RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

rlj -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/23/2008 5:38:53 PM)

quote:

Tell that to the Czechs in 1938.


The Czechs should have defended themselves and said to hack with the west. They had one of the best natural defenses in the Sudentenland. Their T-35 tank served the Germans through 1941 and the T-38 was still in use in 1945 with the Gross Deutshland. The T-35 was better than the Panzer I and Panzer II and comparable to the early versions of the Panzer III. The t-38 was superior to anything the Germans had until the Germans put the 60L on the Panzer III.

There was no doubt in the minds of anyone in the Wehrmacht that had the Czechs chosen to fight on their own they could have made a war of it. Their army was large, it was ready and it was very well armed. It was their own fault they allowed the French and English to sell them out.

Funny though how no one who disagrees with Carter's trip has any problems with our not only negotiating with, but fighting side by side with the members of the Awakening Councils in Iraq. It wasn't that long ago that they were killing Americans and they were called terrorists.

Raul in "Die Another Day" summed it up best in this part of his conversation with Bond:

James Bond: I'm looking for a North Korean.
Raul: Tourist?
James Bond: Terrorist.
Raul: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.



rabstark -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/23/2008 5:46:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
I don't see why Carter has to reinvent his legacy. He already has an excellent one. His efforts helped America become more fuel-efficient and in better shape to deal with food crises, prevented millions of abortions, and helped Israel secure peace with a neighboring country for the first time in its history.

Some of his activities seem to be- at least from his perspective- a logical extension of the work he did in office.


Some of those things you list are open to a certain amount of debate, but the fact remains that he's widely perceived both in and out of the US as having been a failure. Perception is everything, and he seems to be trying very hard to change the perception... and failing, just as he did most of the time when he was actually in the White House.



blessedinnyc -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/23/2008 5:55:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rabstark
Some of those things you list are open to a certain amount of debate, but the fact remains that he's widely perceived both in and out of the US as having been a failure. Perception is everything, and he seems to be trying very hard to change the perception... and failing, just as he did most of the time when he was actually in the White House.

The reality is that if it weren't for Carter's policies on energy- his administration witnessed the largest build-up of civilian nuclear infrastructure in US history- we'd be in much worse shape than we are today. He was one of the few presidents to actually offer an energy policy, and a successful policy like his couldn't have come at a better time.

I don't think Carter is trying to change his perception- at least on peace negotiations. He negotiated with Egypt 30 years ago. Today, he is negotiating with Palestine. Unfortunately, that means he has to deal with Hamas.



rabstark -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/23/2008 6:30:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Unfortunately, that means he has to deal with Hamas.


He doesn't have to do anything. Hamas as much as admitted that they only wanted him there for the photo-ops, and no one else wanted him there at all, including the leadership of his own political party back here.

"chose" to, not "has" to. And look how much it accomplished. He came off looking like an idiot because they either lied to him and he believed them, or he misinterpreted what they said. Or his anti-Israel nature was showing again, and he automatically heard exactly what he wanted to hear, only to have them turn around and contradict him the next day.



mcp -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/23/2008 6:39:19 PM)

quote:

The Czechs should have defended themselves and said to hack with the west. They had one of the best natural defenses in the Sudentenland. Their T-35 tank served the Germans through 1941 and the T-38 was still in use in 1945 with the Gross Deutshland. The T-35 was better than the Panzer I and Panzer II and comparable to the early versions of the Panzer III. The t-38 was superior to anything the Germans had until the Germans put the 60L on the Panzer III.

There was no doubt in the minds of anyone in the Wehrmacht that had the Czechs chosen to fight on their own they could have made a war of it. Their army was large, it was ready and it was very well armed. It was their own fault they allowed the French and English to sell them out.


Assuming this theory would have proven true had the Czechs fought, that just further enforces rabstark's point about the question of harmless talks, imo.

quote:

Funny though how no one who disagrees with Carter's trip has any problems with our not only negotiating with, but fighting side by side with the members of the Awakening Councils in Iraq. It wasn't that long ago that they were killing Americans and they were called terrorists.


I addressed this type of fallacy of poor association- as well as the matter of authority and foreign policy strategy- above.
Also, Carter's tactic is to come with no leverage or authority to make concessions with our enemy over something he doesn't own; should he run his idea about Jerusalem or West Bank by Israel. The problem is that people on Carter's side of the arguement think Israel is a illegit entity or is way out of line in holding its territory; somehow these terrorist organizations (who are not always officially recognized leaders) are right to cry victim and make demands. Nobody in the world stage, including Israel is innocent, but they are in a tough place too.

In Iraq, we deposed the current regime and took ownership of the country. If we reinstate any old guard there, we made the conscious choice even if our hand is forced by the realities of Iraq. When we occupied the Axis nations, we had some hand in the reestablishment of those respective former enemies ; interestingly, we had less issues disarming those nations after the leadership was overthrown. Now we may have used poor processes in the rebuild of Iraq, that is a separate issue, and there is plenty of complaint on this matter from all sides. I am not as OK with the situation as you let on.
But the issue isn't that negotiations happen with enemies, it is how they happen and from which 'authority'.

As an aside, to raise the question as to whether today's terrorists are actually freedom fighters, means that you accept their charges of victimhood by the US (these the once funded allies of us, who complain that their leaders also wanted to ally with us and invite our military to their land). I think they need to present a stronger case, especially of current victimization, before we drop our gloves in shame.



rlj -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 5:48:46 AM)

quote:

Assuming this theory would have proven true had the Czechs fought, that just further enforces rabstark's point about the question of harmless talks, imo.


The thing was the Czechs didn't do any talking. Benes wasn't invited to the conference. If the Czechs were guilty of anything it was of NOT talking.

quote:

Also, Carter's tactic is to come with no leverage or authority to make concessions with our enemy over something he doesn't own;


Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. Why would that make them our enemy? More proof of our selective acceptance of democracy? When Carter left office he had a bad rap though not near as bad as Nixon's. As the years went on Nixon's reputation catapulted because of his knowledge and discussions of diplomacy and world matters. It was far more effective then Carter's humanitarian efforts. Carter is trying to emulate Nixon in ways that he has too little knowledge of.

quote:

As an aside, to raise the question as to whether today's terrorists are actually freedom fighters,


The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is based on who you ask and when you ask it. That was the point of my quote not that "terrorists today are freedom fighters" or that I think all are or none are. Ask a Shiite who doesn't want the Americans over there what they think of the Sadr army
and I am sure you'll get a vastly different response then you would get from a Kurd or a Sunni.

quote:

interestingly, we had less issues disarming those nations after the leadership was overthrown.


Interestingly enough SCAP had a much stronger grasp and understanding of Japanese culture then does anyone in this administration have of Iraq. For example, the understanding of the Shinto religion and Hirohito's divinity in the eyes of the Japanese led to SCAP's treatment of him and not removing him as the figurehead of Japanese government.



StephK -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 8:43:20 AM)

April 24, 2008
Jimmy Carter Disgraced For Many Reasons
By Joel J. Sprayregen
When it came time to judge Jimmy Carter's presidency, Americans voters thundered: Carter, receiving 40% of the popular vote, carrying four states. With sound reasons: The prime rate had soared to 20%, inflation to 12.5% and unemployment to 7.5%

More dismal than Carter's domestic failures is the continuing damage his blunders did to international security. Carter would not help Iran's Shah -- a strong ally of the U.S., even if not exactly a Jeffersonian democrat -- withstand Khomeini's revolution. Carter bears responsibility for subjecting Iran to the nightmarish rule of fanatic mullahs. All evils currently instigated by Iran -- e.g., killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Hezbollah's subjugation of Lebanon, Hamas' reign of rockets and terrorism--are attributable to Carter's blunder. Carter urged 150 Iranian generals to accept Khomeini. All were subsequently tortured and executed; the mullahs distributed photos of their mutilated corpses.

Iranian theocrats exhibited their respect for Carter by invading our embassy in Teheran and kidnapping diplomats -- a breach of international law eschewed even by Hitler and Stalin. Carter dithered for 444 interminable days during the crisis. His cowardly reluctance to take action exposed our country as a paper tiger, emboldening enemies worldwide. Hostages were released the day Ronald Reagan became President; Iranians realized we now had a leader who would act resolutely.

No Credence Due Carter

This explains why no credence is due anything Carter says regarding public policy. To these defects of intellect and character, one more must be added: Carter's obsession about Israel which borders on -- and trespasses into -- outright anti-Semitism. You don't have to be Jewish to recognize the mischief Carter caused in the Middle East last week by his parleys with senior Hamas terrorist Khaled Meshaal. Michael Young of the Beirut Star editorialized: "Carter is on a fool's errand, complicating an already complicated situation" because his meetings with Hamas legitimate terrorists who have no interest in peaceful resolution.



mapachito13 -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 9:48:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

The reality is that if it weren't for Carter's policies on energy- his administration witnessed the largest build-up of civilian nuclear infrastructure in US history- we'd be in much worse shape than we are today. He was one of the few presidents to actually offer an energy policy, and a successful policy like his couldn't have come at a better time.

I don't think Carter is trying to change his perception- at least on peace negotiations. He negotiated with Egypt 30 years ago. Today, he is negotiating with Palestine. Unfortunately, that means he has to deal with Hamas.


Every President has done something that people can consider far-sighted but the majority of the results of his administration were negative. He made people embarrassed even to be American.
I respect him more for his work with Habitat for Humanity than anything he has done.

BTW, Egypt is a sovreign country. Hamas is just a terrorist organization that is trying to usurp power from the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people - the PLA. They don't even want to deal with their brother/sister Palestinians. Why would they want to compromise with "The Great Satan"?



JimboFletch -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 9:53:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
...His efforts helped America become more fuel-efficient...

ROTFLOL
[sm=biggrin.gif]

Based on the rest of your post, I have to assume that you either didn't live through Jimmy's administration as an adult with a family or else we live in a different universe than yours.
[;)]



relady -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 10:48:30 AM)

quote:

The reality is that if it weren't for Carter's policies on energy- his administration witnessed the largest build-up of civilian nuclear infrastructure in US history- we'd be in much worse shape than we are today. He was one of the few presidents to actually offer an energy policy, and a successful policy like his couldn't have come at a better time.
Absolutely agree here!

quote:

He made people embarrassed even to be American.
Well, then I guess our current outgoing president will be in good company. I have never been more embarrassed by an administration in my lifetime. Never. Not Nixon, not Carter. Bush has supplanted any other contender for worst president ever, IMO.

quote:

His efforts helped America become more fuel-efficient
Well, he got us started in the right direction but subsequent administrations did not have the vision and pretty much ended any true energy policy that was either in place or under consideration.



JimboFletch -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 10:55:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: relady
quote:

He made people embarrassed even to be American.
Well, then I guess our current outgoing president will be in good company. I have never been more embarrassed by an administration in my lifetime. Never. Not Nixon, not Carter. Bush has supplanted any other contender for worst president ever, IMO.

I thought Johnson trumped any of those - fighting a war based on an imaginary incident in the Tonkin Gulf that cost well over 50,000 American military lives.

Dems are far from saints either.



mcp -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 11:00:56 AM)

quote:

The thing was the Czechs didn't do any talking. Benes wasn't invited to the conference. If the Czechs were guilty of anything it was of NOT talking.

Talk to who? The Germans? The post-colonial Europeans? Russia? They had agreements with several countries and it wasn't like the world didn't know where the tensions were. The problem with talks is how the "enemy" sees their weakness and the resolve of their allies. Hitler called many countries' bluff. Additionally, there were talks that didn't include Czechs and others. This shows where agreements/concessions can possibly do little to stop the blood loss (well this isn't measurable; Germany was allowed to walk in to Czech; but the ultimate price for the decision is unknown). Czechs being present made little difference anyhow; they had two options- to lose or to lose (remember Czech. was not unified).
Czechs having internal talks? Of course they should; I don't know of any talks, but the issue was that Czechoslavakia had a lot of internal issues; how does a newly formed nation hold several ethnic groups together in a yound democracy (sounds like the Iraq issue)? Plus the main powers had pawned the country anyhow.
I don't want to disagree with the idea of talks, it is most always the first step, but I believe many people put undue value to the outcome of talks (talking can lead to bad/broken agreements and strategies also). Foreign policy should keep in mind- "Know your enemy and prepare for the worst contingencies."

quote:

Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. Why would that make them our enemy? More proof of our selective acceptance of democracy? When Carter left office he had a bad rap though not near as bad as Nixon's. As the years went on Nixon's reputation catapulted because of his knowledge and discussions of diplomacy and world matters. It was far more effective then Carter's humanitarian efforts. Carter is trying to emulate Nixon in ways that he has too little knowledge of.

Yes, I see my comment is misleading. thanks. I had in mind Carter's comments of other 'organizations' with no gov't position recognized by many Western nations. But Hamas is the leading party these days in Pal. As for 'enemy', that is more official; they afterall have officially spoken of targeting the US due to our support of Israel. Enemies can become friends, like Japan.

quote:

The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is based on who you ask and when you ask it. That was the point of my quote not that "terrorists today are freedom fighters" or that I think all are or none are. Ask a Shiite who doesn't want the Americans over there what they think of the Sadr army
and I am sure you'll get a vastly different response then you would get from a Kurd or a Sunni.

I guess I raised this because I don't know what value the statement holds these days, if indeed you side against their justifications. To me, it is like saying in WW2, "We are good patriots, but so are Germans". It goes without saying, unless you imply they have a viable grievance. There can be a principle that transcends their form of freedom and the associated struggle. That is my issue.

quote:

Interestingly enough SCAP had a much stronger grasp and understanding of Japanese culture then does anyone in this administration have of Iraq. For example, the understanding of the Shinto religion and Hirohito's divinity in the eyes of the Japanese led to SCAP's treatment of him and not removing him as the figurehead of Japanese government.


I don't disagree with your point at all. Of course, it helped that Japan was fully unified. The problem with the Iraqis is that they hate us and each other (w/ a love/hate for Saddam). This is the bane of modern struggle; I agree we should plan accordingly.



GroupW -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 11:24:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcpI don't disagree with your point at all. Of course, it helped that Japan was fully unified. The problem with the Iraqis is that they hate us and each other (w/ a love/hate for Saddam). This is the bane of modern struggle; I agree we should plan accordingly.

To use a line from the movie The Princess Bride, "that does put a kink in our relationship."



rlj -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 3:33:08 PM)

quote:

I don't disagree with your point at all. Of course, it helped that Japan was fully unified. The problem with the Iraqis is that they hate us and each other (w/ a love/hate for Saddam). This is the bane of modern struggle; I agree we should plan accordingly.


Let's agree on that then, lol.

quote:

Talk to who?


The powers that met at Munich who decided to break the Sudentland from Czechoslavakia? I'll let you in on a secret- the Czechs weren't invited.



mcp -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 4:21:21 PM)

quote:

The powers that met at Munich who decided to break the Sudentland from Czechoslavakia? I'll let you in on a secret- the Czechs weren't invited.


I thought I inferred this 'secret' in my arguement above. I am suggesting that the "pawn" known as Czechoslavakia couldn't say anything to convince anyone otherwise. If they weren't invited, then how can they force a conversation? Plus, the reality was they barely could deal with their own internal strife (read as lack of unity) with the Sudetendeutsche, Magyars, etc; so their agreement for protection (which was already had) with the power nations became void. They had their talks, then got sorta double-crossed. They had no leverage; what could they plea/demand if invited to Munich?
The Czech loss of the Sudetenland probably was inevitable since Czech was an unstable, recently organized entity at the time.
On top of that, talking in Munich was still a disaster for the 'to be' Allies. Russia was upset as well (not invited), but still joined us in WW2 'cause they knew who was an immediate threat to the world and their oilfields.

Some lessons:
1. Sometimes it's just too late to talk our way out of trouble [from past mistakes].
2. Speak peace; leverage with force, if possible.



rlj -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 7:36:45 PM)

quote:

The Czech loss of the Sudetenland probably was inevitable since Czech was an unstable, recently organized entity at the time.


The loss of the Sudetenland meant the entire nation was lost. From a military standpoint there was nothing defensible left from the German direction. As for the strife Benes was no Tito. There were still enough Czechs that a defense could have been waged. The worst doom and gloom scenario that the German General Staff came up with was a successful stand in the Sudetenland long enough for Russia to get involved.

quote:

On top of that, talking in Munich was still a disaster for the 'to be' Allies. Russia was upset as well (not invited), but still joined us in WW2 'cause they knew who was an immediate threat to the world and their oilfields.


Um, Russia joined us at 3:15 am June 22 1941. Didn't have much to do with the oilfields but perhaps the 120ish divisions that crossed over into Russian territory did. Or would that be Churchhill's classic speech to the British parliment when he said "If Hitler invaded hell I'd at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the house of commons"?



relady -> RE: JIMMY CARTER'S NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!! (4/24/2008 9:10:41 PM)

quote:

I thought Johnson trumped any of those - fighting a war based on an imaginary incident in the Tonkin Gulf that cost well over 50,000 American military lives.
Yeah, he wasn't the greatest, but I was pretty young during all that led up to Vietnam. It was a boondoggle for sure but our involvement there started long before Johnson, it was just his misfortune to be the one that got stuck making the ultimate decision, which IMO was the wrong one, but oh well. I think Iraq is the same type of mistake it just has not cost as many lives yet.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI