Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LTARGlok on April 21, 2008, 10:02:31 PM
-
President Carter met a couple of times with Hamas this past week, and says that senior Hamas leaders are now willing to accept Israel's right to live in peace. But exactly what do their statements really mean? Carter appears to believe them. But if the Hamas leaders truly do believe this, then why didn't they make a public statement to this affect, instead of just privately saying things to Carter?? After all, there is not even any public record at this point as to exactly what it is they said.
I fear that Carter may well have been taken advantage of here. He may mean well, but is he perhaps being used for an evil purpose??
Here is a report about this development:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976967.html
.
-
.. me too
-
.. me too
Sorry, too late I saw that there was an earlier post about this. Since I could not delete this message, I changed the subject to something else.
-
odd how the subject in subsequent posts shows the original subject.
Yes I believe Jimmy is being a naive fool. He is being taken advantage of, and I fear the results will be less that stellar.
-
odd how the subject in subsequent posts shows the original subject.
Yes I believe Jimmy is being a naive fool. He is being taken advantage of, and I fear the results will be less that stellar.
Your post and any further posts will not have it, however. I somehow managed to overlook the other thread that had been started earlier. And since I did not want to start another thread on the same subject, I changed it to this subject.
I myself have very mixed feelings about Carter. I think that his heart is in the right place. But trusting in the word of Hamas would be a big stretch for me. It seems to me that he is being rather naive in his dealings with them.
I think that Hamas is getting desperate at this point, though, as the Israeli embargo of the Gaza Strip has been taking its toll on the people. And if folks then realize that their lives have become much worse under the rule of Hamas, then perhaps they will re-consider keeping them in power in Gaza.
It is really a bad situation, though, as the average citizen in Gaza does not deserve such a life. And the official Palestinian government has been so corrupt for so very long, that it was no surprise that people turned against them in the election and voted Hamas into power in Gaza.
So much, though, for the notion that simply having democracy will bring reason and peace to the Middle East.
.
-
this is consistent thinking on his part... he has always been a fool. He thinks with his emotions and is very stubborn.. since he is a liberal socialist who thinks the end justifies the means.. he is rarely right.
lazs
-
Carter is a security problem..... he should go sit on his porch and get out of the way.
-
I really wish the self appointed peacemakers like Carter,Jesse Jackson,etc.,would stay out of our nations foreign policy business.The Israel situation,Iraq,Iran,and the whole stinking middle east situation is a problem that will never be resolved.I have a simple solution,but it will never happen.I would tell every country that if you hinder or harass the USA in any way,retribution will be quick and painful.We will not invade you...Like grrrr Iraq,but we will use are air power to bomb you into compliance.First couple of countries,North Korea,Iran,etc.,you get the idea.
IronDog
-
Carter is not a fool. He is a sad fool. He had one of the lousiest presidencies in recent history and is just trying to do anything to leave a legacy of something other than being an utter failure. He should stick to working with the Habitat for Humanity folks and just pound nails. He has no business and no position to be doing anything in regards to diplomacy for this or any other country.
-
Sadly, he seems to thing the current administration isn't doing enough for peace between Hammas and Isreal. Carter tried to broker peace with terrorists in the past and he tried again last week. How can you negotiate with terrorists? That assumes that terrorists have some sort of hold on honor? If they did, they woundn't be terrorists!
ROX
-
Sadly, he seems to thing the current administration isn't doing enough for peace between Hammas and Isreal. Carter tried to broker peace with terrorists in the past and he tried again last week. How can you negotiate with terrorists? That assumes that terrorists have some sort of hold on honor? If they did, they woundn't be terrorists!
Well said Rox. Bin Laden said Americans fear death,and Islams cherish it.I say lets make as many Arabs as happy as they can be with death!
IronDog
ROX
-
I blame it on the Peanuts...
-
Carter is a traitor. He gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
-
Y'know what? I think the stiff necks in ALL FOUR PARTIES, in the Middle East, in Washington, and HERE need a swift smack to the back of the head.
Hamas needs to realize that they can't continue to hold out without making concessions, this IS true. But the US, Israel and Fatah need to get it through THEIR thick skulls that like it or not, peace in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza WILL NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT HAMAS' PARTICIPATION. I don't like that reality, either, but this obstinacy has stretched BEYOND the point of ludicrousness. The problem is that the IDEALS, however misguided and twisted we find them, Hamas represents are too well-entrenched among many people there, and that is NOT something that can be erased with tanks and bombs.
It's like the US is playing the parent trying to resolve a squabble between three screaming children, but telling the one that's causing most of the problems that he's excluded from the argument and has to sit in the corner while everyone else decides what to do.
Hamas has, unfortunately, advanced beyond a mere militant organization to a full political faction. Like it or not, they WERE the legally elected representatives chosen by the Palestinian people. I do NOT support their positions and believe that they ALSO need to adapt and be willing to listen, but that is NOT going to happen so long as they're shut out of the process altogether. A DECADE of peace efforts should have made that blatantly obvious by now.
Do I think Carter's mission was successful? I have NO idea, because honestly, so long as no one's willing to even TRY to roll the dice there's no way in hell of knowing. Do I think he was right? I have NO idea because no one's willing to put it to the test. Everyone's more interested in screaming accusations of treason, or senility, or socialist affiliations than step back and at least consider. Hamas MAY VERY WELL honor this agreement. Who knows? We DON'T, but that does NOT mean it should be waved off without a second thought because at the very least it opens a door if people ARE willing to LISTEN. Unfortunately that's not the case. There's no way that one side is going to get everything they want out of this, and frankly I'm VERY disgusted with the attacks leveled against someone who's at least willing to risk that same persecution for at least TRYING.
Regardless of whether his efforts were right or in the wrong, at least Carter showed courage in standing up against political dogma and at least LOOKING for another way, however unpopular it might be.
-
If you recall some years ago Carter was bamboozled by a group of mindless overzealous radicals intent on destroying democracy and chose to carry their message to the world.
Four years later we elected R. Reagan
-
Pity the fool. The worst president in recent memory, his legacy is cowardly handling of the hostage crisis in Iran. ("The matter first requires watchful waiting.") Another chapter for Profiles in Courage.
A fairly young man at the end of his failed presidency, Carter seeks to attain relevance through various means. His latest foray merely reflects his frantic desire to find some reason to remember him.
Billy was more well known and will be remember far longer.... I made good money selling a case of Billy Beer years after I bought it....It's more than I can say for Carter's presidency.
<S>
-
There was an interview not too long ago with someone involved in the crisis where it was confirmed the Iranians actually waited until Reagan took office to release the hostages, in a deliberate move to spite Carter.
-
saxman... if that is true then it does not say much about carters ability to make peace and to understand how the brokering works does it?
As for habitat for humanity.. it was a great program till he got involved and turned it into a socialist program instead of a people helping deserving people program.. as soon as fed money came in the rules went away and new ones more attuned to failed government programs came in.
lazs
-
Actually lazs, according to the interview the issue WAS resolved and arrangements were in place to end the standoff and release the hostages. The Iranians just didn't want to give Carter the "victory."
-
saxman.. you seem to be missing the point.. so long as he was involved.. it wouldn't happen.. he had years to get it to happen and he didn't.. in the end.. only him not being involved made it happen.
How does this bode well for him as a master negotiator that can bring people together? he was so bad that even tho it would have been better for all concerned to end the situation earlier.. they would rather it not go as well so long as carter was out of it.
they didn't like him and they weren't afraid of him... he was an impotent boob.. just like now.
He didn't make things better by being involved.. he only made things better by not being involved...
lazs
-
You're also missing my point:
Good idea, bad idea, good negotiator, bad negotiator, at least he's done something different to at least TRY to break the impasse, which is a HELL of a lot more than I can say for the current policy of black-and-white exclusion, which so far has only succeeded in perpetuating the stalemate.
Maybe Carter's the wrong guy to have do it, but it may not necessarily be the wrong IDEA.
-
Normally I'm not fond of wiki. This, however, sums it all up for me regarding Carter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident
-
nor is it necessarily the right idea either. In fact.. given his record.. it is more likely to be a bad idea. The man is a fool.. certainly, it is possible for a fool to come up with a good plan no matter how complex the issue but.. it is unlikely.
lazs
-
Either way, unless it's given serious consideration there's no way to know.
And for those who complain "We don't negotiate with terrorists" would you mind explaining how involving Hamas in the peace process would be so different from what the US is currently doing by courting the insurgent militias in Iraq?
-
Carter is a security problem..... he should go sit on his porch and get out of the way.
Agreed, he should learn when its time to back off as well, hes created more tension since he has arrived than has been before.
-
Y'know what? I think the stiff necks in ALL FOUR PARTIES, in the Middle East, in Washington, and HERE need a swift smack to the back of the head.
you do know we where negotiating with hamas for the release of gilad (captrued soldier) until hamas escalated the violence and attempted kidnappings, they where demanding 400 prisoners in exchange for him. There was alot of controversy about it.
-
(http://www.dtguitar.com/just_rabbit.JPG)
This just in: Carter attacked by Killer Rabbit.
Details at 11.
OMG!!!!
:P
Mac
-
(http://www.dtguitar.com/just_rabbit.JPG)
This just in: Carter attacked by Killer Rabbit.
Details at 11.
OMG!!!!
:P
Mac
Maybe he should have called Brother Manard and used the "Holy Hand Grenade". :lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk&feature=related
-
1976 was the first Presidential election I voted in. I didn't vote for Carter, in fact Ive never voted for a Democrat in any election on 2nd amendment issues alone. He was actually the guy first responsible for this terror war, at least with America involved. I was stationed in the MidEast in Nov. '79 and I remember we were ready to rumble but Carter wouldnt send us. We had a big buildup of troops, if fact I was in the 1/2 of the squadron we were told would go. But Carter backed down.
Even as a kid I knew it was a mistake. I dont buy that humanitarian crap. When an American kid signs that dotted line to take up arms he/she also has to accept the danger that comes with it. Had we crushed the Iranian students then, especially when we had so much support within the Iranian military and Government, we would be having far less problems now. I'll bet Saddam would have never tried his little tricks if he saw what awaited him in 1979. The Dictators and tyrants that run such nations dont respect indecision and weakness.
And since then hes stuck his nose into to many foreign policy matters and only complicated them. And the North Koreans simply bamboozled him. Carter should just fade away, "he should have faded away in 1980". When Reagan was elected moral on the military went up 100%. Americas enemies were fearful when Ronnie was President. And well for them they were.
-
to the main question of this thread
Yes
-
If you recall some years ago Carter was bamboozled by a group of mindless overzealous radicals intent on destroying democracy and chose to carry their message to the world.
Four years later we elected R. Reagan
Carter did give the US Military the green light to try to rescue the embassy hostages, so it is not like he rolled over and played dead in any way. It was not his fault that the attempt failed due to an accident at the staging airfield.
It was interesting, though, that the Iranians did finally release them just before Reagan assumed office. For some reason, the Iranians did not want to deal with Reagan.
.
-
As I said before, at least some information shows the release was already agreed to under Carter's administration, the Iranians just waited for Reagan to take office as a political "@$%& you" to Carter.
-
As I said before, at least some information shows the release was already agreed to under Carter's administration, the Iranians just waited for Reagan to take office as a political "@$%& you" to Carter.
May be true, but everyone knows that they didn't want to take on Reagan. He would have done what should have been done when they attacked our embasy.
-
Carter did give the US Military the green light to try to rescue the embassy hostages, so it is not like he rolled over and played dead in any way. It was not his fault that the attempt failed due to an accident at the staging airfield.
It was interesting, though, that the Iranians did finally release them just before Reagan assumed office. For some reason, the Iranians did not want to deal with Reagan.
.
Carter only gave the go ahead a year and a half after the fact, and then only because he wanted to save his presidency. If he was a true leader he would have went after our people immediatly after their capture. A United States embassy is sovereign ground. When the militants invaded that compound they were in essence invading American soil. And still he did nothing. At least Ross Perot went after his people and he is just a business man.
The answer to the topics question is neither. He is an idiot, and a traitor who should be forgotten as quickly as possible.
-
The answer to the topics question is neither. He is an idiot, and a traitor who should be forgotten as quickly as possible.
Well, he is certainly technically not a traitor, no matter what he may do. For under the US Constitution, a war has to exist in order for a charge of treason to apply. It also has to be a deliberate act, that he meant to betray our nation. You cannot be guilty of treason if your betrayal is not deliberate, and not intended to harm the United States.
And since Hamas and Syria have not declared war on the United States, and Carter's intention is to help the peace process, any charge of treason will simply not apply to him.
.
-
It was interesting, though, that the Iranians did finally release them just before Reagan assumed office. For some reason, the Iranians did not want to deal with Reagan..
because reagan would not deal with them, he would have killed them, as he should have
-
carter = idiot then, idiot now
-
My question is, that nearly 30 years' after his presidency ended, how does he figure that talking with anyone on a diplomatic level is gonna get him somewhere? He can't say anything that the U.S. government will be bound to, so why should Hamas play ball? I'm sure that Hamas realizes that anything that Carter says or does isn't on a(n) official level?
-
He can't say anything that the U.S. government will be bound to, so why should Hamas play ball?
Public Relations 101: Talk to someone with no power to cause you harm and no harm will come to you... and you get some favorable news coverage.
-
Yep what he said. ^
This guy carter has no more authority to treat with a foriegn power or group than does Richard Simmons or Jeff Dunham's puppet Peanut (only not as bright). He cannot obligate the US to consider anything he decides to talk about when he is overseas or even locally. In short he is simply a private citizen who happens to have a Secret Service escort.
-
Well, he is certainly technically not a traitor, no matter what he may do. For under the US Constitution, a war has to exist in order for a charge of treason to apply. It also has to be a deliberate act, that he meant to betray our nation. You cannot be guilty of treason if your betrayal is not deliberate, and not intended to harm the United States.
And since Hamas and Syria have not declared war on the United States, and Carter's intention is to help the peace process, any charge of treason will simply not apply to him.
.
Wow you really read a lot into what I said. I did not say he should be tried for treason, I said he was a traitor. The two are not mutually inclusive.
trai-tor 1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation, or duty 2: one who commits treason Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.
The road to Hades is paved with good intentions. Especially when a moron is driving the paving machine.
-
Carter only gave the go ahead a year and a half after the fact, and then only because he wanted to save his presidency. If he was a true leader he would have went after our people immediatly after their capture. A United States embassy is sovereign ground. When the militants invaded that compound they were in essence invading American soil. And still he did nothing. At least Ross Perot went after his people and he is just a business man.
The answer to the topics question is neither. He is an idiot, and a traitor who should be forgotten as quickly as possible.
Yep, that rescue mission had more to do with his bad Polling numbers then it did the defense of his country, or, the welfare of the hostages. Carter was a lot like Klinton was, and Hillary would be. The foundation of his policy decisions was public opinion Polls. Especially in an election years. Hows that for a decisive leader? :lol Also dont forget that right before he gave the go for that silly rescue mission he had just lost two states to Teddy Kennedy during the Democratic primary. Losing to Teddy Kennedy? Hows that for unpopular?
Carter further weakened Americas defense by appointing a moron to run the CIA, Stanfield Turner.
Boy has it been that long ago? It was a totally different world back then wasnt it?
There were shady arms transfers and sales to Iran to help get the hostages out. Both the Carter and Reagan administrations were in on it. But its also true that Reagan let the Iranians know that if they didn't release the hostages he was going to act and that he considered the hostages not surviving as acceptable losses.
-
Wow you really read a lot into what I said. I did not say he should be tried for treason, I said he was a traitor. The two are not mutually inclusive.
trai-tor 1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation, or duty 2: one who commits treason Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.
The road to Hades is paved with good intentions. Especially when a moron is driving the paving machine.
You are right, there are indeed two accepted definitions of the word traitor. And I should not have assumed that you were using the one that refers to treason.
My mistake here.
.
-
I still believe we elected the wrong Carter brother...
Billy would have been much more fun in office.
:D
Mac
-
You ever try any of that Billy beer? bleh!!
shamus
-
I went to a certain polilce academy with an ex-Secret Service agent with very personal and specific information about Jimmy Carter. (ss isn't all its cracked up to be...) my friend stood in reception lines right next to Jimmy and accepted any gifts.... as well as endless guarding of stairwells in the White house.}
Forgive me for just saying that not only is Jimmy Carter an prettythanghole, his kids are spoiled brats, and Carter himsellf has only contempt for Secret Service.
I think Jimmy Carter has contempt for many of our fighting soldiers..
-
Carter did give the US Military the green light to try to rescue the embassy hostages, so it is not like he rolled over and played dead in any way. It was not his fault that the attempt failed due to an accident at the staging airfield.
It was interesting, though, that the Iranians did finally release them just before Reagan assumed office. For some reason, the Iranians did not want to deal with Reagan.
.
Now, LTARGlock gets it..... The Iranians didn't want to deal with Reagan.... They stretched it out to further emasculate Carter, but, the reality is they knew Reagan would take decisive action. Not everyone is as stupid as Khaddafy and Saddam....
-
(http://332nd.org/dogs/simaril/jd1080418d_lr.jpg)
-
And speaking of stiff necks....
The Israelis this week refused to accept an offered cease-fire by Hamas. From what I understand is, their reasoning was entirely because "We don't believe you." The Egypt-backed proposal would have called for a total cease-fire in Hamas-controlled Gaza, with the establishment of a timetable for doing the same in the West Bank. In return, Hamas requested a reopening of borders in Gaza.
Way to take a chance, Israel.
:aok