Carter is a Statesman.

on Apr 19, 2008

I got a freezer full of Brats, a grill that needs to be fired up for the first cookout of the year, and a guitar room to jam in...

and all this time i been imaginin there ain't no heaven.

After more than a decade of digging, they found nothing....

we must be discussin two different issues.

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake"--ronald reagan, "address to the nation on the iran arms and contra aid controversy" (3/4/1987)

17

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2008

Hmmm, actually, I do remember Reagan saying that. The investigations that couldn't find anything were the basic "what did he know and when did he know it" questions about Presidnt Reagan.

Which means you are right, it would have been a case where people outside the Executive Branch were meddling in foreign policy. A lot of people did either go to prison ovre that one. Carter didn't like it back then, so why should he be doing it now?

18

Island Dog

on Apr 20, 2008

How do you make any progress if you don't talk to the enemy?

You don't talk to your enemies, you kill them. Only someone like Carter would think that negotiating with islamic loons will result in anything.

19

ParaTed2k

on Apr 20, 2008

How do you make any progress if you don't talk to the enemy?

Talking is for two countries that want to come to mutually beneficial agreements. There are no mutually beneficial outcomes with Islamist extremists. There is only us dead or them.

They have proven that decades aren't too long for them to continue the fight. It's pretty pathetic of Carter to want to discuss terms of surrender after only half a decade of returning fire.

He isn't there to discuss peace, he's there to discuss terms of US surrender.

20

Dr Guy

on Apr 21, 2008

the fruit cakes of Iran
he gave em fruit cakes too?

Nah - that would be like shipping coals to Newcastle.

21

SilentPoet

on Apr 21, 2008

How do you make any progress if you don't talk to the enemy?Talking is for two countries that want to come to mutually beneficial agreements. There are no mutually beneficial outcomes with Islamist extremists. There is only us dead or them.They have proven that decades aren't too long for them to continue the fight. It's pretty pathetic of Carter to want to discuss terms of surrender after only half a decade of returning fire.He isn't there to discuss peace, he's there to discuss terms of US surrender.

You don't know that. We've made strides in Iraq because we've talked with "Islamist extremists" and others. I'm sorry you don't see that, and just end up perpetuating bloodshed.

22

ParaTed2k

on Apr 21, 2008

You don't know that. We've made strides in Iraq because we've talked with "Islamist extremists" and others. I'm sorry you don't see that, and just end up perpetuating bloodshed.

What strides were ever made in Iraq before the war? Hussein took Kuwait.. did talks free Kuwait from Hussein's rapists and thugs? NO. What did 12 years of "diplomacy" do after the ceasefire was signed? It made Hussein and a few UN officials a lot richer.

Carter has NO authority to speak for the nation. He has no right to play wannnabe diplomat while undermining a sitting president.

All he is accomplishing is blostering the image of murderous raping terrorists. He is a willing idiot and that's about it.

23

Anthony R

on Apr 21, 2008

I was drinking some soda and I'm fortunate that i was able to swallow it all before I saw this surreal title...

24

SilentPoet

on Apr 21, 2008

What strides were ever made in Iraq before the war? Hussein took Kuwait.. did talks free Kuwait from Hussein's rapists and thugs? NO. What did 12 years of "diplomacy" do after the ceasefire was signed? It made Hussein and a few UN officials a lot richer.

Granted, but that is Iraq, not Palestine. I would much rather try to talk to them before any other option, say for example, invading.

Besides, Bush never tried, he never truly tried. Frankly, He didn't do a lot beforehand.

Carter has NO authority to speak for the nation. He has no right to play wannnabe diplomat while undermining a sitting president.

How do you KNOW he is speaking for the US? From what I have read, he's talking to them, period. Just talking, seeing if there is anything that can be done. You'd be amazed what the right person can do while man others have failed at the same thing.

25

SilentPoet

on Apr 21, 2008

Dude, you assumed and are an ass because of it. Did I say anything about wanting only effort?Dude! Show me where I said you wanted only effort? Do not make an ass of yourself. I made a generalized statement, and will hold to it. Your post affirms the stereotype.Liberals are all about intents, not results. You seem to think it is good that Carter is trying, even if the results are worse than before. That is "intentions" not results.Learn to read. And stop being an Ass.

Dude, what did I tell you about ASSumptions? You whine and bitch and moan when you are assumed to be nothing more than a republican crony, or stereotyped or labeled as a "right wing loony," correct? So quit being a fucking hypocrite, either deal with the assumptions, or stop. It's pretty simple, even a five year old could do it.

How can the results be worse if the result is continued murder and terrorism, as was the same beforehand? Also, what does it matter the results, if we're just going to "fight them" as you say. You don't go out to make your image pristine when fighting some one, you fight them.

Also, Doc, quit with the ducking and dodging. I've called you out on a few things, and you just turn it around and try to pin me, answer the fucking questions, I've done it for you.

26

ParaTed2k

on Apr 22, 2008

How do you KNOW he is speaking for the US? From what I have read, he's talking to them, period. Just talking, seeing if there is anything that can be done. You'd be amazed what the right person can do while man others have failed at the same thing.

By talking to them he is acknowledging that their claim to authority. By undermining the sitting president Carter is telling them that he resects them more than he respects the United States.

Arab culture is all about authority. Authority is respected by who bows down to them. Bowing down isn't always a phyical act. Every time anyone shows more respect to them than their peers, it bolsters the position of the person being respected.

Remember when Pelosi went to Syria with her head covered? What we in the West saw was one government official respecting the customs of the country she was visiting. What Arabs saw was that Pelosi was willing to cover her head for Syria and Syrian leaders, but not for her own country, or her nation.

What she did was show the Arab world that she respects them more than she respects the US or her own husband.

Remember back in 90, when Hussein released that video of him and the 10 year old American boy? What we saw was Hussein sitting with an American boy, patting his head and being friendly.

What the Arab world saw was Hussein putting the boy under his left hand. The Iraqi Officer doubled the insult the same way. To touch another person with your left hand is to shame them. To put them under your left hand is to demean them.

When will the West finally learn that unless we treat Arab leaders as equals, we shame ourselves in their eyes?

27

Dr Guy

on Apr 22, 2008

Dude, what did I tell you about ASSumptions? You whine and bitch and moan when you are assumed to be nothing more than a republican crony, or stereotyped or labeled as a "right wing loony," correct? So quit being a fucking hypocrite, either deal with the assumptions, or stop. It's pretty simple, even a five year old could do it.

YOu really have a reading comprehension problem. You are making the ASSumptions as you call it. SO ASSume your way away. I made a statement of observation, and fact. Are you now denying you call yourself a liberal? Get real! And dump the potty mouth. That does not make you look intelligent, nor advance what feeble argument you have.

YOU said you were a liberal, not me. I took you at your word. So are you lying?

Shall we call you a liar? Another trait I HAVE OBSERVED of liberals. (note not assumed).

And as a five year old can do it, I guess that counts you out. You may be an adult chronologically, but emotionally you still demonstrate why 5 year olds do not get the right to vote.

28

Adventure-Dude

on Apr 22, 2008

Carter said publicly that he wasn't there to make negotiations but the result of his visit is a 10 pledged truce based upon Israel receding to the 1967 borders.

WWW Link

Please note that Hamas will STILL not recognize Israel. Hmmm, seems pretty consistent with Carter's anti-semitic view. Ah yes, what a statesman.

Blech, some negotiation that he wasn't negotiating!

29

Dr Guy

on Apr 22, 2008

Carter's anti-semitic view

The Peace prize seems to favor those that are anti-semitic.

30

SilentPoet

on Apr 22, 2008

How do you KNOW he is speaking for the US? From what I have read, he's talking to them, period. Just talking, seeing if there is anything that can be done. You'd be amazed what the right person can do while man others have failed at the same thing.By talking to them he is acknowledging that their claim to authority. By undermining the sitting president Carter is telling them that he resects them more than he respects the United States.Arab culture is all about authority. Authority is respected by who bows down to them. Bowing down isn't always a phyical act. Every time anyone shows more respect to them than their peers, it bolsters the position of the person being respected.Remember when Pelosi went to Syria with her head covered? What we in the West saw was one government official respecting the customs of the country she was visiting. What Arabs saw was that Pelosi was willing to cover her head for Syria and Syrian leaders, but not for her own country, or her nation.What she did was show the Arab world that she respects them more than she respects the US or her own husband.Remember back in 90, when Hussein released that video of him and the 10 year old American boy? What we saw was Hussein sitting with an American boy, patting his head and being friendly.What the Arab world saw was Hussein putting the boy under his left hand. The Iraqi Officer doubled the insult the same way. To touch another person with your left hand is to shame them. To put them under your left hand is to demean them.When will the West finally learn that unless we treat Arab leaders as equals, we shame ourselves in their eyes?

When? With our arrogance (and yes it is there) I doubt we ever will. At least where our government is concerned. Didn't you tell me yourself Ted, that not everyone is equal, and to deal with it, that life isn't fair?

My point is: Yes, carter is going and talking. Good, if anything comes of it, okay. Yes, I want results, but you can't expect to just jump in and get results, whether by force or diplomacy. I think Carter is a good diplomat, and humanitarian, and my thought is, "Hell, why not?"

Undermine? Undermine what? What has Bush done that is progress of any kind? Bush is not the type that will gain any grounds, he's too much of a polarizing figure. Sure, he tries, and I applaud him for that. I also applaud that, in my opinion, he does have the right heart. I truly believe he is a compassionate person, but he's not the man for the job.

You mention the left hand deal, and that makes me think of some things. If we are to make any progress at all, with the middle east, then we need to stray from ignorance. We cannot go head on with them while we don't know jack.