PDA

View Full Version : Jimmy Carter, the Neville Chamberlain of our time


evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:24 AM
C'mon now, this guy can't be coming out with statements like this! U.S. foreign policy "arrogant"??? Why don't you go make another great deal with North Korea to not develop nuclear weapons buddy.

Your little "peace deals" only go so far Neville, I mean Jimmy.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:28 AM
Right - unless the opinion is 100% positive in regards to everything the USA government does, how dare someone share it.

ttaM
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:28 AM
Hi evadafan!

There's a thread about Jimmy's comments here too.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45322

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:38 AM
Rebecca, he can talk all he wants, but I'm not going to let it go uncontested.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:06 AM
LOL.....go Jimmy :D

Crazy Canuck
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:14 AM
fair enough evadafan :)

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 01:24 AM
Hey Evadfan and GoMonica!
Evadfan Great post! and keep on standing up for the truth!

tia clara
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:41 AM
Evadafan has just proved that the government can fool all the people most of the time. Or is that all the fools all the time?

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 02:44 AM
Hey Evadafan! Watch out the flamin liberals are going to come after ya! LOL

Keep up the fight Evadafan!! I'm with ya!

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Nov 17th, 2002, 03:38 AM
Excuse us liberals for trying to provide care for all people and not just caring about ourselves.

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 03:48 AM
Yes, liberals are worried about others-the rights of criminals and terrorists. Keep the death penalty in the U.S. More rights for the victims. I hope Malvo and John Muhammed get what they deserve. May the victims families have peace

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 04:17 AM
Hey Shane,

It's rare to find fellow non-liberals on this board! Thanks for the support!

disposablehero
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by evadafan
Hey Shane,

It's rare to find fellow non-liberals on this board! Thanks for the support!

Maybe that's because half the US is "liberal" and conservatives from Canada, Australia, or any European country would be considered "liberal" by US standards.

evadafan
Nov 17th, 2002, 05:56 AM
Disposable,

I don't think that's the case. Primary reason being I don't see Tony Blair as extremely liberal, and he is in the more "liberal" party in Britain.

disposablehero
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:01 AM
Well, I doubt if Carter ever heard of Bin Laden when he was in office. Just some Saudi kid going to fight an unprovoked military occupation of a country he had a religious attachment to.

It was Reagan who had the CIA train Bin Laden.

Shane54
Nov 17th, 2002, 06:02 AM
Here's a toast to ya bud! Enjoy reading your post evadafan.
Disposable I would have to disagree with you on half the U.S. being liberal. Just b/c half the country votes Democrat does not make them liberal. Most African Americans that I know are conservative to moderate Democrats, but are not considered "liberal".

CHOCO
Nov 17th, 2002, 07:15 AM
Shane - most whites that I know are progressive polictically and conservative fiscally. They don't want a part of the neoconsevatives.

President Bush may be the dumbest president in history

gmt
Nov 17th, 2002, 10:01 AM
It's too funny that many US conservatives keep comparing, say, Saddam with Hitler, and blaming Europeans for their pretended weakness, but fail to remember what kind of retaliation policies poured upon Germany after WWI tremendously helped the same Hitler's gathering support and ultimately winning elections.

Or it would be funny if it weren't so tragically irresponsible.

But partial amalgams have always been the weapon of demagogists.

*wavey*

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 10:15 AM
I think we don't tend to inspect the roots of hitler's success because we don't feel there's a thing in this world that would explain, let alone justify, the germans' support of hitler, so why waste time looking for reasons.
the poverty of the Iraqi people is caused by Saddam, not the west. the fact that they convert their anger into hatered for the west, instead of trying to overthrow the man responsible for their suffering, is not our fault. looking at a situation's roots is all good and well, but the situation still has to be dealt with. Saddam has no limits, he'll hurt (and has hurt) both his people and the outside world. right now, he has the means to do that, and so we have to make sure he doesn't have them anymore. dissarm Saddam so that his bio-rockets are not pointing at me, and then you can "inspect the roots of the problem" all you want.

gmt
Nov 17th, 2002, 10:37 AM
You should be able to understand that looking for excuses is one thing, not helping tragedies happen again for not wanting to learn all that history has to say is another. That the embargo helped Saddam in his propaganda and made it easier to gain support from his people and even abroad is not a theory, it's a fact and part of the reality you're invoking. And if someone worse than Saddam raises, it's not just Noga's problem or Israel's or the USA's, it's ours as well. Today's reality is everyone's, the problem is whether one wants to face it comprehensively or not. So please don't play it possessive.

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 10:53 AM
so you're worried someone worse will rise? that's a reason for not taking down a raging, armed to the teeth, lunatic? not good enough, as far as I'm concerened.
Saddam is not a direct threat to France atm. France is out of his missiles' range, and yes, gmt, I believe it has A LOT to do with your willingness to "give him time and space", to "wait and see". if time and space are given to him, he will definitly become everyone's problem, I agree with you there. right now he's more of a problem to some countries than to others, which makes some countries more willing to ignore the problem. I know you hate the comparison between pre-WWII European willingness to "wait and see, maybe he'll play nice" to current European willingness to "wait and see, maybe he'll play nice", so I'll spare you. but then, like today, it wasn't about anything other than thinking you yourself won't get hurt, and not caring about others who will.

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 10:56 AM
ok, that was a bit harsh. I just can't see how anyone can not see that man is a danger, and can't help feel the only way to explain it is that they are once again turning a blind eye.

gmt
Nov 17th, 2002, 11:24 AM
I have never said that Saddam should not be put down. Had he been in 1991, it would have spared the world, including his country, a lot of trouble. What I strongly question is the fact that keeping the embargo, while it apparently did not prevent Saddam from going on with weapon programs and while it definitely did make it easier for him to keep a stronghold upon his country, both military and mental, would be the way to get rid of him. And knowing how many will probably die in a new attack of Iraq, I really hope that it will at least throw Saddam out of power! But if the toll is so high, and the motivations so unclear, that it dramatically raises the level of misunderstanding and frustration and leads to the emergence of other leaders more influent, more insane and malevolent than Saddam (yes, it is possible, remember), then the least one can and must do is to think before one acts.

I am by no means a proponent of hesitating forever and postponing decisions. Besides, maybe we can't be reached by Iraqi missiles, but we certainly can have bombs in our underground systems and in our streets, or toxic gas. Right, we don't have them nearly as often as you have in Israel. I don't underestimate the difficulty of being there. But you only die once. When I was a postgraduate student, several of my fellow students in mathematics were killed in a bombing at the heart of Paris. They were of North African origin, were on the verge of completing their PhD, and had no more to do with fundamentalists than you and me. Besides, don't forget my origins - we had wars and wars and wars. More than enough to take them seriously...

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 11:32 AM
that's true, I accept that:). I understand you wondering about the "how", I just think it's no longer a matter of "if".

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by gmt
I have never said that Saddam should not be put down. Had he been in 1991, it would have spared the world, including his country, a lot of trouble. What I strongly question is the fact that keeping the embargo, while it apparently did not prevent Saddam from going on with weapon programs and while it definitely did make it easier for him to keep a stronghold upon his country, both military and mental, would be the way to get rid of him.

Well yes, I suppose so. But what were the civilised nations of the world supposed to do after failing to get rid of him in 1991? You can't just go charging into countries to overthrow their regimes at arbitrary times, no matter how evil those regimes appear to be. Realistically, there has to be some clear and present danger as with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after September 11, or as with the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Nobody seriously suggested invading South Africa to end apartheid, for example.

And embargoes do sometimes have an effect, sometimes at a moment you don't expect. Moreover, I can't really see any analogy between the embargo and the way Germany was treated by the treaty of Versailles, which was, indeed, savagely punitive and helped lead to Hitler's rise to power. Saddam was already there pre-embargo; Iraq already had a record as a rogue state.

Honestly, I don't know what should have happened in the years from 1991 until now, or what should happen now. There has to be a further process to bring Saddam into line, and that may have to culminate in war, though it's normally the last thing I'd want to see, for all sort of reasons both of humanitarianism and realpolitik. I haven't supported the idea of unilateral US attack, but there has been a lot of brinksmanship involved, and I don't think that's a bad thing when dealing with Saddam.

gmt, I'd be more impressed by your Versailles analogy if you went back deeper in time to the way the Western powers carved up the Middle East through the first half of the 20th century, to suit their own convenience, not the aspirations of the nationalities that live there. For all I know, many of those peoples have some perfectly legitimate grievances.

Perhaps we could all agree that a lot of things were done pretty high-handedly in past decades with long-term damaging results that have bred various kinds of extreme nationalism and religious fundamentalism in the region. There is going to have to be a way of redressing grievances and peacefully allowing boundaries to change in the longer term. (Though emphatically *not* in a way that compromises the nation of Israel or its security. I support both the original effort to create Israel and the view that Israel has since more than justified itself.)

In the shorter term, well, Saddam simply cannot be allowed to go on as he is. There *is* a point about not appeasing him, not because there are no legitimate historical grievances that Iraq may have. It may well have them, as did Germany between the two world wars. But because we simply cannot allow Saddam to pursue Iraq's/his own interests in the way he has been. There is a case for deeper understanding and for global mechanisms to deal with the problems caused by the aftermath of Western colonialism, but that does not entail that we should countenance a violent, dangerous dictator now (and I realise you're not suggesting this; but your objection to the discourse that speaks of "appeasement" suggests you are).

What we must not do is overthrow Saddam and then treat Iraq punitively or cynically. The country could easily fall apart without Saddam to hold it together, with grave consequences for regional security and the risk of new, more fanatical leaders. I hope that whatever is done leads to a real effort to put Iraq on a strong economic footing and pave the way for democracy, similar to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan. I don't have too much optimism about that, though.

I'm sorry this is all so wishy-washy. It attempts to express some of the problems I see with the language of both sides, my sense of genuine perplexity, and my wish for a solution that may, unfortunately, require force but has to take into account the welfare of the people of Iraq and the rest of the region.

i-girl
Nov 17th, 2002, 12:20 PM
I don't know if you two are aware of this, but the name I've heard mentioned most as a possible replacement for Saddam is Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan. he was supposed to become King after King Hussein's death, but lost out to Hussein's son. he has some kind of link to Iraq which makes him a likely candidate, but I can't remember what it is right now. he's quite a good man. moderate. was very invovled in the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement.

Iconoclast
Nov 17th, 2002, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by jouissant
The country could easily fall apart without Saddam to hold it together, with grave consequences for regional security and the risk of new, more fanatical leaders. I hope that whatever is done leads to a real effort to put Iraq on a strong economic footing and pave the way for democracy, similar to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan. I don't have too much optimism about that, though.
I'm a firm believer that it can be done.

Iraqis are well-educated and fundamentally supportive of a secular society, very much courtesy of a once progressive reformer by the name of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi National Congress is an opposition group in exile, which may be limited in regards to membership, but ardent in its call to transform Iraq into a modern democracy. Iraqi refugees are scathered around the globe. Molded by their experiences in more peaceful parts of the world, I'm sure that many of them wish to return and assist in the process of reconstructing their homeland.

The most difficult part could very well turn out to be northern Iraq, where Kurds may be tempted by a shift of power in Baghdad to proclaim an independent state. This could lead to regional instability, because a number of neighbours, Turkey to name one, would feel threatened by a Kurdistan. Perhaps enough to prompt an invasion of the area.

Religious fanatics inside Iraq are one obstable, but they are few and far between, and they are practically without firepower. I doubt they could upset a grand reconstruction scheme. Unlike the military, of course. Short-term it would be controlled by an invading allied army, but long-term it must be completely changed and reshaped to fit a democratic society.

It will be an enormous venture, but I think the goal is achievable. And it could potentially be an inspiring example for the rest of the Middle East. Why not? The people of Iraq basically want the same things as everyone else: to live in a free, peaceful and wealthy society.

By the way, that was a very good post, jouissant. I agreed with the bulk of your message.

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 18th, 2002, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Iconoclast

I'm a firm believer that it can be done. <snip>


By the way, that was a very good post, jouissant. I agreed with the bulk of your message.

I think there are some great posts here, especially by you, gmt and i-girl. To the extent that I am qualified to make a judgment, I agree that it *can* be done, and with your comments about the problems. Just one point: If Iraq does break up, Turkey would probably come under pressure to take on the northern part, but last I had any sense of Turkish politics I thought that it would actually be quite reluctant to do so - it would not be in Turkey's interests to add to its Kurdish minority problems. Still, it might feel it has little choice; anyway, maybe I'm out of date with how the Turks are thinking.

More generally, I think the issue about reconstruction of Iraq, if there is a war and regime change at some point, is not so much whether it can be done. As you say, it probably can. i-girl points out that there is possibly a viable interim leader in Prince Hassan, something I hadn't realised. My question is more how much the Western powers are prepared to commit themselves to reconstruction if that point is ever reached. I don't think enough is being done in Afghanistan, so I'm doubtful that enough would be done in Iraq.