Jimmy Carter " Horrible to Attack Iran"

YOUTUBE?


Do you agree with the former US President, and why?
Do you agree with Obama and why?

Condeleeza Rice? Israel?

Are we talking about the same Carter?
The one that was President during the Iran Hostage Crisis?

Stinking Carter!
No one alive during the 70's can honestly say he was a good president.

Jimmy Carter = Barack Obama = 1 TERM!

reply to post by hotbread


This vid is years old, but has some valid points still today.

Best parts of video is when before Rudy "I saved New York Myself" was to talk, Jimmy said "I already know what hes gonna say"
Rudy the Neocon.

And when asked between Cheney and Rice who he agrees with, before Wolf got the question out, Jimmy says he would believe Rice over "anything" Cheney said.

Cheney the Neocon.

that's ironic. since he ordered the failed delta team rescue of the americans held as guests at the american embassy in iran, which the media falsely labeled " the iranian hostage crisis".

I don't think there's a president more repulsive to me than Jimmy Carter.

All the others are at least affable; Bush with his goofiness, Bush Sr. with his awkwardness, Clinton with his lasciviousness, but Carter is just such a weasel. He pretends to be such a 'nice guy' intellectual, but hes probably the most radical of them all.

I watched a fairly interesting documentry about Carter and Iran. It was a conspiracy type documentary showing that the republican party was in talks with, and making big backroom deals with Iran during the hostage crisis and basically told them to hold the hostages until after Reagan came into office in exchange for weapons and all sorts of gifts...it allowed for mass instability and a gimme election to the Reagen administration to win.

Now

I would like to find that investigation documentary. More though, if it is true, I would like to see all those involved be charged with treason and hung if true. It adds to the conspiracy that they were indeed released minutes after Reagen was sworn in.

I allow for Carter to get a pass until this is sorted out in regards to how effective you are. When the opposing party may have been in full treason mode and working with the enemy of the united states to conspire against you, then its hard to give the man too much of a hassle.

As far as his stance on iran. of course he is correct. Carter's presidency may currently be a topic of debate, however, what he has accomplished after his term has been very impressive and wise. To the people whom will automatically take the opposite side of whatever Carter says simply because he said it..well, Carter is also against people committing suicide.
So...get on with it then.

Originally posted by dontreally
but hes probably the most radical of them all.

How so?

Three words.......

Operation Eagle Claw.


BTW,is he hawking a new book?

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by dontreally
but hes probably the most radical of them all.

How so?

Of all the most recent Pres, back to Jimmy.

Jimmy has given the closest thing to the finger to Israel, than the others.

It was Jimmy Carter that took down the Soviet Union through Operation Cyclone...the Dems don't like to talk about it because they would have to admit that the extremists having influence in Afghanistan was their fault, and the Republicans don't want to talk about it because they want everyone to think that Reagan was some kind of hero. But I think people should at least be aware that Carter has had some success, it's just not advertised due to embarrassment of the consequences, something that perhaps in his old age he may understand a little better.

Unfortunately it is almost to late for to stop this war from happening. The people of America are voting for war, as the only candidate that would seek peace with Iran is ignored on that basis alone. Iran is most likely watching as the people boo the golden rule and demand action. At this point I would be shocked if the situation doesn't soon pass the point of no return.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Read up on the carter center

For instance, is it not radical, per the definition, to oversee Egyptian elections where Islamist parties are on the verge of a victory, to regard that victory as a "victory for democracy"? This is what Jimmy Carter said.

It's absurd.

Ugh ..
Jimmy Carter ... first person I ever voted for. My mistake. Oh well .. I was young.
Jimmy Carter ... worst president ever. Well ... we'll see if that's true when Obama is done.
Jimmy Carter ... Iran hostages ... gas 'shortages' ... anti-Jewish rants in books ....
Bah! Shut up. Go away.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Read up on the carter center

For instance, is it not radical, per the definition, to oversee Egyptian elections where Islamist parties are on the verge of a victory, to regard that victory as a "victory for democracy"? This is what Jimmy Carter said.

It's absurd.

edit on 24-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

An election = a victory for democracy
I would agree with that
Just because your favorite party didn't win doesn't mean the process is invalid. Should I say democracy only prevails when a liberal is elected?

So, islamic partys won the vote in an islamic area..wow, this is news..shoulda been erm..christians?

Try this trick. take out the word that is freaking -you- out...aka, islamic. now you just complained that someone gave a nod to a nation that is having an elections...to me, your the radical one. Democracy to some, so long as you follow my religion?

Originally posted by dontreally
For instance, is it not radical, per the definition, to oversee Egyptian elections where Islamist parties are on the verge of a victory, to regard that victory as a "victory for democracy"? This is what Jimmy Carter said.

It's absurd.

edit on 24-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

So is it only 'democracy' when the people that shares your view of the world wins the elections in their respective countries? Do people even realise that stability is the antithesis to stability; that democracy is NOT the safe option that provides security and all human needs? You do not seem to have any better idea of what democracy entails than the caricatures that you call and believe to be islamist. When Islam countries start cooperating and building a dozen aircraft carriers, deploys thousands of nuclear missiles or ( like those nice European Nazi's) start taking over the world with casualties running into the tens of millions i will simply point out that they are doing no worse than what we currently have to put up with from our friendly neighbor the USA/the imperialist it replaced.

Thanks for helping to remind me why i should not read anything on the political forums...

Stellar

reply to post by SaturnFX

An election = a victory for democracy

Listen to what you're saying, as it is riddled with contradiction.

Democracy is a liberal ideal i.e. all people have a say in how the state should be constituted. This is a liberal prerogative. It's an expression of a liberal ideal.

Conversely, Islamism is anything but democratic, as it is based on Islamic considerations i.e. Shari'a law. Sure, it will take advantage of the ordinary democratic process to appease western critics, but once in power, do you think they will then return to the people the same democratic opportunity which got them into power, or will they use an Islamist government as a means to overhaul the entire social character of the society, and thus circumvent the possibility of social reform?

By definition, only a society which acknowledges certain inalienable human rights can be considered democratic, and as long as a religious theology grants preference to one group - Muslims, which follow their own internal structuring i.e. Islamic law, it will always be undemocratic, as it is not egalitarian.

Simple logic.

And might I add, Jimmy Carter is a raging anti-zionist? Which is probably why he regards this sham election which will probably end up with a government vociferously anti-Israel as a "major success for democracy"? As usual in the world of politics, this is simply for the sake of generating good press.

James Baker " There is no military solution for Iran" pretty much agrees with Jimmy Carter.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

An election = a victory for democracy

Listen to what you're saying, as it is riddled with contradiction.

Democracy is a liberal ideal i.e. all people have a say in how the state should be constituted. This is a liberal prerogative. It's an expression of a liberal ideal.

Conversely, Islamism is anything but democratic, as it is based on Islamic considerations i.e. Shari'a law.

Actually, Islam is very much a democracy. There is no pope of islam, nor any structure. It is a popular vote that others may or may nor adopt. This is why islam is also very difficult to reign in as a single religion. They follow no single man, but rather will adopt a favored symbolic man until such a time as he falls out of favor.
That is just the religion. As far as the politics
Sharia law is actually not a bad thing in 75% of its "laws" and rules..most are common sense stuff. the other 25% is nutty extremist crap however...but it is their culture.
I see islam itself as a culture to be akin to raw sewage, but that is because I am jaded and see western culture (beef burgers and britney) to be superior..I know this is strictly an opinion based on comfort level and exposure..so I try to keep such things in check.

Sure, it will take advantage of the ordinary democratic process to appease western critics, but once in power, do you think they will then return to the people the same democratic opportunity which got them into power, or will they use an Islamist government as a means to overhaul the entire social character of the society, and thus circumvent the possibility of social reform?

If they are voted in under a certain platform, do said platform, then they have done the will of the people
If they do not give regular fair elections, then they go against the will of the people..that is really the only criteria towards a democratic country. Free and fair elections.

By definition, only a society which acknowledges certain inalienable human rights can be considered democratic,

Not true. Actually, the idea of a democracy is not a new idea. ok, first off, lets call it for what it is. its a republic. No democracy exists in the world and it shouldn't, but a good string democratic republic is the best we got and its an idea sprung by the ancient greeks.
During this time, the golden age of civilization, the greeks had slaves, pushed certain religions, etc. But, it was a proper republic deserving of the title because it was the choice of the people (and representitives). The candy coating bill of rights is indeed a great thing to have added, but not a contingency. Democracy will breed human rights in time, but first there must be freedom before such mental contemplations occur.

and as long as a religious theology grants preference to one group - Muslims, which follow their own internal structuring i.e. Islamic law, it will always be undemocratic, as it is not egalitarian.

Simple logic.

Argument could be made for Evangelical's in the US. The US favors that platform..also, the US demand some sort of theology on the surface (look at the dollar bill, you will see a religious overtone suggesting everyone trusts a deity).
Go to a school and listen to them do the pledge..you will hear children being programmed into being under a deity.

I, being an agnostic atheist find such things to not represent me, yet I don't think this is therefore not a democracy because of it. The government clearly grants preference to one group (theists) with marriage observations (a religious ceremony granting favor and benefits), and even demand the laws of the land are based on jewish deity instructions (10 commandments).
I don't feel oppressed incidentally Society is what it is and is molded to the will of the majority's desire.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Actually, Islam is very much a democracy

You really don't understand what democracy means, do you?

Read Hegel's "philosophy of right" and then answer me how Islam defends the personal rights of ALL people, IRRESPECTIVE of personal belief.

Islamic law may work for Muslims, but what about Egyptian atheists, Christians etc?

If they are voted in under a certain platform, do said platform, then they have done the will of the people

You are confusing the democratic process of an election, with the democratic process in governing. Sure, this is 'democratic', in that the people have voted an Islamic party into government. But in terms of governing, I can assure you, they are the complete opposite of democratic.

If they do not give regular fair elections, then they go against the will of the people..that is really the only criteria towards a democratic country. Free and fair elections.

Ya...Like the "Free elections" in Iran?

The democratic spirit cannot flourish in a country where basic democratic principles do not exist. As soon as an Islamic government gains foot in Egypt, they will not be voted out, barring another popular revolution.

The US favors that platform

The constitution makes no preference towards any religion, as it insures the freedom of all people to practice any religion they desire.

There is a fundamental disparity between the precepts of a religious party, such as the Islamist parties in Egypt, and the egalitarian spirit that most democracies seek to give expression to.

I'm not saying there are any 'true' democracies. I know there aren't and have never been. All political philosophers generally agree on this point. However, there is general agreement that in a true democracy, there is a separation between church and state. This separation attempts to secure a civil equality between all peoples, before the state: this is what's called the "social contract". In such a state, equality is sovereign. In an Islamist society, God is sovereign, which means Islamist law, Shari'a, is sovereign.


Just to add, I don't have much a problem with Muslims following Islamist law, or for an Islamist society to elect an Islamic government. What i object to is calling such a society 'democratic', when it isn't.

and even demand the laws of the land are based on jewish deity instructions (10 commandments).

First, one could argue the constitution is more deistic, than Jewish. The very content of the ideas in the constitution are rooted in basic human reason, and because it is, it has allowed a truly "democratic" i.e. society to emerge, in the sense that people can truly act in any way they desire - as long as it doesn't hurt others. Is this not the basic idea behind a democracy?

I don't think you have an iota of knowledge of Shar'ia law. Read "the legacy of Jihad" to get an idea of the history of it, or read some of the works of Hassan Al Bannah (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood). Shari'a, of course, shows preference to Muslims, even in issues of general administration: for example, the Shari'a demands that in issues of civil law, a Muslim be given priority to a non Muslim. Meaning, If a non-Muslim brings a suit against a Muslim, the non-Muslim is not to be believed.

With an Islamist government in Egypt, Islamist's will be elected to positions of authority in almost all the major areas of government. I don't know if you're paying attention to the elections in Egypt, but Egypt's new government will be overwhelmingly Islamic: 75%, or 3/4 of the legislature, will be Islamic.

You are dreaming if you think this is a 'victory for democracy". It's a joke and an insult to anyone who understands what's actually going on.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You really don't understand what democracy means, do you?

Read Hegel's "philosophy of right" and then answer me how Islam defends the personal rights of ALL people, IRRESPECTIVE of personal belief.

Islamic law may work for Muslims, but what about Egyptian atheists, Christians etc?

You may possibly be right, but you may also very much be wrong. How do you know from beforehand the plans of the Islamic parties? They're going to vote themselves in and then abolish democracy? Really?

Also, democracy is "rule of the people", or more accurately, rule of the MAJORITY of the people. If you are talking about actual democracy, considering muslims make the majority of voters in Egypt, it is, if they want to vote in the Islamic parties, then that would certainly be democratic.

You may argue it is a failure for "Judeo-Christian ideals" or may even (debateably) claim that it is a failure for "equal rights" or "fundamental human rights", but there is so far certainly nothing undemocratic about the elections in Egypt (unless someone gives verifiable evidence of ballot-stuffing or something).

It is certainly much more democratic than the referendums they'd been having for years and years with the public ballots and votes, where the police came and visited anyone who didn't vote for Hosni Mubarak, and asked them if they made a mistake, and if they wanted to correct it, or would they like to come down to the station.

But I guess since he was a pro-US and pro-Israel dictator (although the islamic parties, or at least the Muslim Brotherhood, have agreed to put up the question of relations with Israel up for a referendum, i.e. a DEMOCRATIC process), Hosni Mubarak was "more democratic". Perhaps the US should step in, kick out the Islamic parties, and set up a non-islamic entity, so that they can be more "democratic" .