Carter is a Statesman.

on Apr 23, 2008

Sure, Carter is now a 'private citizen' - just like you and me. Last I checked, however, neither of us has served as President. For better or worse, having served in that position carries some on-going responsibility, IMHO.

47

Dr Guy

on Apr 23, 2008

Therefore, Hamas is a major part of the Palestinian government,

Being the duly elected government of a state (or territory since they refuse to even think of forming a state) is not mutually exclusive with being a terrorist organization. We have several examples where they are both.

48

warreni

on Apr 23, 2008

Therefore, Hamas is a major part of the Palestinian government,Being the duly elected government of a state (or territory since they refuse to even think of forming a state) is not mutually exclusive with being a terrorist organization. We have several examples where they are both.

Dr Guy,

I see where you respond to part of my statements, but here's the meat of it:

Is it truly better to sit back and let violent, bloody conflict rage on without end or attempt to engage all parties in constructive dialogue that has a chance of ending that conflict?

For the record, I'm pretty sure the Palestinians do want a state, but because they cannot come to an agreement with the Israelis over the fate of Jerusalem, that's not on the table at the moment. Frankly, as long as no one's talkiing to one another, nothing's on the table. However, I believe that a two-state solution is the desired ultimate outcome for all parties.

Incidentally, we have had "multi-party" talks with governments listed on the state sponsors of terror list (I'm thinking of Syria) in the past when we believed it served our interests. Does that mean that the U.S. negotiates with terrorists? I don't think so. I think it means that (when we want to) we are willing to sit down at a table with governments with whom we may have grievances and strive to reach common ground and achieve common goals. That sounds like a laudable goal to me.

49

SilentPoet

on Apr 23, 2008

That was my point. No-one else has solutions to the problem but you are quick to condemn any efforts at resolving the problem.Who is better off at trying? Carter may well fail but please tell me who your new peacemaker is!But he's not being a peacemaker, he is bolstering the image of terrorists while undermining the sitting US government. It is unprofessional, foolish, Unconstitutional and could even be illegal.Even though I don't think much of his administration, I think he's done a lot of good in the humanitarian department... and not just swinging a hammer (although he's done well there too). But good intentions don't excuse wrong actions.

Unconstitutional?! Oh come on, quit pulling my leg. I'm sorry, but some of this is shadows of back during the red scare. Ohh, they're working with the enemy, lets be blind to the fact that they're trying to solve the problem. *rolls eyes*

If you think of it this way, then what do you view the talks (gasp) that we had with the secular insurgents and all? They're still technically terrorists, and yet we worked with them, and guess what it worked.

50

Adventure-Dude

on Apr 23, 2008

For the record, I'm pretty sure the Palestinians do want a state, but because they cannot come to an agreement with the Israelis over the fate of Jerusalem, that's not on the table at the moment. Frankly, as long as no one's talkiing to one another, nothing's on the table. However, I believe that a two-state solution is the desired ultimate outcome for all parties.

Please indulge me how you come to this? In 1990's Carter tried to 'negotiate' peace but Hamas and Palestine refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. 2005, Israel gave up West Bank and the Gaza Strip and Palestine still refuses to recognize Israel. This 'so called' 10 year truce that Carter negotiated (although he wasn't there to negotiate...) still doesn't recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Do you see SOME sort of pattern here?

How can there be a two-state solution when one side says (Palestine) 'in the end there can only be ONE!'?

51

ParaTed2k

on Apr 23, 2008

Warren:

No, he's not "bolstering terrorists." It seems that most of the respondents here have forgotten that the Palestinian people elected Hamas as the majority party in the Palestinian Authority in 2006. Therefore, Hamas is a major part of the Palestinian government

And you forget that Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by our government. When Carter agrees to meet with Hamas leaders he tells the Arab world that he (a former president) has more respect for Hamas than the United States of America. You and I may not see it like that, but that is their way.

Incidentally, it's neither unconstitutional nor illegal for President Carter to speak with heads of foreign governments. As a private citizen, he is free to speak with whomever he desires. Anyway, I guess it's out of vogue to want to "give peace a chance" these days.

What authority does the U.S. Constitution grant a former president? NOTHING. Carter is trying to usurp authority to act that is not granted him. Therefore, what he is doing is Unconstitutional.

If you or I did what he is doing, we would already be in prison by now.

52

warreni

on Apr 23, 2008

Warren:
No, he's not "bolstering terrorists." It seems that most of the respondents here have forgotten that the Palestinian people elected Hamas as the majority party in the Palestinian Authority in 2006. Therefore, Hamas is a major part of the Palestinian governmentAnd you forget that Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by our government. When Carter agrees to meet with Hamas leaders he tells the Arab world that he (a former president) has more respect for Hamas than the United States of America. You and I may not see it like that, but that is their way.
Incidentally, it's neither unconstitutional nor illegal for President Carter to speak with heads of foreign governments. As a private citizen, he is free to speak with whomever he desires. Anyway, I guess it's out of vogue to want to "give peace a chance" these days.What authority does the U.S. Constitution grant a former president? NOTHING. Carter is trying to usurp authority to act that is not granted him. Therefore, what he is doing is Unconstitutional. If you or I did what he is doing, we would already be in prison by now.

Well, ParaTed2K, we'd only be in prison because George Bush would have us tossed in some secret holding facility without trial because he believes we're a terrible threat to him or because we disagree with his policies. You're right--he'd have a tough time pulling a Jose Padilla on Jimmy Carter.

Actually, you may wish to examine the Constitution a little more closely; whatever this administration hasn't used as toilet paper reserves power not specifically granted to the federal government and the state governments to the people. That's us--you and me and Jimmy Carter.

While I realize Hamas on the list of terrorist organizations, so is Syria on the list of state sponsors of terror and so, for that matter, is Iran, but we still held trilateral talks in February of 2007. At any rate, I actually don't see it as President Carter dissing the current administration; I see it as him reaching out to two parties in a bitter conflict to attempt to achieve a resolution, and, as an accomplished statesman, he undoubtedly sees this as his duty.

Adventure_Dude, if you're wondering about who wants a two-state solution, I suggest you read this article: WWW Link

53

Dr Guy

on Apr 23, 2008

Is it truly better to sit back and let violent, bloody conflict rage on without end or attempt to engage all parties in constructive dialogue that has a chance of ending that conflict?

it depends. As a rule, no. As an absolute, ignore the rule. You cannot bring peace to those that do not want it. And if Hamas does not want it, then it will do no good for an impotent old man to go in and make promises - promises that cannot be kept.

But you make the same mistake many do. I said "sometimes". Sometimes the best course of action is no action. I did not say it was the only course on all cases.

As for the desire for Hamas to want a state, that is a read herring. And actually their refusal to create one is hindering the Jeresulem question. nations can negotiate. YOu cannot negotiate with Terrorists, and that is what they are trying to get Israel to do (which it has - to its own ill).

Did France refuse to form a state after losing Alsace-Lorraine? Did Germany after it lost it? Jeresulem is an excuse to remain a terrorist organization, not a reason for them to not creaTe a state.

54

Dr Guy

on Apr 23, 2008

Unconstitutional?! Oh come on, quit pulling my leg. I'm sorry, but some of this is shadows of back during the red scare. Ohh, they're working with the enemy, lets be blind to the fact that they're trying to solve the problem. *rolls eyes*

Article II, section 2. Read it and learn. If you can get your eyes to stop rolling around in your head long enough.

55

Adventure-Dude

on Apr 23, 2008

Adventure_Dude, if you're wondering about who wants a two-state solution, I suggest you read this article: WWW Link

I read the link (thanks by the way). I didn't see ANYWHERE Hamas agreeing to a two-state solution. Hints and attempts to persuading Hamas to accept a two-state solution was all I found.

56

ParaTed2k

on Apr 23, 2008

Well, ParaTed2K, we'd only be in prison because George Bush would have us tossed in some secret holding facility without trial because he believes we're a terrible threat to him or because we disagree with his policies. You're right--he'd have a tough time pulling a Jose Padilla on Jimmy Carter.

Admit it, if it was George Bush doing this during a future administration, you'd be calling for his head.. and so would I.

Actually, you may wish to examine the Constitution a little more closely; whatever this administration hasn't used as toilet paper reserves power not specifically granted to the federal government and the state governments to the people. That's us--you and me and Jimmy Carter.

You act as if the Constitution is silent where foreign policy is concerned.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. Art. 2, Sec 2, Para. 2 .

57

ParaTed2k

on Apr 23, 2008

I see a lot of sour grapes here by people who just can't get over the fact that George Bush is president.

What Carter is doing is no different than if I went around treating patients in the field because I "used" to be a paramedic.

58

SilentPoet

on Apr 23, 2008

Well, ParaTed2K, we'd only be in prison because George Bush would have us tossed in some secret holding facility without trial because he believes we're a terrible threat to him or because we disagree with his policies. You're right--he'd have a tough time pulling a Jose Padilla on Jimmy Carter.Admit it, if it was George Bush doing this during a future administration, you'd be calling for his head.. and so would I.Actually, you may wish to examine the Constitution a little more closely; whatever this administration hasn't used as toilet paper reserves power not specifically granted to the federal government and the state governments to the people. That's us--you and me and Jimmy Carter. You act as if the Constitution is silent where foreign policy is concerned.He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. Art. 2, Sec 2, Para. 2 .

Ted,it sounds like you're assuming that Carter is there to procure a peace treaty on the US's behalf, but...as far as I've read, that isn't so. So technically, you're wrong. I believe, i could be wrong, but as far as ive read. (and yes, i've read about it quite a bit)

(Also, I apologize if I seem..nasty or what not, I let this last week get to me. So, my apologies again. )

I see a lot of sour grapes here by people who just can't get over the fact that George Bush is president.What Carter is doing is no different than if I went around treating patients in the field because I "used" to be a paramedic.

Actually, I like Bush. I don't agree with much of what he's done, but I'm more than willing to empathize, and attempt to see things in his eyes. Honestly, I think I'm one of few "loony liberals," that does. (

)

59

ParaTed2k

on Apr 23, 2008

Silent:

Ted,it sounds like you're assuming that Carter is there to procure a peace treaty on the US's behalf, but...as far as I've read, that isn't so. So technically, you're wrong. I believe, i could be wrong, but as far as ive read. (and yes, i've read about it quite a bit)

As far as the Constitution question, if he doens't try to speak for the nation, or act in any way as a government representative, then I'll say you're right. We'll see how things turn out.

As far as bolstering the image of terrorist leaders amongst Arab nations, the very fact he's willing to talk to them against the policies of our nation, he is proving to them that he respects them more than the US. That's not my opinion, that is just plain fact.

(Also, I apologize if I seem..nasty or what not, I let this last week get to me. So, my apologies again. )

Fair enough, we all let life get to us at times.

60

SilentPoet

on Apr 23, 2008

As far as bolstering the image of terrorist leaders amongst Arab nations, the very fact he's willing to talk to them against the policies of our nation, he is proving to them that he respects them more than the US. That's not my opinion, that is just plain fact.

Eh, forgive me, but I'm more inclined to accept it as opinion, but we'll see. Who knows, there might be a miracle.

And thanks, I shouldnt have, but it happened. I got over it and am good now.