and other weapons on his own people and during the war with Iran and Gulf War?

Cause if you're basing this on previous actions you could say the same about the US. Look at what they did in Vietnam and they did use nuclear devices during the Gulf War to destroy Iraqi tanks causing many areas in Iraq to be radioactive. Also the US is the only country to have used the A-bomb in history. Not once...but twice. So unless your opinion on Saddam is based on proofs rather than on sentiments, that observation is pretty void I would say.

NOTE : Saddam can of course not be compared to any US president in terms of democracy but sentiments or intuition are not good enough to start a war.

I don't think Iraq should have nuclear weapons or any other chemical or biologican weapons just as I would like to see any other country destroy these kind of weapons. But I admit that in today's context that would be rather naive.

i-girl
Nov 18th, 2002, 02:29 PM
I've edited this post because I have no idea what the hell I was thinking, talking about what I did in the army. it's a criminal offense as well as an incredibly irresponsible thing to do. (I left the second part of my post)

you really don't have to be in the Israeli army to see through this man.
and the US' willingness to use the bomb in the past (in a world war, let's not forget) is no indication for their views today. I don't believe there's any western country in the world today that would use the bomb as anything other than a last resort. Saddam will use it way before.
do you seriously believe what you're saying Josh? if you seriously believe that Saddam and the US share the same concern for human life, then there's no point in us arguing.

i-girl
Nov 18th, 2002, 02:42 PM
I'm leaving this argument now, because no one on this board can upset me like you Josh. not to mention the fact that if anyone saw my last post besides you I might have to hide out in belgium for a while.

Halardfan
Nov 18th, 2002, 02:53 PM
i-girl, I didn't actually mention Iraq specifically in my post...rather I was suggesting that in general the US (and some other western countires for that matter) spend a good deal too much of 'defence'...Im not a pacifist, and I do see the need for strong armed forces, sometimes they can be a force for good in the world, and sometimes the moral choice IS to intervene...but while Bush spends an obscene fortune on his new military toys, while hands out tax cuts to the already wealthy, his health care system continues to miserably fail the poorest is in his society, he intorduces all manner of curbs on civil liberties, yet is timid over even mild anti-gun laws, and on the environment, on weapons proliferation, the man is nothing short of a disaster...

He is the puppet of corrupt big business, the NRA, the evangelical chrsitians and a bunch of other "stupid white men" :)

My arguement is not with America but with the right wing there and elsewhere.

Josh
Nov 18th, 2002, 06:50 PM
I didn't see your reply Noga cause I got disconnected lol. :o

So I don't know what you wrote about the army but let's not forget that the army uses an immense propaganda system to motivate its people for war and to convince them from the fact that what they are doing is right. Don't get me wrong, the army is sometimes necessary but they need to motivate their people against an enemy.

And like I said earlier, in no way Saddam's regime can be compared to any US president but does that mean he will use the A-bomb? I doubt it.
However I agree with you that having him removed would be much better for the region. I just hope that removing him will not result in installing a puppet of the West in his place.

Josh
Nov 18th, 2002, 06:56 PM
And then to stick to the topic cause we got a bit carried away from the original subject lol.

The US arrogant? There's some truth in it but let's not forget that they are the only superpower left. They are always the ones that take the decision/act and others follow simply because others are not interested or too indecisive. The EU is too divided and thus too weak to act, China is more interested in its own economic development and Russia is simply too weak. So that leaves only the US to act and certainly some may perceive some arrogance in their actions. It would probably be better, not just for the rest of the world but also for the US, if they had a partner that's equal to them.

Barrie_Dude
Nov 18th, 2002, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by evadafan
My time line is in order, Denise.

And I do realize that the southern states were fighting for a continuance of their (at least the wealthy) way of life, which included slavery. But the "laws to keep blacks down" were not unique to the South. I don't think blacks had a many rights in the north either. And as I said before, Lincoln repeatedly denied that he was fighting the war to free the slaves, and even offered the states peace if they would return to the union still with the institution of slavery. Lincoln realized freeing the slaves was what he had to do to win the war and bring the nation back together after the conflict. So it's a little misleading to say they were fighting for slavery, when they could have kept their slaves and returned peacefully to the union.

To be fair, there were other things involved in the war besides slavery. At the time, much of the south was agriculuturial and grew a great deal of cotton, tobacco, and sugar which were shipped to New York, Boston and Philedelphia to be shipped overseas. It was these people that dictated the prices. The brokers that were buying the goods were actually making more money than the farmers.

As well, things were really not much better for blacks in other parts of the country. Granted, thet were not actually "owned", but do you realize that people like Nat King Cole and Ella Fitzgerald were allowed to perform at places like the Waldorf Astoriain New York, but were not allowed to stay there? And this was ad late as the 1950's?

CHOCO
Nov 18th, 2002, 09:40 PM
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20021118/capt.1037658392.bush_carter_noble_prize_pmm109.jpg
President Jimmy Carter, center, listens as President Bush (news - web sites), left, speaks during a reception for U.S. 2002 Nobel Laureates in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Nov. 18, 2002 in Washington. President Carter was the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Peace and to the far left is Riccardo Giacconi, from Washington, DC., who was the recipient of the Noble Prize in Physics. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)



http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20021118/mdf151845.jpg
President George W. Bush (news - web sites) (R) speaks with former President Jimmy Carter, winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, as Bush met with Nobel laureates November 18, 2002 in the Oval Office. Carter, 78, won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his 'untiring effort' to resolve international conflicts peacefully and to advance democracy and human rights

CHOCO
Nov 18th, 2002, 10:25 PM
President Bush Meets with Nobel Laureates
Remarks by the President in Photo Opportunity with Nobel Laureates
The Oval Office



3:17 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: It's my honor to welcome this year's Nobel laureates to the Oval Office. Of course, I welcome somebody who spent a lot of quality time here. President Carter and Mrs. Carter, we're so honored to have you, as well as the other distinguished Americans who are here with us.

These Americans are a great honor to their fields and a great honor to our country. And we're proud to have you here. We're proud for what you've done, for not only America but the world. And we're proud for your contributions.

And I want to thank the ambassadors from Sweden and Norway for coming here, as well. Ambassadors, thank you for being here. All Americans take great pride in the accomplishments of these good folks. We'll be watching the news clips of the ceremonies. We will be -- we will be with you there in spirit.

And once again, we thank you and your families for your dedication to the greatest country on the face of the earth. And may God bless your work and may God bless your further endeavors. Thank you all very much.

Iconoclast
Nov 18th, 2002, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Josh
Also the fact that we are made to believe that Iraq might sell its weapons to terrorists for attacks on the West is rather far-fetched.
Although I doubt a meaningful link between Iraq and al-Qaeda can be established, I wouldn't call these speculations particularly far-fetched.

Iraq already funds and encourages terrorism against Israel through the Arab Liberation Front as a means to forward its image in the region.

They have also trained and armed PLF 'activists' who used their new-learned skills for attacks on civilians in Haifa and on the West Bank. The PLF headquarter is in Iraq, and their leader Abu Abbas resides there

It also housed Abu Nidal for a number of years despite demands from Jordan to extradite him. The Jordanians wanted to execute him for one of the many murderous operations carried out by the Abu Nidal Organization. In August of this year, he was suddenly found dead by Iraqi authorities who claimed he had committed suicide.

According to an article in the Telegraph of London, he was killed for refusing an order from Saddam Hussein to train al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. But no solid evidence is presented to back up the claim.

I think the Iraqis killed him for being a security liability who could link them to terror. They are fully capable of funding terror. And they have armed terrorists in the past. But they are very careful about the targets. Saddam knows that an attack on Western soil could prompt serious retaliation, while support of Palestinian terror will be largely ignored.

The revelation of the alleged plot to kill George Sr. has already brought him a lot of trouble. And it clearly hasn't steered the current President of the U.S. towards a more lenient position.

I'm certain that he would like to hit American and British targets. But he dares not. However, if he can covertly support terrorists, he will. But right now, he's probably not willing to take the chance.

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

Iconoclast
Nov 18th, 2002, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Tine
When you feel everyone should be allowed to own a gun, you basically say that everyone's allowed to take justice in their own hands, that violence is the best manner of defense. This viewpoint is still the same when talking about foreign issues.
I personally prefer to live in a society where the number of guns in the hands of private citizens is as low as possible. I wouldn't like to get in a heated argument with my neighbour and end up it losing it because he suddenly wants to fire supersonic pellets from his caliber .357 Magnum into my skull.

But I disagree with your interpretation of what it means to allow private gun ownership. Vigilantism is not implicitly sanctioned. And it isn't necessarily implied that violence is the best manner of defense. Violence can serve as one form of defense - and, occasionally, it's the most effective. Think of pepper sprays and dark alleys.

Iconoclast
Nov 18th, 2002, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Josh
And like I said earlier, in no way Saddam's regime can be compared to any US president but does that mean he will use the A-bomb? I doubt it.
I doubt it too. But I think we need to know. We owe that to the potential victims. Unprovoked, he has attacked Iran, Kuwait, Israel, and Bahrain (they were also subjected to the largely harmless Scud missiles). Not to mention the internal showings of love towards his minions.

And, there's another aspect we need to consider. Let's say a nuclear-equipped Saddam decides to invade Kuwait again, you know, to give it another try. If anyone then tries to stop him, he can warn them about strange looking "mushrooms" soon to appear in their backyard. Sure, he will probably lack a traditional delivery system, but there are other ways of getting the job done. Even though scenarios of street-detonated nukes by terror cells in New York sound too Hollywood. At this time, at least.

Iconoclast
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Josh
But I repeat it, the fact that they were creating weapons of mass destruction was for the same reason as the US, Israel or any other country posesses them : to scare others and to gain a better position during negotiations.

Yes, but would you like to negotiate with a Saddam Hussein who hides behind an arsenal of nuclear weapons? No, of course not.

But let's see. If we ditch weapons inspections, if we convince the loathed Bush Administration not to disarm militarily, what options do we have left to prevent Iraq from acquring this type of weapon?

Iconoclast
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by i-girl
I think gun control, health and education are American people's business. I wouldn't accept anyone telling me how Israel's health system should work. it's an internal thing.
It always astounds me how people, who very often show little or no interest in the political life of their own country, display an almost obsessive interest in American domestic politics. Imagine the absurdity of a Texan getting completely wrapped up in a rant about the evils of the British NHS.

But I guess it's seen as some sort of football game where the local team is easily identified, the Democrats or something further to the left, like Chomsky or Nader, and where the bad guys are those dreaded Repulicans who blow up abortion clinics and listen to country music.

evadafan
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:32 AM
Good posts Iconoclast!

Now back to the country music!

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:35 AM
REMEMBER THE IRAQUI CHILDREN


http://members.aol.com/hamzaha/iraqichildren/images/koumar.jpg


Welcome to the Remember the Iraqi Children site!

My name is Kouthar Al-Rawi. I am 11-years old and my sister, Marwa, is 10-years old. We may be young, but we are sincere in our belief of children's rights. After visiting Iraq for over one month during June 1998 and again in October 1998, we feel we need to help speak for the innocent children.

We believe children deserve the most basic human right, which is the right to life. The right to life is being denied to innocent Iraqi children. These kids are without blame and they are not involved in any way with weapons, politics or oil.

The United Nations' Convention of the Rights of the Child, Article 6, states that children have the right to life. What makes the Iraqi children any different from any other children of the world?

The Iraqi children are being denied food, clean water and medicines. During October 1998, some 4,500-innocent Iraqi children died each month. Imagine, if you can, 150 children dying everyday. One child, under the age of 12, dies every 10 minutes in Iraq.**

Now, at the beginning of 1999, the numbers have changed. More than 6,000 children die each month. It's time someone did something to stop this abomination of human rights.



** According to UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) and WHO (World Health Organization).



My sister and I want to help stop this devastation and we need your help. You can make a difference!
Please write a message or draw a picture on a postcard addressed to "Mr. President." You can even send us your "e-mail postcard." Request the end of the sanctions on the Iraqi people, for the sake of the children.

Thank you,



We have only received 100,000 post cards. This is one-tenth of our goal. Please send us your postcards.

Kouthar and Marwa Al-Rawi
One-Million Postcards to the President Campaign
P.O. Box 1141
San Pedro, CA 90733-1141 USA

Contact us by e-mail: Kouthar & Marwa Al-Rawi


E-mail: Kouthar & Marwa Al-Rawi

evadafan
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:43 AM
Right, because the sanctions are to blame and not Saddam.....

BTW, are they still doing that, the sign in the picture asks for postcards addressed to president CLINTON.

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:46 AM
Documentary traces the rise, fall and resurrection of Jimmy Carter


http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20021108/living/4740-2000.jpg
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (from left), U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin clasp hands on the north lawn of the White House March 26, 1979, to celebrate the signing of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The moment is one of the high points in Carter's life, the subject of the two-part PBS "American Experience" documentary.



FRAZIER MOORE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK -- Undone in his 1980 re-election bid, Jimmy Carter left the White House tarred as a failure. Yet, curiously, his offenses were hard to distinguish from the qualities that, four years before, had carried him from "Jimmy Who?" to the nation's highest office.
Says Carter's former speech writer, Hendrik Hertzberg: "He was exactly what the American people always say they want: determined to do the right thing regardless of political consequences, a simple person who doesn't lie, a modest man. ... That's what people say they want."

But as Carter took exile with wife Rosalynn at their Plains, Ga., home, the American people "just couldn't stand him."

Hertzberg is among many witnesses heard from in an eye-opening look at the 39th president and Nobel laureate, which, with all due simplicity, is titled "Jimmy Carter." This "American Experience" portrait airs at 9 p.m. Monday and Tuesday on KCTS.

Lessons learned

Among its many lessons: Timing is everything.

In the aftermath of Watergate, Carter's selling points -- faith, integrity and outsider status -- were just what a traumatized electorate craved. With his customary doggedness, Carter seized the moment and squeaked into office, beating Gerald Ford, the quintessential Washington insider and President Nixon's handpicked successor.

A miracle? Says Carter pollster Patrick Caddell: "Going from total anonymity to being president of the United States in less than 12 months is unprecedented in American history."

But during Carter's single term, his timing was off as the nation faced fuel shortages, 14 percent inflation and a crisis of confidence.

Then an Islamic revolution in Iran led to 53 Americans held hostage for 444 agonizing days. Denying Carter any credit for obtaining their safe release, their captors turned them loose on Jan. 20, 1981 -- just moments after Ronald Reagan was sworn in.

As a candidate, Carter had been the peanut-farmer-turned-governor, the born-again Christian and Bob Dylan fan who thrilled listeners with his "never lie to you" guarantee.

But as president, he became despised as weak, wishy-washy and holier-than-thou. He was the hapless leader with a blinding grin but less and less to smile about. He collapsed while running in a 10-kilometer race. He was jeered after a "killer rabbit" reportedly attacked him during a fishing trip.

Then, as a 56-year-old ex-president, he seemed worse than a has-been.

Charting his undoing

The film traces how Carter's uncompromising mix of piety and political aversion was his undoing in Washington. (As Carter budget director Bert Lance notes, "the quid pro quo was not in him.")

But when he threw himself into humanitarian causes -- Carter introduced the term "human rights" to national discourse -- he displayed a gift for championing peace.

His crowning achievement as president was the Camp David accords, a framework for peace in the Mideast he negotiated with the leaders of Israel and Egypt at the presidential retreat in Maryland in September 1978.

It was a risky effort that strayed from a president's normal duties. Carter, whose popularity had plunged below 40 percent, got no bounce in the polls for helping cool a global hot spot.

But Camp David paved the way for his final act.

Transformation

There are presidents who leave office having diminished it. Whatever his failings, Carter didn't. Then he found the way to go even further as his presidency proved to be the warm-up for a two-decade drive that found him involved in humanitarian efforts at every level (including hammering nails to help build houses for poor Americans). Thus did he transform himself from a presidential flash-in-the-pan to a statesman admired around the world.

The documentary ends with Carter's trip last May to Cuba. The first American president to visit in more than 40 years, he, in true diplomatic fashion, called for the U.S. to end its trade embargo while challenging Cuban President Fidel Castro to institute democratic reforms.

Then last month, Carter, 78, won the Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts." It serves as a fitting coda to the film, says producer-writer Adriana Bosch.

Her portrait, while affectionate, doesn't shy from showing Carter as a man largely unsuited for the presidency.

"The film shows that, while character is important, it may not be enough for leadership," Bosch says. "As much as we have come to suspect politics, our leaders have to be political."

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:49 AM
This petition is being distributed by a French group against the unjust embargo on Iraq. Since the sanctions are a violation of international law and numerous treaties, this petition is asking for an immediate lifting of the sanctions by order of law, and prosecution of the parties imposing the sanctions.

Please sign & return the petition to: embargo@equilibre.org

NO JUSTICE FOR IRAQI CHILDREN

- In the name of the hundreds of thousands of children that have died in Iraq, in indescribable conditions of destitution and suffering, brought about by the economic embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council seven years ago,

- In the name of their mothers and fathers, unable to seek representation before the competent bodies of the United Nations for various reasons,

- In the name of all the suffering of the Iraqi people, waiting for the lifting of the embargo, of which they are,for the most part ,the innocent victims since seven long years,

- In the name of the citizens of the member states of the Security Council who imposed the embargo, but who refuse to adhere to this decision, and refuse all complicity with the resulting crimes,

We bring charges before the International Court of Justice of the Hague, and before all other competent National and International bodies, against the aforesaid embargo decreed by the United Nations Security Council, for

- Non-Respect of the Geneva Conventions (12/08/1949)

- Non-Respect of the United Nations Charter (26/06/1945)

- Non-Respect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10/12/1948)

- Non-respect of the Universal Declaration of Childhood Rights The violation of these International Conventions, by which our countries are formally bound, implies the judicial and moral responsability of our nations for the victims of the Iraqi people. In the face of such grave consequences we also suffer prejudice and are consequently directly involved with the Iraqi victims

with the determination

- to finally bring about the acceptance that "to seek to suffocate a people by an embargo will appear an unpardonable crime against Humanity"

and thus to implicate all those who participate

- to bring about by legal decision the immediate lifting of the economic embargo which affects so dramatically the Iraqi people, themselves by-standers to the actual political showdown,and hostages to the protagonists. But it is impossible, for the impunity of the responsible ones is secured by a judicial vacuum.

We will all the same bring charges to draw the all world attention to this injustice, in order answers to be brought and solutions to be found. In support of these charges, with the necessary legal enclosures, we will submit all the procurations that will be signed by the mothers and fathers of children who have died because of the embargo, and by men and women of the free world who feel wronged and concerned and who have decided to act by implicating all appropriate National and International bodies.

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:23 AM
Transcript of Ramsey Clark's Speech: Washington, Oct. 26, 2002

The only decent respect we can show for the veterans of Vietnam whose names are on this memorial on this ground, is to stop all U.S. wars. And we have to do it now. No more war memorials. Peace memorials.

Every day and in every way. You hear President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and above all the might voice of the media saying, "war now. We've got to destroy Iraq."

Where do you hear about our responsibility and our accountability for the three wars we have already destroyed Iraq with? In 1991, 110,000 aerial sorties in 42 days. 88,500 tons of bombs. 150,000 dead. The Pentagon says we lost 155, more than one-third to "friendly fire," the rest to accidents, no combat casualties. It was slaughter. You don't slaughter with impunity. It is a war crime. It is a crime against humanity.

Then we impose the unbelievable sanctions on Iraq that have killed a million and a half people. Every day it continues, every day and every day infants, children, elderly die from those sanctions. We just got back from Iraq in September, where we heard the health minister say the death rates continue to increase. The number of children born below normal weight, below 2 kilograms, are now one in four. A midget generation. We have killed 1 and a half million people with genocidal sanctions.

Who is talking about that now? Where is U.S. accountability for that? We have flown over the sovereign territory of Iraq every day since 1991. We bombed nearly every day since 1991. We've chosen our days carefully. On Jan. 17, 1993, two days before the first President Bush left office, he sent 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles he hit the Al Rashid Hotel, he took the life of Leyla al-Attar, 15 miles outside of Baghdad, with a Tomahawk cruise missile, the greatest Arab artist of the 20th century, the head of the Museum of Modern Art in Baghdad.

And even in September and October of this year, while we're talking about bombing soon, we're bombing every day. The first day we got there, eight killed in Baghdad. More than 40 killed in October. And the war goes on. And we claim they are evil. We had better pay attention.

We are destroying international law that has some potential for peace. We are destroying the United Nations which was created to end the scourge of war. We are thumbing our noses at the Nuremburg Charter. It says that for anything you cannot strike first, because Nazi Germany struck first.

Heinlich Himmler led the Gestapo. He said shoot first and ask questions afterward and I will protect you. And that's what we plan to do with Iraq and other countries. After Iraq will be more. If we don't stop this now we'll find that we'll live in chaos for the rest of our lives and god knows what will happen with the next generation.

They are destroying the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is a piece of paper that isn't worth anything anymore. The government takes as much pride in destroying the Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights as in anything else it does. It wants to end the idea of individual freedom and to make people do what the government says, even if that means martial law.

These are criminal offenses. They are high crimes. They are indictable offenses and they are impeachable offenses.

I've been a lawyer for over 50 years and if I know anything that these are impeachable offenses. Attacking Iraq will be genocide, again, it has to be prevented. Regime change needs to begin at home.

We need to separate the United States from militarism. For God's sake, don't you see what we're doing. Day after day after day, mass killing. Who has the weapons of mass destruction? We do! Who is making more money every day from more weapons? We are!.

You've got to liberate this country from militarism., You've got to liberate this country from corporate oligarchy, that is destroying our lives. This is not a democracy; it is a plutocracy. The people don't rule here. Wealth rules; the corporations rule. They rule the Congress, they elect the president, they run the Pentagon. They own the media.

We have got to liberate the United States from repression. Don't we know, we've got 2 million people in prison? Don't we know we execute more than one person a week in this country?

Don't we know? Don't we know what is right? We know what is right. We just don't stand up. Let's liberate the United States of America. Make it stand for peace everywhere.

Let's end poverty and hunger and sickness and create jobs for everybody everywhere. Let's work for justice. Let's reach out in friendship to everyone all over the world. No more wars.

[Leads chant of "No more wars."]

We have to persevere every day of our lives

When this crisis is over there will be another and another. We have to persevere until the end. We have to follow the advice Veneto Juarez,, a full-blooded Zapotec Indian, who twice became the president of Mexico, and whose words are inscribed just outside the general assembly of the United Nations chamber's auditorium, inside the UN building. Juarez found the wisdom and understanding in a few words the story of violence in our history. He said, "A respect for the rights of others is peace."

Let's respect the rights of everyone on this earth and reach out in friendship and love.


I LOVE THIS MAN

evadafan
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:26 AM
What crap.

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:34 AM
evadafan - c'mon now...you have to admit Ramsey Clark makes some good points. I know you don't agree with most of what he says, but he makes some excellent points.

I wish this guy were still attorney general. (smile)

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:49 AM
Bush at War" book release

AM - Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:08

LINDA MOTTRAM: A new book sanctioned by the White House and including four hours of interviews with President George W. Bush, has exposed the depth of divisions within the Bush administration over policy on Iraq.

Penned by the Pulitzer prize winning author, Bob Woodward, "Bush at War" documents how the Secretary of State Colin Powell was quite deliberately sidelined, as the Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld vied to dominate the President with their hawkish views.

The book also lays out the CIA strategy in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

An aging CIA spy and a suitcase full of one hundred dollars bills was the beginning of the end for the fundamentalist regime it seems.

From Washington John Shovelan reports.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Just over one year ago an undercover CIA agent sat opposite a Taliban commander.

He wanted the commander and his forces to defect and offered him fifty thousand US dollars as an inducement.

The Taliban commander unwisely asked for time to think it over.

BOB WOODWARD: And then they dropped a bomb on him in his area and then they went back and said the offer now, which used to be fifty thousand is now forty thousand, and he said I accept.

JOHN SHOVELAN: According to Bob Woodward the CIA's strategy of buying Afghan warlords began with a man called Koffir Black.

KOFFIR BLACK: I'm the Chief of the Counter-Terrorism Centre.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Black dispatched a 59-year-old agent known only as Gary, a spy who spoke a number of local languages and had spent his life working in and around Afghanistan.

BOB WOODWARD: He says I want you to bring bin Laden head's back in a box and I want it in a box so I can take it down to the President.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Woodward describes how Gary flew around Afghanistan aboard a Russian made helicopter with a suitcase clamped between his knees.

BOB WOODWARD: What's in it is three million dollars in cash.

JOHN SHOVELAN: The book details the staggering efficiency of the US commitment to overthrow the Taliban.

It cost about seventy million US dollars, one hundred and ten CIA agents, and 316 special force personnel on the ground and a massive bombing campaign overhead.

And in the War Cabinet, Woodward punctures the view that President Bush is in fact dominated by his older and more experienced Cabinet members.

BOB WOODWARD: He dominates them, because he says this is what we're going to do, this is how it is.

JOHN SHOVELAN: As the emphasis moved from war in Afghanistan to a prospective war with Iraq, Bush's Cabinet split.

The Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was having private meetings with the President and Vice President Dick Cheney is described as "beyond hell bent for action against Hussein. It was as if nothing else existed".

At the same time, the President's Political Adviser Karl Rove noted that he thought the Secretary of State Colin Powell had lost a step and looked uncomfortable in the presence of the President.

BOB WOODWARD: When Powell would be asked to go on television talk shows, the White House would tell him no and Powell would say privately to his deputy Richard Armitage, I'm in the refrigerator, I'm in the icebox, they've got me put away and they’ll pull me out like a carton of milk when they need me and then put me back.

JOHN SHOVELEAN: The White House feared Powell's views would contradict those of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Woodward says Powell had problems bonding with President Bush and his deputy, Richard Armitage, confirmed Rumsfeld was having regular private meetings with the President and told Powell he needed to do the same.

In one two hour meeting Powell convinced the President the US had to go to the UN one last time. At a meeting of the National Security Council on August 16th the Cabinet agreed.

Powell went on holiday satisfied.

But eleven days later the Vice President gave a hard line speech that a UN resolution would only provide false comfort.

At their next meeting at Camp David Woodward describes a clash between Powell and Cheney as “dancing on the edge of civility.”

John Shovelan, Washington.

evadafan
Nov 19th, 2002, 02:34 AM
CHOCO,

Very few, if any, good or relevant points. It sounds a lot like Woody Harrelson's pointless, ignorant drivel a month ago.

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:06 AM
Wait a minute...do you disagree with his facts? are you calling him a liar? or do you disagree with his point of view?

btw, Woody Harrelson raises some very good points. It's funny how some conservatives spew their rhetoric that their views are pure, correct, moral and just. And they dismiss any views and thoughts that are contrarian to theirs. What a narrow approach to life.

However, the conservatives are good for a boat load of laughs. I love it when they get their asses kicked by the likes of Paul Begala and James Carville...hehehe

evadafan
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:26 AM
CHOCO,

I disagree with his misrepresentations of the facts and his point of view.

And James Carville and Paul Begala--HAHAHAHAHA---they've never won an argument in their lives. I have to admit they were pretty funny election night on CNN as the democrats tanked nationwide. It started before the first poll closings of course when they were prematurely dancing on the grave of Liddy Dole, who of course only won by a mere 10 percentage points. And then Carville with the bucket on his head! I'm not even sure what that was about!

On an somewhat unrelated issue, I took the liberty of doing some quick research on the US foreign aid question. The US govt gave approx. 10 billion in foreign aid last year, and privately US citizens and companies gave approx. 34 billion. I think this is indicative of a different way of doing things in the US. So, in short, using the 10 billion figure as most liberals do to make a point is more than a bit deceptive.

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:50 AM
If you want to watch a show which is full of laughs, then you tune in to Fox News. I've never laughed as hard in my life when I'm watching that channel. I don't take them seriously. But if I want credible and serious news then I tune in to CNN.

Carville and Begala take turns spanking the conservatives' asses. I get a big kick out of that. The conservatives have NO ONE that can win a debate against Begala and Carville.

btw, how many millions of dollars of the American public did Whitewater special prosecutor Ken Starr spend in trying to nail Clinton, only to come up empty handed? hehehehe

evadafan
Nov 19th, 2002, 04:04 AM
You know you leftists really have a blame problem,

blame Ken Starr for Clinton's lying under oath, blame the US for sanctions and suffering in Iraq...blame everything else on guns and tobacco companies....

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 04:21 AM
...Watergate, Iran-Contra, the current economy, Florida presidential elections 2000, etc.

Should I continue?

Hidden Stillness
Nov 19th, 2002, 06:01 AM
Wow; this thread has taken so many turns I hardly know where to start. A few random (no doubt futile) attempts to correct some archcon remarks. I will not go back over all their false statements; it would only make me sick. I'm sure none of these people have any idea how offensive it is to read such snide, fabricated attacks on so fine and honest a person as Jimmy Carter, so I will not bother with the deeper issues. Just a few corrections until I puke:

1) The "generous," ever-shrinking foreign aid: the #1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid is--Israel, for purely strategic reasons.

2)This odd idea that several posters had, that cutting back on waste in the bloated military budget, or on forbidding use of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons somehow threatened conventional forces. Don't you make distinctions?

3) This lie that won't die, that Carter lost the 1980 election by a landslide. The popular vote went this way: 59% of Americans voted; of that vote, Carter got 24%, Ray-gun got 26%, and the great third-party candidate John Anderson, a liberal Republican (of the Lowell Weicker, William Milliken type) running as an Independant, got 9%. There are no liberal Republicans anymore, only polarizing, corporate-run hate. Reagan got the electoral votes by winning each state, of course, but actual vote was very close. There was a strong opinion against Carter on the economy at the time (rising unemployment, some inflation, and Carter's actually conservative deregulation moves, as disastrous then as now), which benefitted Reagan. Amusingly, those who voted for Ray-gun bec. they were unhappy with the economy were immediately hit with Ray-gun's tax cuts for the wealthy, further deregulation, union-busting, tripling of the national debt, and a severe recession from about 1981-'83, with losses of good industrial jobs that never returned.

4) There is no such thing as a "partial-birth" abortion; it is not a medical term, it is the anti-abortion terrorists' propaganda. The term is "late-term" abortion, and they are ALWAYS, ONLY done because of medical emergencies. Women who may have threatened pregnancies because of pre-existing medical conditions, but who want to have children and therefore try to carry to term anyway, often then have problems that only show up and become life-threatening near the end. Pregnancies that had seemed fine suddenly can't be continued because of the risk. There are final-trimester abortions ONLY BECAUSE the woman had NO INTENTION of having an abortion at all, but now must because of severe complications. Quit lying about this. This propaganda comes from a group that refers to a fetus as the "innocent pre-born/unborn," and the woman as a "bitch." (Note this Repub male's very first post on this thread--don't delete it.)

5) A comment somewhere that "by the way, Republicans support equal rights"--hah! Don't make me angry. You fought us on the ERA until you killed it, you fight us on equal pay for equal work, which most people favor, on Federal funding for battered women's shelters, sexual harrassment-claim investigation, etc. The trend since the 1950s is of women leaving your group and joining the majority Democratic Party, where now the majority of women are registered, too. By the way, an internal Repub study that wasn't supposed to get out, showed that women and black Repubs are not nearly as conservative as the white male members, thus the schism they pretend does not exist.

6) People are making a big mistake to think that we can, against the wishes of other countries, go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, however justified. To violate the soveriegnty of another country which has not directly attacked us, will turn opinion against us.

7) A few people attacked Pres, Carter, as if Carter were personally responsible for the failed helicopter mission to rescue the Embassy hostages (while not criticizing Bush for ignoring highly detailed warnings from the FBI on terrorist attacks with planes, just before Sept. 11th...odd). Since it goes one way, let's have it go another: give credit to Carter, and choke on it. The Americans smuggled out of Iran during this same crisis, "by the Canadian Embassy," it was revealed years later, were actually smuggled out by a highly coordinated effort by Pres. Carter's CIA. The Canadians agreed to pretend they had done it, and take the heat in Iran, because negotiations for the release of the hostages were still going on. Despite one poster's claim, negotiations did not stop with the helicopter mission. It was very much threatened for several days, then resumed.

8) A snide remark that Carter would have signed a peace treaty "with Hitler" (based on what??)--Remember, during the late '70s, when the military in Argentina was murdering people at will for even mild dissent, ("the Disappeared"), only one national leader in the world condemned it, and Amnesty International has actually cited cases where threats to impose penalties saved individual lives. The only leader in the world who criticized this reign of terror, while it was going on, was Carter.

Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter have been doing a world of good since those years--unlike Ray-gun + Bush 1--such as negotiations to avert crises and/or release hostages in North Korea, Syria, etc., work with Habitat for Humanity, the Carter Center, literacy programs for children, etc., etc. Give some credit.

disposablehero
Nov 19th, 2002, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Hidden Stillness

8) A snide remark that Carter would have signed a peace treaty "with Hitler" (based on what??)--Remember, during the late '70s, when the military in Argentina was murdering people at will for even mild dissent, ("the Disappeared"), only one national leader in the world condemned it, and Amnesty International has actually cited cases where threats to impose penalties saved individual lives. The only leader in the world who criticized this reign of terror, while it was going on, was Carter.


As I recall, Carter embargoed grain to the Soviet Union and boycotted the Moscow Olympics, so apparently he was no rollover on a few things.

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 07:07 AM
What Bob Woodward heard

Whether or not you're an admirer of Bob Woodward's post-Watergate journalism, don't skip the Washington Post series culled from his new book. Despite the reporter's usual opacity and vague sourcing, it is clear enough that his chief source among many is again Colin Powell (indeed "Bush at War" might as well have been titled "The Commanders: A Sequel"). And from Powell's point of view, Woodward reveals important details of the White House struggle over Iraq, what went wrong in Afghanistan and what kind of president George W. Bush really is.

Toward the bottom of last Friday's table-setting story on the Woodward book by Mike Allen, for example, the reader learns that Bush was "preoccupied by public perceptions of the war, looking at polling data from Rove, now his senior adviser, even after pretending to have no interest." How remarkable to be told so bluntly about this Bush obsession -- after hearing so many blabbermouths on cable TV and in opinion columns insist that this president, unlike his predecessor, "doesn't care about polls." The difference between Clinton and Bush isn't that one doesn't care about polls and the other did. The difference is that Clinton never pretended that polling data wasn't part of his political work, and didn't expect anyone on his staff to lie about such trivia. (This matrix of deception is likewise exposed in Woodward's scoop about the back-channel advice on public opinion provided to the White House by Fox News chief Roger Ailes. An old Bush family employee, Ailes runs a network that frequently promotes the false but uplifting notion that Bush has no interest in polls.)

Today's front-page excerpt clarifies how Bush's policy failed to achieve American objectives in Afghanistan, although Woodward never quite states it bluntly. Based on bombing and bribery, without committing ground troops, the White House's cheap Afghan strategy permitted Osama bin Laden to escape -- even though Woodward says the CIA understood its mission to include the killing of the al-Qaida leader and as many of his followers as possible. "Get bin Laden, find him. I want his head in a box ... I want to take it down and show the president," the agency's counterterror chief told the veteran operative who led the Afghan effort. Later, of course, the White House realized that bin Laden is "just one man" who "doesn't really matter." That was after he got away.
[9:02 a.m. PST, Nov. 18, 2002]

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:27 PM
:)

CHOCO
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:51 PM
:)