Letter for USA from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Just War or A Just War

By JIMMY CARTER

ATLANTA ?EProfound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options ?Epreviously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations ?Ewere outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions ?Ewith war as a final option ?Ewill enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

Very very good letter... maybe that will open some eyes.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

I read the word Alanta, or something and I gave up, I am sure being that the person who wrote it was a Nobel Prize winner and all, and I am sure it was very touching, but its too early, 7 amish in fact, and I am already at work. Ok anyhow As I was about to say.

War is justified, just not for the reasons they advertise. Persecution of a population via the power in charge is bad, no matter what way you cut the dice, this country (iraq) has being doing this for a long time now, and it needs to stop. So what if the US only want the oil, and us Brits wants to be in the yanks back pocket all the time, so what if the Iraq's have no smoking gun or no connections with Osama bin Man. All in all it doesnt really matter the reasons (real or not) as to why and when the war happens, The final result will be the same, Saddam Hussian and His government will no longer be a power and democracy or some sort of "fair" power sharing ideal will come into place.

Well thats my misguided opinion. I have lots of them.

If A equals success, then the formula is: A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut.

Reply to Neckrodeemus

Well at least you admit your opinions are musguided.

If the current USA and UK "leaders" are setting out to depose every tyrant on the planet they have their work cut out for them.

I think their motives may be less noble.

Reply to bob_dn

...so what's your opinion Bob?

Sit at home and do nothing? Really! I want you to tell us all how to solve this, and how maybe leaving them alone will be safer for everyone.

Enlighten me.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

He doesn't have an opinion.

See this thread <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq¬found=1&code=1" target="_new">Pro, Con, Emmotional</A>


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Yopu know what I always found strange about the USA? They seem to want to end evil dictators... atleast that is what they tell the public.
Now we have Iraq with a bad dictator that doesn't listen to the USA and the USA wants to remove the dictator.
And we have Syrie (sp?) which has almost the same regimne as Saddam has... with only one difference: the dictator of Syrie Assaad listens to the USA.
They do both the same things to their people and only Saddam has to go... can we colclude to this that the USA wants to remove the leaders of every country that doesn't listen (that it is a cruel leader doesn't seem to be the reason)? Next stop... France? China? Russia?

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

There is something called diplomatic... something the USA and England hasn't really used the last 10 years.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

I'm sorry Svol, but you're now talking out of your arse.

When has the UK government been undiplomatic?

When has Syria invaded any of it's neighbours?

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Syria has a regime comparable with Iraq and is threathing their own civilians like sh¡t and the Brittian government invites the leader to London and is friends with them... sounds strange doesn't it?

Undiplomatic? Where did I say that?

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

Quote :

There is something called diplomatic... something the USA and England hasn't really used the last 10 years.

...and inviting leaders of other countries, regardless of their position is always a wise way of getting to know the person up close. It's called diplomacy Svol.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Quote :

...so what's your opinion Bob?

Sit at home and do nothing? Really! I want you to tell us all how to solve this, and how maybe leaving them alone will be safer for everyone.

Enlighten me.

The path to enlightment cannot not be found for you. You must find your own path.

As for my opinion (and I do have one dhlucke) - Let the inspections in Iraq continue. Hussein is handcuffed as long as the inspectors are doing their job. As a matter of fact, increase the number of inspectors. While we're at it send in a monitoring force as was done in Bosnia/Herzegovnia and set up fair elections. Ask former President Jimmy Carter to help monitor them. He has experience in these matters and has had excellent success in the past.

The people of Iraq are the only ones suffering from the 1991 Gulf war and the sanctions. They need food, medicine, water and power. I am talking about electrical power although they need political power as well. To these ends let the Iraqis sell the only commodity (other than pistachio nuts) that they have - oil. Earmark the proceeds to provide the essentials that will end the high infant mortality, provide education, end the economic devastation and let people have a chance to improve their lives. With the UN forces montoring the country Hussein will be hard pressed to interfere. I doubt he will be in power after elections are held.

Oh, while we're at it, create a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq - even if Turkey complains. Give the Shiite and Suni factions a homeland much as was done with Yugoslavia. Nation building by cobbling together warring factions hasn't worked anywhere for long. Perhaps Bush can learn that valuable lesson before he begins nation building via a war. Nation building Bush said he'd never get involved with.

Bottom line: let Iraqis control their destiny and the rest will take care of itself. Let Iraq sell the oil they need to sell to lift the people out of poverty, sickness and oppression. Monitor the economy so the proceeds are used to achieve the aforementioned goals. Keep Hussein under control until elections can be held.

It's better than dropping 3000 bombs on them in the first 48 hours of Bush's war. From past experience, the 1991 Gulf war, we know the only people who suffered were the Iraqi citizenry. We don't need to harm the civilians with another war. UN monitors will do the job without war and when their job is finished if all goes well there may be an independent, free Iraq for all the effort.

I'm no foreign policy expert and I don't think there are any on these forums. This is how I'd like to see the Iraqi situation handled.

What suggestions do you have?

Reply to bob_dn

I'd like to quote Hans Blix:

Quote :

When asked whether more inspectors would make a difference in the inspection process Blix said: "The principal problem is not the number of inspectors but rather the active cooperation of the Iraqi side, as we have said many times."

<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Have you been to Yugoslavia? Boznia is a ticking time bomb. The friction that I felt while traveling through that region was immense. Sarejevo is a war zone waiting to happen. Are peace keepers just going to sit there forever? They all hate each other there. The city is split up into different zones. They spent years killing each other by sniping down people in the streets. Every building is riddled with bulletholes. Serbia and Montenegro have already begun splitting up. Is that what you want? This is not the path to peace.

As for creating an independent Kurdistan, not all of them want that. Many want a Federalized Iraq, in which Kurdistan is part of it. Many Kurds consider themselves Iraqi. They just don't want to be persecuted and killed by Saddam.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

Have you been to Yugoslavia? Boznia is a ticking time bomb. The friction that I felt while traveling through that region was immense. Sarejevo is a war zone waiting to happen. Are peace keepers just going to sit there forever? They all hate each other there. The city is split up into different zones. They spent years killing each other by sniping down people in the streets. Every building is riddled with bulletholes. Serbia and Montenegro have already begun splitting up. Is that what you want? This is not the path to peace.

No, I've never been to Yugoslavia. Although I hear it's beautiful this time of year.
What would you suggest? The peace keepers have a time limit? If people want to kill each other there is little one can do to stop them. What I want is for us to not be involved in the carnage unless it is in self defense.

Quote :

As for creating an independent Kurdistan, not all of them want that. Many want a Federalized Iraq, in which Kurdistan is part of it. Many Kurds consider themselves Iraqi. They just don't want to be persecuted and killed by Saddam.

That's not what I've read. I've read the Kurds in northern Iraq want autonomy. And the Turks are very nervous about that. The Kurds in Turkey may want autonomy as well.

Anyway, short of killing every person on the planet we will continue to have conflict. I just don't see the USA becoming unilaterally involved. Especially when, currently in Iraq, there is no need to go to war. Other than Bush wants his war and, being one of the "silver spoon" crowd, he's used to getting what he wants.

So, I was asked what I though should be done in Iraq and I posted my ideas. Instead of continually critizing my ideas why don't you post yours?
What do you think should be done to settle the Iraq "crisis"?

Reply to bob_dn

Quote :

There is something called diplomatic... something the USA and England hasn't really used the last 10 years

Diplomacy didn't really work in the Balkans did it? Didn't do the UK much good in Sierra Leone. Falkland Islands?

Diplomacy works in certain situations. This situation warrants a different approach. He's been in breach of the UN resolutions for years. Is having a couple of politicians talking to him round a table going to change his mind? No. Maybe the threat of 500,000 heavily armed troops marching through Bhagdad, looking to either kill him or capture him to stand war crime trial might just force his hand.

Reply to RobD

But why don't they invite Saddam? Don't they want to get over this diplomaticly? Why doesn't Bush talks to the leader of North-Korea while he's saying he is going to fix that diplomaticly?

Strange diplomacy the USA and Brittain have.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

Military pressure is OK... war not.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

My solution to the Iraq crisis is the same as the solution for the Palestinian crisis.

Get rid of their leaders and put someone sane in office. Hold free elections--none of the chirades.

Saddam and Arafat need to go if there is going to be any peace in the middle east. Sharon will dissapear in the next election if Arafat goes. They have an economy to worry about as well.

With that said, since Saddam won't go, and he won't disarm, it leaves us with few options.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>Edited by dhlucke on 03/12/03 10:20 AM.

Reply to dhlucke

The Bush administration has said that they will hold talks with the N Koreans given time.

I believe the US is trying to get China, Japan, S Korea, and Russia more actively involved though. It's everyone's responsability, just like Iraq SHOULD be.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Saddam wouldn't dare leave his own country from fear of assasination. Additionally, while away, many may think it a great time for a coup.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Why don't the Dutch invite Saddam? Think Saddam will come to den Hague?


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

The nobel is french! The french are cheese eating surrenderer monkeys! And Jimmy Carter is an adult whose first name is JIMMY! ahahahahahaah

...so I disagree. Damned isolationists! Let's all just sit at home and leave all those poor dictators alone to make their nukes. Maybe later we can roast some hot dogs and marshmellows over the radioactive ruins of our large cities! Support our troops: by shutting the hell up!

<A HREF="http://www.studentsforwar.org/" target="_new">http://www.studentsforwar.org/</A>

In battle Israel uses F-16's and big ass tanks, Palestine uses small children strapped to bombs. Which do you support?

Reply to papasmurf

Wow. What's up Papa Smurf? You have a couple a too many cups a coffee today?

The testosterone levels a bit too high?

Oh, the Nobel Prize is Norwegian. Even an isolationist knows that.

Reply to bob_dn

coffee? I wish... either way a substance will not change my oppinion...maybe nerve gas...well maybe we shouldn't go after iraq just yet. lets wait for him use some of that nerve gas on you and your family, then we will know. After that maybe people won't be so against war. But I suppose lots of people have to die in order for everyone to understand. We can wait. Why not

In battle Israel uses F-16's and big ass tanks, Palestine uses small children strapped to bombs. Which do you support?

Reply to papasmurf

Quote :

lets wait for him use some of that nerve gas on you and your family

You're a real sweet heart, huh?

Thanks for the kind wishes for me and my family.

PapaSmurf, that isn't indicative of your age, is it? You seem too juvenile to be a "Papa."

Reply to bob_dn

Quote :

But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions ?Ewith war as a final option ?Ewill enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

That is the last sentence in President Carter's article. Did you bother to read the entire piece?

It's a well thought out logical, diplomatic, brilliant assesment of the current situation in Iraq. It would take George W. Bush three generations to be able to offer an opinion of this nature.

Reply to bob_dn

I was not wishing something like that would happen to your family. just trying to get you to understand that that COULD happen to your family if the US does nothing. Juvenile? Call it what you will. Support your opinion with facts, or I will continue to be "juvenile"

In battle Israel uses F-16's and big ass tanks, Palestine uses small children strapped to bombs. Which do you support?

Reply to papasmurf

Alright, we can let him delay us for another 12 years. You insult my president, why? I dare say you have never met him. That man has been through the worst term any president has had to endure save perhaps rosevelt. Could you do better? I doubt it. You might do a better job of representing your opinions but that is not what is important. The security of the nation is at stake, one might even say the security of the world. So yes, let's just give saddam more time to hide those weapons and a little bit longer to finish his nuclear weapons program that God knows he is still running somewhere. While Mr.Carter is a good man he is a nieve to believe that war is avoidable, and that support from the UN is possible. It is unfortunate that some nations would stand in the way of saddams destruction for profit.

In battle Israel uses F-16's and big ass tanks, Palestine uses small children strapped to bombs. Which do you support?

Reply to papasmurf

I really hate to do this to the both of you, but....

Alfred Nobel was Swedish. All the nobel prizes are awarded in Stockholm except the peace prize which is awarded in Norway.

It's a cool day to visit Stockholm if you can.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

Oh, the Nobel Prize is Norwegian. Even an isolationist knows that

Tidbit....Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

A little background on JImmey Carter and what he has said in the past:

[Marshall Tito] is a man who believes in human rights.
[He is] a great and courageous leader [who] has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last 40 years."
-- Carter, while still in office, hailing Yugoslavia's communist dictator

"Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics ... We believe in enhancing human rights."
-- Carter comparing himself to Romania's dictator Nicolae Ceausescu

"Our concept of human rights is preserved in [Communist] Poland."
-- Carter speaking to Stalinist Edward Gierek, Poland's First Secretary

"[I am] ashamed of what my country has done to your country."
-- Carter speaking to Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras

"I don't see that they [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation."
-- Carter in North Korea, lauding Stalinist Kim Il Sung, one of the most destructive and repressive dictators in history

"Ill-informed commentators in both countries have cast the other side as a villain and have even forecast inevitable confrontation
between the two nations." -- Carter making exquisite moral equivalence between the giant and repressive Chinese Communist state and America

Carter gave away US oversight of the Panama Canal, "the most important waterway in the world," says Adm. Thomas H. Moorer (ret),
which is now "packed with Chinese communists."

Sadat, appalled that Carter wanted the Soviets in on Middle East peace negotiations, decided to directly offer peace to Israel's Begin. When their plan was essentially worked out, they then called the White House, because obviously, "they needed someone to pay the bill" (Bernard Lewis).

Not resting on his laurels, Carter demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic madman. Carter had the Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders - about 150 of them - to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him. The Shah's military listened to Carter. ALL OF THEM were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts. By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever. Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. More than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians were put before firing squads. With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized.

Iraq took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran, a war that killed more than 500,000 people. It also created the regional instabilities that led to Iraq’s later invasion of Kuwait and to Operation Desert Storm, which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands more. But Carter meant well. In the closing days of the 1980 election, Carter's White House contacted the Soviets in a quid pro quo to plead for assistance in stopping Reagan from winning. In 1984, Carter himself visited Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin to ask the Soviets to intervene on behalf of Democrats. Damning evidence that Jimmy Carter, as both president and citizen, may have committed treason
by enlisting the help of our enemies in presidential elections.

Since leaving office, Carter has:
- praised Syria's late Assad (killer of at least 20,000 in Hama)
- praised Ethiopian tyrant Mengistu (killer of many more than that)
- secured Saudi funding for Arafat after he sided with Iraq against the US
- wrote the UN Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait, urging them to thwart President Bush's pre-Gulf War coalition (designed to reverse that act of aggression) - another action some called "treason"

"Our people, who face Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining when our homes are destroyed by Israeli bulldozers." -- from a speech written by Carter for Yassir Arafat

"[Arafat's] election [was] democratic, well organized, open and fair." -- Carter describing the "rigged" 1996 Palestinian election

"[Arafat] may well see the suicide attacks as one of the few ways to retaliate against his tormentors, to dramatize the suffering of
his people, or as a means for him, vicariously, to be a martyr." -- Carter in an apologia for the Pali homicide-bombings

And yet, with the blood of perhaps a million people dripping from his hands, Carter stalked the earth in his sick quest to be given a Nobel Peace Prize.

If he had any moral center at all, he would return his recent peace prize.

( the above is not mine but a direct copy and paste from another forum )

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

Reply to Ncogneto

Now a little different look at the points Jimmy raises:

<< The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. >>

This is too relative a statement to take seriouly. As applied by the french, more time is always an option. Time is infinate. We have not given Saddam 6 months to disarm, we have given him 12 years.

<< The war’s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. >>

More so than ever they do. Is it perfect?..no. Will a war with Iraq kill as many innocents as Saddaam himself has? No, I think not.

<< Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. >>

Who is We? To make your point i am sure you define "we" as Americans. We can also be used in a different context. "We" as humans.

<< The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. >>

Open to debate and not relevant until well after the war is over.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

Reply to Ncogneto

Carter is one of the worst presidents the USA has ever had. Everyone knows that.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Anyone know what episode this is?

Quote :

Whenever I open the newspaper to find an article about Jimmy Carter (or see him on TV) I scream, "Jimmy Carter?! He's history's greatest monster!" Alas, it's not my joke; it comes from an episode of "The Simpsons." Marge fails to make marshmallow treats for the town bake sale, which results in Springfield being unable to afford a statue of Abraham Lincoln. They settle for a bronze President Carter instead. When it's unveiled, someone shouts, "Jimmy Carter!? He's history's greatest monster!" and the town riots.

<A HREF="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20020515.shtml" target="_new">http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20020515.shtml</A>


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

A little background on JImmey Carter and what he has said in the past:

That's really low. Some extremist is pissed off that Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize (given in Norway) so he does a search of everything Carter ever said and publishes the results out of context.

What is this "other site" you cut and pasted this garbage from? Where was this garbage first published?

Do you really want to start quoting former presidents out of context with liabilities like Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes?

I love the way people complain about anyone who they perceive as insulting Bush and in the same breath insult presidents themselves. Get real. Two can play this game, and where will it lead?

One example: Marshall Tito led Poland through WWII and while the Soviet Union was still a super power. His strength as a leader kept the Soviets from completely controlling Poland. Proof: after Tito's death Poland was completely enveloped by the Soviets.

Carter has been called on time and again by US presidents to help in negotiating peace and monitor elections. He has done more for the cause of peace than any president in recent history. You should be ashamed to print this BS.

Reply to bob_dn

Morning Bob!

Hope you're ready for a long day?

Quote :

One example: Marshall Tito led Poland through WWII and while the Soviet Union was still a super power. His strength as a leader kept the Soviets from completely controlling Poland. Proof: after Tito's death Poland was completely enveloped by the Soviets.

Tito was <A HREF="http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM" target="_new">Yugoslavian</A> Bob. Read your history and provide links please. At least that way you can double check the authenticity of your own statements.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Oops, Poland, Yugoslavia - what't the difference?

Point is I can search quotes from any president and find some pretty outrageous stuff if taken out of context. Why are some people always attacking certain leaders while complaining if anyone attacks leaders they support?

Do a google search on any of them. I wont even post links to the garbage on the net. Let alone post anything like the garbage posted about Carter.

Reply to bob_dn

Quote :

Morning Bob!

Hope you're ready for a long day?

Morning Camie!

No, I'm not ready for a long day. It seems we can argue forever and no one's mind will be changed.

There's an old joke in trucking (the industry I was in for 30 years), it goes like this:

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling a pig in mud. After a while you begin to realize the pig is enjoying it.

Reply to bob_dn

oink!

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Bob, Why are you so impressed with Jimmy Carter's latest statements? Is it because wisdom usually comes with age, or that he has learned from his past mistakes, or are you even aware of some of his past mistakes, you seem to hold him in such high esteem, as my memory serves me, he made repeatedly serious errors, and judgement calls, during his administration, that by the time he was to leave office, I personally had a sigh of relief. I don't disagree with your personal opinions noted previously, as a matter of fact I think you've got some good ideas, yourself, theres just not a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter, in my book, as is a lot of others that remember his administration. Restraint is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes not, what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had been president, during the Cuban missle crisis, time seems to have the right people, in the right place, at the right time. Maybe we all should pray for the right decisions to be made by those presently in power, as the history books are being written now, and though we may learn from the past, we're not living in it.

Allan Saxe's recount seems to be pretty accurate to my recollection:<A HREF="http://www.abctexas.com/saxe/saxe07152002.html" target="_new">http://www.abctexas.com/saxe/saxe07152002.html</A>

Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.

Reply to 4ryan6

Bob...

Tito, Stalin, Saddam, Hitler, Pol Pot, Arafat, Kim Jong-il, Ceausescu, etc...

These names belong to some of the worst people who have ever lived on this Earth.

You don't have to put a spin on anything Carter said. They're horrible people and what Carter said was wrong.

Carter is going to be remembered as a horrible and pathetic president but a great peanut farmer who could build houses.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Oh and here some wars that had very bad results:
WW1 (result WW2)
Vietnam
Afghanistan vs Russia
Tsjetsjenie vs Russia
Korea didn't had great results either...

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

Maybe because we aren't much in politic level? Atleast we don't invite other bad leaders like Brittain does.
Maybe we have Saddam in our International Court after the war... if the Americans don't play own judge and kill him.

I still wonder what America has against the International Court...

Bush doesn't even want to have a TV debate with Saddam... it would be really funny IMO.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

I keep hearing how Clinton didn't help the economy during his term. It was the work of the previous administration, Reagan/Bush.

And Bush didn't cause the current recession. It was the work of the previous administration, Clinton.

Carter wasn't to blame for high interest rates, hostages in Iran or any other problems during his administration. It was the work of the previous administration, Nixon/Ford.

And Reagan didn't improve the economy. It was the work of the previous administration, Carter.
That would make Carter an excellent president.
You can't have it both ways. Well, not in politics anyway.

Reply to bob_dn

Do you think that Carter and Arafat take their Nobel Peace prizes to bed with them? Do you think they're both proud of the peace they have brought this world?


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

Do you think that Carter and Arafat take their Nobel Peace prizes to bed with them? Do you think they're both proud of the peace they have brought this world?

?

I really had come to expect better from you.

For a short time they helped bring peace.
I think they are sad that their attmept to bring peace to this world failed.

I'm sure they know that in that failure they certainly had more than enough help.

Reply to bob_dn

Quote :

For a short time they helped bring peace.

So did Neville Chamberlain in 1938. "Peace in our time!"

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Quote :

Atleast we don't invite other bad leaders like Brittain does.

And just WTF is that supposed to mean?

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum" - Roddy Piper

Reply to RobD

And how did you come to this conclusion?

Quote :

WW1 (result WW2)

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum" - Roddy Piper

Reply to RobD

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - Letter for USA from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Please mind

Focus On

Letter for USA from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - Letter for USA from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Please mind