Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 91
  1.    #61  
    This is an interesting article on the subject:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801270.html
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    This is an interesting article on the subject:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801270.html
    I think the article is interesting and does point to the complexity of the situation. do you currently live in Israel?
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I think the article is interesting and does point to the complexity of the situation. do you currently live in Israel?
    I live in the US
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    I live in the US
    well I get the impression that, like Tomups, you have spent some time in the mideast.
  5.    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    well I get the impression that, like Tomups, you have spent some time in the mideast.
    I have. I lived in the Middle east for a while and I spent time in Israel and the WB and Gaza. I do know one thing: There are two sides to the conflict! Perhaps that is why president Carter's book, that favors one side, bothers me. But, I still believe that prez has his heart in the right place.
  6. PSB22's Avatar
    Posts
    192 Posts
    Global Posts
    203 Global Posts
    #66  
    Yes, freely admit that I have not lived in the middle east, and may have some historical inaccuracies. As always this forum is a place for learning.

    However, let me restate that my main gripe is not with the Israelis or the Palestinians, it is with the complete train-wreck of US policy towards the region. A large part of the disturbances there can be directly traced to US and UK interference over the past century. While clearly the area is of some economic importance, this could easily be changed by some shifts in US domestic energy policy. But then when you add in the religious factor, and the complete myth that US government up-holds the separation of church and state, you begin to see that the politicians in DC are not deciding foreign policy on economic grounds alone - there is a definite religious influence there. That seems to me, to be the root of a lot of the problems. If the US could just see past the religious issue, and get to the crux of the real reason we are in the middle east at all, I think it wouldn't be long before we abandoned the region.
  7. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by PSB22 View Post
    Yes, freely admit that I have not lived in the middle east, and may have some historical inaccuracies. As always this forum is a place for learning.

    However, let me restate that my main gripe is not with the Israelis or the Palestinians, it is with the complete train-wreck of US policy towards the region. A large part of the disturbances there can be directly traced to US and UK interference over the past century.
    Maybe, but I think the biggest problem are oppresive arab regimes bent on the destruction of Israel at all costs. These regimes support and bankroll baby killers . Then, they often cry to the UN about the abusive Israeli treatment of the Palestinians while ignoring their own abuse and humiliation of Palestinians living in their own countries. Many of these governments also give support and bankroll terrorist orginations that have attacked and murdered many Americans. Unitil these countries and their populations learn to maybe look in the mirror at themselves instead of blindly blaming the US and Israel for all the worlds wrong doings, there will never be peace.
  8. #68  
    "W" has Carter beat by a long shot. Those 53 Americans came home. While nearly 3000 young Americans in service came home in body bags these past 3 years. And now, W is saying he needs to re-think his military strategy in Iraq. I don't mean any disrespect to you. But come on. We all should feel like "worms" because we haven't grieved one day or stood in the shoes of those families who lost loved ones. It's a tragedy and a shame. Jimmy Carter is a side show compared to what is going on in Iraq.
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    Why would anybody care, or buy a book written by the worst president America has ever seen?

    I wonder if in his book, he ever apologizes to the 53 Americans he left to rot for 444 days in Iran.
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by PSB22 View Post
    However, let me restate that my main gripe is not with the Israelis or the Palestinians, it is with the complete train-wreck of US policy towards the region. A large part of the disturbances there can be directly traced to US and UK interference over the past century. While clearly the area is of some economic importance, this could easily be changed by some shifts in US domestic energy policy. But then when you add in the religious factor, and the complete myth that US government up-holds the separation of church and state, you begin to see that the politicians in DC are not deciding foreign policy on economic grounds alone - there is a definite religious influence there. That seems to me, to be the root of a lot of the problems. If the US could just see past the religious issue, and get to the crux of the real reason we are in the middle east at all, I think it wouldn't be long before we abandoned the region.
    Foreign Policies are tricky, just trace American presidents: Each one has had different perspectives, ideas, knowledge, attitude, etc., about them. South East Asia (namely the Vietnam and Korea wars), the Cold War and the Bay of Pigs arguably tasted just as bad as the Middle East fiasco. There were some success stories as well but who likes good news?
    The Middle East is unique for its oil and, perhaps, religion and gosh knows what's the right approach to it. I have always maintained that there are two sides to each conflict and some balance is required in order to achieve peace. Jimmy Carter is entitled to his opinion but his book dances on an uneven bar which distances itself from the cause.
    Perhaps Bill Clinton had the most coherent approach but Mr. Arafat pissed in his face -- and that was that. (Mr. Sharon didn't help much either!)
    I have read many cries about Zionist Imperialism and occupations (including your own remarks in a previous post). But again: There are two sides to a conflict and I urge people to understand them both. Peace can be achieved not by accusations but by understanding.
  10. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by specimen38 View Post
    "W" has Carter beat by a long shot. Those 53 Americans came home.
    How nice, only 400+ days of blindfolds and torture. Your right, Carter did a fantastic job.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    How nice, only 400+ days of blindfolds and torture. Your right, Carter did a fantastic job.
    So you are more an admirer of the Reagan Administration who negotiated with the terrorists, went behind the back of Congress and made a deal with the Islamistic fundamentalists, aka Irangate?

    Bad Carter, didn't do that.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    So you are more an admirer of the Reagan Administration who negotiated with the terrorists, went behind the back of Congress and made a deal with the Islamistic fundamentalists, aka Irangate?

    Bad Carter, didn't do that.
    Yes, I am.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by specimen38 View Post
    "W" has Carter beat by a long shot. Those 53 Americans came home. While nearly 3000 young Americans in service came home in body bags these past 3 years. And now, W is saying he needs to re-think his military strategy in Iraq. I don't mean any disrespect to you. But come on. We all should feel like "worms" because we haven't grieved one day or stood in the shoes of those families who lost loved ones. It's a tragedy and a shame. Jimmy Carter is a side show compared to what is going on in Iraq.
    Bush eliminated three state sponsors of terror. How many were created under Carter's watch?

    As for the hostage crisis, Carter's rescue attempts failed, the Iranians began negotiations after Carter was defeated, and they chose to release the hostages only after Carter was out of office, which is very telling about his power relationship with Iran. The only way he was able to bring the hostages home was by stepping down.

    And if number of casualties indicates a bad President, how awful were Washington, Lincoln, and FDR?
  14. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #74  
    How anyone can compare Carter to Reagan is beyond me. Theres a very good chance there would still be a Soviet Union now if Reagan was never elected.

    Modern day Islamic Fundamentalism was born on Carters watch and his failed policies .
  15. #75  
    Yes, the "number of casualties" are important! People, who did not voluteer for armed services lost their lives in the WTC, FLT 93 & Pentagon. Yes human life matters! I believe in fighting and giving my life for a righteous cause. The Iraqis did not have weapons of mass destruction. Osama Bin Laden had them! Of course, you've forgotten him. You've diverted your anger just the way the Republicans wanted you to. Carter is not the issue. The issue is still and always will be - BUSH cannot find OSAMA
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    And if number of casualties indicates a bad President, how awful were Washington, Lincoln, and FDR?
    Last edited by specimen38; 12/29/2006 at 12:01 AM.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by specimen38 View Post
    Osama Bin Laden had them!
    OBL had WMDs? Which ones? I know they found plans to build a nuke in his cave and so all he needed was the supplies to do it.....which is a concern with anyone who might be willing to sell to him. They have found documentation of wanting to obtaining bio agents with possible options of who to possibly buy them from and how they might go about buying them. There is no doubt that OBL wanted them. But did he get them? I would be interested in any sources to read up on it. Thanks.
  17. #77  
    HobbesIsReal -- you are RIGHT! OBL had no WMDs. His weapons destroyed masses. Americans! And I will not be distracted or diverted from the real issue. That is the capture of OBL. It's amazing to me that people don't talk about that anymore. It's D$%@ shame that we have forgotten what he did to us.


    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    OBL had WMDs? Which ones? I know they found plans to build a nuke in his cave and so all he needed was the supplies to do it.....which is a concern with anyone who might be willing to sell to him. They have found documentation of wanting to obtaining bio agents with possible options of who to possibly buy them from and how they might go about buying them. There is no doubt that OBL wanted them. But did he get them? I would be interested in any sources to read up on it. Thanks.
  18. #78  
    Specimen....I was not attacking or distracting.

    You stated that OBL had actual WMDs like it was common knowledge and was an established fact. A VITAL fact that I thought that I might have somehow missed as it would have changed everything. I was interested in this part of your argument as it has several important aspects. The obvious points of interests would then be....What did he get? How did he get them? Who did he get them from?

    The other major one changes the focus on OBL from a man who wants to buy WMDs to one who has them and wants to use them. The first forces us to not only looking for OBL, but also at those who have the supplies, technology, and possible ambition to sell them. It is a multi-front problem and concern.

    The later then becomes a confirmed WMD threat from someone who currently possesses confirmed WMDs with a death threat on the US.

    While we are still in the in first situation, we have to address both the buyers and the sellers (as there is little doubt that there are multiple of each) to prevent the second scenario (whether it is OBL or any other terrorist org) from becoming a reality.

    This is why your apparent statement of established fact was of great interest to me.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/29/2006 at 12:25 PM.
  19. #79  
    Hobbes,

    It was an error to overstate and sensationalize OBL's actions in 9/11. I had the facts and knew OBL did not possess nukes as far as we know. I was caught up in the emotion of responding to another blogger's attack of Jimmy Carter and vindication of "W". On these matters it seems petty to parlay in partisan politics. We must be united on this issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Specimen....I was not attacking or distracting.

    You stated that OBL had actual WMDs like it was common knowledge and was an established fact. A VITAL fact that I thought that I might have somehow missed as it would have changed everything. I was interested in this part of your argument as it has several important aspects. The obvious points of interests would then be....What did he get? How did he get them? Who did he get them from?

    The other major one changes the focus on OBL from a man who wants to buy WMDs to one who has them and wants to use them. The first forces us to not only looking for OBL, but also at those who have the supplies, technology, and possible ambition to sell them. It is a multi-front problem and concern.

    The later then becomes a confirmed WMD threat from someone who currently possesses confirmed WMDs with a death threat on the US.

    While we are still in the in first situation, we have to address both the buyers and the sellers (as there is little doubt that there are multiple of each) to prevent the second scenario (whether it is OBL or any other terrorist org) from becoming a reality.

    This is why your apparent statement of established fact was of great interest to me.
  20. #80  
    Jimmy Carter was one of the worst Presidents in recent history, a parody of an inept and naive leader who could accomplish nothing. So, why should we listen to anything he has to say now, while he tries to push the same old policies that failed when he was President? He cozies up to every enemy of the USA and has nothing but good words for them. He's increasingly a bad joke.
    If it doesn't have a slot for SDHC--I don't want it. Period.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions