adnauseam adnauseam

Carter is a Statesman.

▼

Carter is a Statesman.

Give him a chance.

from JoeUser Forums

If George Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Tony Blair--and many others before them--cannot solve the Palestinian problem, why criticize Jimmy Carter for trying to do something about it by meeting Hamas.

I doubt Carter will make significant headway but the US government feels he should not be talking to the "bad boys". How do you make any progress if you don't talk to the enemy? How do you justify criticism when your own policy on Palestine is ineffective and goes no further than "peace-speak'" but not "action-speak".

Give Carter a chance---He has done a darn sight more for the World than Rice or Blair!

14,276 views 98 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
End of quote


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?
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
End of quote


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.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Carter's anti-semitic view
End of quote


The Peace prize seems to favor those that are anti-semitic.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
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?
End of quote


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.




Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
End of quote


You call it an observation when you do it, but then you call it an assumption on my part. You see Doc, it can't be one or the other. Either you're assuming, and I'm observing, or vice versa.

I call myself a liberal in that yes, politically that is where I lean. To call myself conservative would be a lie. However, do I march step in step with all things liberal, or democrat? No. Do I have a brain? Yes. Do I resent being grouped, labeled, stereotyped, etc.. by those like you? Yes. Do I have the best intentions and work for the desired results in things I do? Yes. I'm altruistic by nature, as well as other things. I put the best of others before my own. And yes doc, you've called me a liberal, albeit not directly, but it's been implied none-the-less.

Have I lied? No, I haven't lied in a very long time, since late 2005/early 2006. I've quit lying and have matured beyond that. That's what all of you hear don't get. You all don't see me for who I am NOW, only who I was THEN.

And ya know what, when I go to vote, I use my head. I ask myself (to mention a few): "Which one is the best for the job? Which one is more along the lines of what I believe"

I've been trying to dump it, but frankly it's ingrained in me. I'm still trying, but i'm making slow progress.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Carter is a good diplomat, and humanitarian, and my thought is, "Hell, why not?"
End of quote


So do you think Carter going to Hamas instead of Israel (to which Carter is biased AGAINST) was a brilliant diplomatic approach to this scenario? I'm sure Israel does *sarcasm*!
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Hell, why not?"
End of quote


Because it's not his part and he would have cried in his peanut butter if anyone pulled this kind of unprofessional crap when he was president.

If I was president, I'd have his passport yanked and let him rot with the vermin he chooses to sleep with. Sure, Carter has the "right" to go talk to anyone he wishes, but the state department can yank a passport from anyone too, as long as they have probable cause... and a case can be easily made here that Carter is breaking a few U.S. laws.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Carter is a good diplomat, and humanitarian, and my thought is, "Hell, why not?"So do you think Carter going to Hamas instead of Israel (to which Carter is biased AGAINST) was a brilliant diplomatic approach to this scenario? I'm sure Israel does *sarcasm*!
End of quote


Brilliant, no, a different route, sure. If neither are willing to approach the table, then sometimes it begs to try one or the other of the parties. I don't know what Carter's motivation is though.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Hell, why not?"Because it's not his part and he would have cried in his peanut butter if anyone pulled this kind of unprofessional crap when he was president. If I was president, I'd have his passport yanked and let him rot with the vermin he chooses to sleep with. Sure, Carter has the "right" to go talk to anyone he wishes, but the state department can yank a passport from anyone too, as long as they have probable cause... and a case can be easily made here that Carter is breaking a few U.S. laws.
End of quote


Maybe, maybe not. And who's to say he can't play the part of trying to solve a crisis? By that reasoning, then no American can. That's bullshit Ted.

Sure they can, but that's harking back to the communism era as far as I am considered, If you don't agree or follow what the government wants, then you're a bad boy. Yeah, right, bull.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Carter is a good diplomat, and humanitarian, and my thought is, "Hell, why not?"So do you think Carter going to Hamas instead of Israel (to which Carter is biased AGAINST) was a brilliant diplomatic approach to this scenario? I'm sure Israel does *sarcasm*!
End of quote


Brilliant in an anti semetic, love thy palistian terrorist sort of way.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Carter is a good diplomat, and humanitarian, and my thought is, "Hell, why not?"So do you think Carter going to Hamas instead of Israel (to which Carter is biased AGAINST) was a brilliant diplomatic approach to this scenario? I'm sure Israel does *sarcasm*!Brilliant in an anti semetic, love thy palistian terrorist sort of way.
End of quote


No, so quit trying to put up a straw man.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brilliant, no, a different route, sure. If neither are willing to approach the table, then sometimes it begs to try one or the other of the parties. I don't know what Carter's motivation is though.
End of quote


Israel has been willing to approach the table for quite some time. They gave up the west bank and Gaza. Hmmm, but yet that 'peace' only lasted a short time.

SP, maybe you should go read the Hamas charter. They hate Israel and want to eradicate it from the earth.

"Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[5] The organization is widely described as antisemitic.[6]" WWW Link

Sounds like a people SO willing to negotiate peace with Israel, don't you think?

Israel has constantly tried for peace but it has been Hamas that continues to break it first. Israel just recently told Hamas to stop shooting rockets or else they would cut off water, supplies, etc. Hamas was not willing to comply. Israel was forced to carry out their appeal.

Maybe you don't remember the 2005 pullout of Gaza and West Bank? Yeah that worked out real well in a peace treaty, didn't it?

Israel WANTS to live in peace it is Hamas who does not (they want eradication). Carter is Pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. That's like telling a white supremacist to talk to the KKK to stop burning crosses on black people's lawns!



Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not his place to be there. He is breaking every rule of diplomacy. He is not being a diplomat, he's beings a pawn to terrorist propaganda. No matter what he think he's accomplishing there, that is how they will use him.

From Breshnev to Arafat to today, he never met a terrorist murderer he didn't like.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jimmy is a homebuilder. He should stick to it - he does a pretty good job of it.

His international grandstanding is disrespectful to the office he formerly held, his opinion of the current occupant notwhithstanding, and confirms that he cares more for attempts at rehabilitating his personal reputation than he does for the good of his country. While he is by all accounts a generous and kind individual on a personal level, in this he is incredibly selfish.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
You call it an observation when you do it,
End of quote


Ok, I confess. I assumed you were a liberal when you called yourself a super liberal. My error. I should never assume you are telling the truth.

Satisfied?

Do I have a brain? Yes.
End of quote


That is an assumption. You have never observed it, so we cannot state it is a fact (just using your convoluted logic). Scarecrow

No, I haven't lied in a very long time, since late 2005/early 2006
End of quote


I do not believe anyone who states an absolute "I have not lied since". Right. Sorry, that man died 2000 years ago for out salvation, and you are not the second coming. But I give you credit for an ego the size of New york for that whopper.

Now that you have gotten your deification qualifications out of the way, instead of proclaiming your holiness, maybe you can show what assumption I made.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wow, haven't had so many replies in ages--makes me feel a part of the family again.

Of course "y'all" (Georgia speak), harbour negatives about Carter because he was a mediocre president. But I think you are dwelling on the past. Carter has been a great ambassador for peace since then. I accept the negatives but please prove to me that GW, Condi, Blair et al, have done anything to enhance the peace process in Palestine! I do not know whether Carter is making headway but he certainly makes sense when he he says the peace progress has regressed. I agree. Go on, tell me what an arsehole he is but remember he has insight, is trying,  and has ingress.

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!

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!
End of quote


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.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting ParaTed2k, reply 44
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.
End of ParaTed2k's quote

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 President Carter was trying to broker peace or at least get some new talks started between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. By the way, he wanted to also meet with Israeli government officials, but they refused expressly because he was meeting with Hamas. He is NOT anti-Semitic; he is pro-human.

Perhaps he didn't succeed, but what are we doing to help with the process? Carter was willing to try which is far more than our government is willing to do. Why? Because every single Palestinian hates us and Israel and wants to see us all dead? Of course that's not true. Palestinians are people, too, who desire to have a homeland. Is war, death, and destruction truly the best answer that we can aspire to in resolving global conflicts? Do none of you people here who are bashing President Carter believe that there is a role for diplomacy? I might remind you that he successfully negotiated a peace deal between Israel and Egypt in 2002; would an ineffective anti-Semite have done such a thing?

Carter is not trying to rehabilitate his personal reputation, as one poster suggested. He has a lifetime of achievements that he can be proud of. Like most of the other things he's done in his life, he is motivated simply by a desire to have a more peaceful world. Pardon me if I agree with the OP here, but has any one of the conservatives who responded to this stopped to consider the track record of the current administration when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy? To George W. Bush, diplomacy means "you do what I want because my gun is bigger than yours and it's pointed at your chest" (aka cowboy diplomacy). How many peace deals have members of his administration concluded?

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.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course "y'all" (Georgia speak),
End of quote


When speaking of more than one, it is all y'all. ;)

I accept the negatives but please prove to me that GW, Condi, Blair et al, have done anything to enhance the peace process in Palestine!
End of quote


Whew! That lets me off! As I said, not always doing something is the best course. Sometimes doing nothing is. Until such time as Hamas accepts the basic principal of Israel's right to exist, nothing is the best course. Carter did not even get that concession.

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Therefore, Hamas is a major part of the Palestinian government,
End of quote


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.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
End of quote


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.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
End of quote


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.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
End of quote


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!'?