Jimmy Carter's update

[Craig234]

Link.

We've seen the often inaccurate posts, now see his own update.

I think that his comments shame the uninformed comments from the right, who understand nothing but Munich, and see every foreign policy interaction in those limited terms, it seems.

His comments, in contrast, are illuminating on how to solve international problems.

Too many are so ignorant and fearful that they are monsters, blocking efforts for peace.

 

[0roo0roo]

carter needs to stfu unless he wants to elect a republican to office.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
carter needs to stfu unless he wants to elect a republican to office.

How nice of you to prove my point. Did you read the link?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
carter needs to stfu unless he wants to elect a republican to office.

How nice of you to prove my point. Did you read the link?

I read the link and Carter's support for 'Maoists'

MAOISTS (Chairman Mao is their hero :disgust: ) for fvcking christ sakes. Now Nepal is fucked because they won power by threatening voters into voting for them, no thanks to the international support provided by Jimmy Carter and his ilk.

So this adds another trophy to Carter's trophycase, a proud record of destroying nations the world over. I'm sure you are proud of him, Craig.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
carter needs to stfu unless he wants to elect a republican to office.

How nice of you to prove my point. Did you read the link?

I read the link and Carter's support for 'Maoists'

MAOISTS (Chairman Mao is their hero :disgust: ) for fvcking christ sakes. Now Nepal is fucked because they won power by threatening voters into voting for them, no thanks to the international support provided by Jimmy Carter and his ilk.

So this adds another trophy to Carter's trophycase, a proud record of destroying nations the world over. I'm sure you are proud of him, Craig.

Ultimately, the Maoists succeeded in achieving their major goals: abolishing the monarchy, establishing a democratic republic, and ending discrimination against untouchables and other groups whose citizenship rights were historically abridged.

One of their "major goals" was to establish a "democratic republic".

Way for you to lie about the issue.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
carter needs to stfu unless he wants to elect a republican to office.

How nice of you to prove my point. Did you read the link?

I read the link and Carter's support for 'Maoists'

MAOISTS (Chairman Mao is their hero :disgust: ) for fvcking christ sakes. Now Nepal is fucked because they won power by threatening voters into voting for them, no thanks to the international support provided by Jimmy Carter and his ilk.

So this adds another trophy to Carter's trophycase, a proud record of destroying nations the world over. I'm sure you are proud of him, Craig.

Ultimately, the Maoists succeeded in achieving their major goals: abolishing the monarchy, establishing a democratic republic, and ending discrimination against untouchables and other groups whose citizenship rights were historically abridged.

One of their "major goals" was to establish a "democratic republic".

Way for you to lie about the issue.

HA HA HA,

Nepal was a democracy even before the Maoists, right back in 1990.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Ultimately, the Maoists succeeded in achieving their major goals: abolishing the monarchy, establishing a democratic republic, and ending discrimination against untouchables and other groups whose citizenship rights were historically abridged.

One of their "major goals" was to establish a "democratic republic".

Way for you to lie about the issue.

HA HA HA,

Nepal was a democracy even before the Maoists, right back in 1990.

Your lying continues, as you neglect to mention that the king abolished democracy after that.

Per Wiki:

Meanwhile, the Maoist rebellion escalated, and in October 2001 the king temporarily deposed the government and took complete control of it. A week later he reappointed another government, but the country was still very unstable: because of the civil war with the Maoists; the various clamouring political factions; the king's attempts to take more control of the government; and worries about the competence of Gyanendra's son and heir, Prince Paras.

In the face of unstable governments and a Maoist siege on the Kathmandu Valley in August 2004, popular support for the monarchy began to wane. On February 1, 2005, Gyanendra dismissed the entire government and assumed full executive powers, declaring a "state of emergency" to quash the Maoist movement. Politicians were placed under house arrest, phone and internet lines were cut, and freedom of the press was severely curtailed.

The king's new regime made little progress in his stated aim to suppress the insurgents. Municipal elections in February 2006 were described by the European Union as "a backward step for democracy", as the major parties boycotted the election and some candidates were forced to run for office by the army.[11] In April 2006 strikes and street protests in Kathmandu forced the king to reinstate the parliament. A seven-party coalition resumed control of the government and stripped the king of most of his powers. As of 15 January 2007 Nepal was governed by an unicameral legislature under an interim constitution. On December 24, 2007, seven parties, including the former Maoist rebels and the government party, agreed to abolish monarchy and as was agreed, declared Nepal a Federal Republic on December 28, 2007

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Ultimately, the Maoists succeeded in achieving their major goals: abolishing the monarchy, establishing a democratic republic, and ending discrimination against untouchables and other groups whose citizenship rights were historically abridged.

One of their "major goals" was to establish a "democratic republic".

Way for you to lie about the issue.

HA HA HA,

Nepal was a democracy even before the Maoists, right back in 1990.

Your lying continues, as you neglect to mention that the king abolished democracy after that.

Per Wiki:

Meanwhile, the Maoist rebellion escalated, and in October 2001 the king temporarily deposed the government and took complete control of it. A week later he reappointed another government, but the country was still very unstable: because of the civil war with the Maoists; the various clamouring political factions; the king's attempts to take more control of the government; and worries about the competence of Gyanendra's son and heir, Prince Paras.

In the face of unstable governments and a Maoist siege on the Kathmandu Valley in August 2004, popular support for the monarchy began to wane. On February 1, 2005, Gyanendra dismissed the entire government and assumed full executive powers, declaring a "state of emergency" to quash the Maoist movement. Politicians were placed under house arrest, phone and internet lines were cut, and freedom of the press was severely curtailed.

The king's new regime made little progress in his stated aim to suppress the insurgents. Municipal elections in February 2006 were described by the European Union as "a backward step for democracy", as the major parties boycotted the election and some candidates were forced to run for office by the army.[11] In April 2006 strikes and street protests in Kathmandu forced the king to reinstate the parliament. A seven-party coalition resumed control of the government and stripped the king of most of his powers. As of 15 January 2007 Nepal was governed by an unicameral legislature under an interim constitution. On December 24, 2007, seven parties, including the former Maoist rebels and the government party, agreed to abolish monarchy and as was agreed, declared Nepal a Federal Republic on December 28, 2007

Huh? Way to lie, Craig. So the Maoists saved Nepal from problems created by themselves?

Nepal was a democracy before the insurgency. The only thing Maoists did was place themselves in power with their insurgency. WITHOUT THE MAOIST violence, there was no need for anything to have happened at all.

 

[Braznor]

How fucked up must some group must be to name themselves in Chairman Mao's honor?
Even China has abandoned Mao and his terrible legacy. But the likes of Craig and Carter support festering cancer on innocent people.

I hope someday they reap the just fruit for the folly committed today.

 

[Lemon law]

As if the GWB foreign policy is doing gangbusters. Not talking to Hamas is the strategy of an Ostrich.

 

[Atreus21]

And talking to terrorists is strategy of a liberal.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And talking to terrorists is strategy of a liberal.

See sig.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And talking to terrorists is strategy of a liberal.

See sig.

I don't see how it's irrational or misunderstanding to look at a terrorist blowing himself up and taking innocents with him and conclude that he's evil.

Like it or not, there are bad guys in the world. Not everyone can be understood, nor deserves to be understood. Time taken to understand terrorists is time wasted.

Once they stop deliberately targeting civilians, then I'll make the effort. Until then, they are the enemy of any good man.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And talking to terrorists is strategy of a liberal.

Fvcking sellouts.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And talking to terrorists is strategy of a liberal.

See sig.

I don't see how it's irrational or misunderstanding to look at a terrorist blowing himself up and taking innocents with him and conclude that he's evil.

Like it or not, there are bad guys in the world. Not everyone can be understood, nor deserves to be understood. Time taken to understand terrorists is time wasted.

Once they stop deliberately targeting civilians, then I'll make the effort. Until then, they are the enemy of any good man.

I would agree that there are bad people in this world 100%. That is about the extent of the common ground that you and I appear to share on the subject.

I believe that it is irrational to not take the time to understand what motivates those that are not necessarily bad but are being convinced to do things against their best interests however.

Why would someone in their twenties want to kill themselves and take others' lives with them in the process? What is their motivation? What is the benefit of doing so? Can it be understood so that the same response is not the only way to cope or escape the same situation that the next person or group of persons feels is an option?

As for the deliberate targeting of civilians....

Did we send in small precision teams to remove Saddam from power? No. We intentionally carpet bombed entire cities and neighborhoods knowing damned well that he was not there and that civilians would be killed. But I guess when we do it, it's collateral damage and not terrorism.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And talking to terrorists is strategy of a liberal.

See sig.

I don't see how it's irrational or misunderstanding to look at a terrorist blowing himself up and taking innocents with him and conclude that he's evil.

Like it or not, there are bad guys in the world. Not everyone can be understood, nor deserves to be understood. Time taken to understand terrorists is time wasted.

Once they stop deliberately targeting civilians, then I'll make the effort. Until then, they are the enemy of any good man.

I would agree that there are bad people in this world 100%. That is about the extent of the common ground that you and I appear to share on the subject.

I believe that it is irrational to not take the time to understand what motivates those that are not necessarily bad but are being convinced to do things against their best interests however.

Why would someone in their twenties want to kill themselves and take others' lives with them in the process? What is their motivation? What is the benefit of doing so? Can it be understood so that the same response is not the only way to cope or escape the same situation that the next person or group of persons feels is an option?

As for the deliberate targeting of civilians....

Did we send in small precision teams to remove Saddam from power? No. We intentionally carpet bombed entire cities and neighborhoods knowing damned well that he was not there and that civilians would be killed. But I guess when we do it, it's collateral damage and not terrorism.

I don't see how you can possibly argue this.

I don't care why a serial-murderer is committing his murders. I don't care why a pedophile rapist rapes kids. Once you submit to the act of murder, terrorism, rape, or anything else so horrifying, you've lost the right to be reasoned with. You're an animal, and you deserve to be dealt with as an animal would be.

This is war, and civilians will be killed accidentally. But we don't do it deliberately. They do.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And talking to terrorists is strategy of a liberal.

See sig.

I don't see how it's irrational or misunderstanding to look at a terrorist blowing himself up and taking innocents with him and conclude that he's evil.

Like it or not, there are bad guys in the world. Not everyone can be understood, nor deserves to be understood. Time taken to understand terrorists is time wasted.

Once they stop deliberately targeting civilians, then I'll make the effort. Until then, they are the enemy of any good man.

I would agree that there are bad people in this world 100%. That is about the extent of the common ground that you and I appear to share on the subject.

I believe that it is irrational to not take the time to understand what motivates those that are not necessarily bad but are being convinced to do things against their best interests however.

Why would someone in their twenties want to kill themselves and take others' lives with them in the process? What is their motivation? What is the benefit of doing so? Can it be understood so that the same response is not the only way to cope or escape the same situation that the next person or group of persons feels is an option?

As for the deliberate targeting of civilians....

Did we send in small precision teams to remove Saddam from power? No. We intentionally carpet bombed entire cities and neighborhoods knowing damned well that he was not there and that civilians would be killed. But I guess when we do it, it's collateral damage and not terrorism.

I don't see how you can possibly argue this.

I don't care why a serial-murderer is committing his murders. I don't care why a pedophile rapist rapes kids. Once you submit to the act of murder, terrorism, rape, or anything else so horrifying, you've lost the right to be reasoned with. You're an animal, and you deserve to be dealt with as an animal would be.

This is war, and civilians will be killed accidentally. But we don't do it deliberately. They do.

This is because you're strictly a reactive person, which is an easy to be. Some try to be proactive, much to the consternation and bewilderment of the reactives.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And talking to terrorists is strategy of a liberal.

See sig.

I don't see how it's irrational or misunderstanding to look at a terrorist blowing himself up and taking innocents with him and conclude that he's evil.

Like it or not, there are bad guys in the world. Not everyone can be understood, nor deserves to be understood. Time taken to understand terrorists is time wasted.

Once they stop deliberately targeting civilians, then I'll make the effort. Until then, they are the enemy of any good man.

I would agree that there are bad people in this world 100%. That is about the extent of the common ground that you and I appear to share on the subject.

I believe that it is irrational to not take the time to understand what motivates those that are not necessarily bad but are being convinced to do things against their best interests however.

Why would someone in their twenties want to kill themselves and take others' lives with them in the process? What is their motivation? What is the benefit of doing so? Can it be understood so that the same response is not the only way to cope or escape the same situation that the next person or group of persons feels is an option?

As for the deliberate targeting of civilians....

Did we send in small precision teams to remove Saddam from power? No. We intentionally carpet bombed entire cities and neighborhoods knowing damned well that he was not there and that civilians would be killed. But I guess when we do it, it's collateral damage and not terrorism.

I don't see how you can possibly argue this.

I don't care why a serial-murderer is committing his murders. I don't care why a pedophile rapist rapes kids. Once you submit to the act of murder, terrorism, rape, or anything else so horrifying, you've lost the right to be reasoned with. You're an animal, and you deserve to be dealt with as an animal would be.

This is war, and civilians will be killed accidentally. But we don't do it deliberately. They do.

I can argue it because I feel that it is the proper way to go about it.

Why do you think that the FBI has profilers? Because to be able to stop a crime from happening, you have to understand the mindset of those that might commit them. And the only way to get that knowledge is to speak with those that already have committed them.

Also, there was no war with Iraq until the United States started it with Bush's "Shock and awe" campaign of firing missiles and bombs into Iraq's cities killing innocent civilians. So I would beg to differ that "we don't do it deliberately, they do" mentality that you seem to have.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I don't see how you can possibly argue this.

I don't care why a serial-murderer is committing his murders. I don't care why a pedophile rapist rapes kids. Once you submit to the act of murder, terrorism, rape, or anything else so horrifying, you've lost the right to be reasoned with. You're an animal, and you deserve to be dealt with as an animal would be.

This is war, and civilians will be killed accidentally. But we don't do it deliberately. They do.

I don't see a problem with simultaneously fighting a war while also trying to understand the enemy so you can eventually defeat them or arrive at a peaceable solution with them.

To use your example, knowing why the serial-murderer commits his murders will probably help you to catch him. But when you catch him, you don't shake his hand and say, hey, I understand you had a rough life, all's forgiven. You fry the sucker.

 

[JS80]

If I were Grand Emperor of the Galaxy the first person I would execute is Jimmy Carter.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80
If I were Grand Emperor of the Galaxy the first person I would execute is Jimmy Carter.

Before all the rapists, murderers, child killers, torturers, arsonists, and bin Laden you'd do in Carter. Thanks for adding yourself to the list of people who's posts no longer require responses.

 

[Atomic Rooster]

If that ol' fool Jimmy Carter has all the answers, then why the hell isn't he in the middle east reasoning with Hamas? I'm sure he could easily convince them that wiping Israel off the face of the earth is a bad thing and that they should find ways of living in peace with their non Arab neighbors.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster
If that ol' fool Jimmy Carter has all the answers, then why the hell isn't he in the middle east reasoning with Hamas? I'm sure he could easily convince them that wiping Israel off the face of the earth is a bad thing and that they should find ways of living in peace with their non Arab neighbors.

Is this a parody post, a matter of my meter needing replaced or a completely ignorant and uninformed rant?

Nazaal said the discussions with Carter's advisers would focus on the "price and mechanism" for releasing Shalit.

He added that the Carter-Meshaal meeting had discussed important issues, but details were left to their aides to hammer out. Hamas's leadership would need a few days to reach a position on the main issues of Shalit, a truce, and control of crossing points linking Gaza to the outside world.

"This meeting was not a courtesy call, concrete proposals were discussed and we admire Carter for making this effort. The discussions were frank and direct," Nazzal said.

EGYPTIAN EFFORTS

Egypt said on Friday it was making good progress trying to negotiate a tacit ceasefire, including a prisoner exchange, between Israel and Hamas.

Speaking in Washington, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said his government was speaking with both sides to get a "period of quiet," which would help Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to more easily reach a deal in U.S.-mediated Palestinian statehood talks that exclude Hamas.

Carter, 83, brokered the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt when he was president. He is on a Middle East tour to hear views on solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and earlier met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JS80
If I were Grand Emperor of the Galaxy the first person I would execute is Jimmy Carter.

Luckily for the Galaxy and Carter mental Lilliputians such as yourself never achieve the status of Grand Emperor.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I don't see how you can possibly argue this.

I don't care why a serial-murderer is committing his murders. I don't care why a pedophile rapist rapes kids. Once you submit to the act of murder, terrorism, rape, or anything else so horrifying, you've lost the right to be reasoned with. You're an animal, and you deserve to be dealt with as an animal would be.

This is war, and civilians will be killed accidentally. But we don't do it deliberately. They do.

I don't see a problem with simultaneously fighting a war while also trying to understand the enemy so you can eventually defeat them or arrive at a peaceable solution with them.

To use your example, knowing why the serial-murderer commits his murders will probably help you to catch him. But when you catch him, you don't shake his hand and say, hey, I understand you had a rough life, all's forgiven. You fry the sucker.

Okay. I'll agree with that.