This is a good point. Both liberalism and conservatism are essential to American culture. There are principles on both sides that define us as a nation, and removing all of either side would dramatically change our identity.TeamZephyr wrote:
It has little to do with Jimmy Carter being a crap president, but more to do with your continuous belittlement of liberalism.lowing wrote:
glad to see you agree. Except ya lost me on that last sentence, how does our constituion has anything to do with Jimmy Carter being a shitty president??TeamZephyr wrote:
Yeah, Jimmy Carter invented liberalism, thats why Jimmy Carter is bad.
Liberalism is bad, liberalism should be destroyed!
Screw what the US constitution says, screw Free Religion and Free Speech, liberals are bad! They are the worst people in society and the liberals are keeping America down!
I'm also very surprised that your so Anti-American.
Maybe next time you should specify that this is your opinion, rather than making a statement that attempts to look convincing, but has very little substance. Possibly you could point us to some kind of list, that you believe justifies the claim. For example:Ganko_06 wrote:
Carter is one the lowest rated presidents. Go figure.
(A hypothetical example only, positions are not accurate)
Number of American soldiers killed on foreign soil during the President's administration:
1.Lyndon Johnson
2. George W Bush
3.
4.
? Jimmy Carter
Is this what you mean by lowest rated?
WTF?<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Maybe next time you should specify that this is your opinion, rather than making a statement that attempts to look convincing, but has very little substance. Possibly you could point us to some kind of list, that you believe justifies the claim. For example:Ganko_06 wrote:
Carter is one the lowest rated presidents. Go figure.
(A hypothetical example only, positions are not accurate)
Number of American soldiers killed on foreign soil during the President's administration:
1.Lyndon Johnson
2. George W Bush
3.
4.
? Jimmy Carter
Is this what you mean by lowest rated?
you're ragging on someone using opinion as fact and that's the chart you came up with? try again.
Carter was weak, indecisive, he was an appeaser,( the nations first presidential appeaser) the world knew this of Carter. Iran knew this of Carter.Turquoise wrote:
I disagree. Clinton and the New Left in America are far more interventionist than Carter was. The liberalism that is dominant today really isn't that different from conservatism, in terms of foreign policy. The Democrats are just less aggressive than the Republicans. However, both the left and the right can trace their foreign policy principles back to JFK. Carter was kind of an anomaly in that he was the closest thing to an isolationist president in modern history.lowing wrote:
Jimmy Carter is the father of modern liberalism, as such it is no surprise that his presidency and the problems that arose during it and after it, walk hand in hand.usmarine2005 wrote:
I was watching Discovery Times this evening, when the year 1978 was up for discussion. After watching that I realized something I never really understood. That year, and the Carter admin, marked the beginning of some of the worst problems we face today. Saddam was coming into power, who he had to support in order to fight against Iran, who we perceived to be the bigger threat. Russia invaded Afghanistan, which put the wheels in motion to the US supporting the Taliban, because we wanted to defeat communism. Also, Iran was going thru a major shift in their relationship with the US. It was a good relationship until that year.
I know there are many, MANY things we can point to in history, but the Carter years seem to stand out as the beginning of a lot of problems that we deal with today.
So, not knowing a lot about that era, how do you think Carter should have handled things knowing what we know now?
I'm typically an isolationist myself, but I would agree that Iran needed to be dealt with more aggressively.lowing wrote:
Carter was weak, indecisive, he was an appeaser,( the nations first presidential appeaser) the world knew this of Carter. Iran knew this of Carter.
translation.............Carter was a an appeasing, pussified, modern liberal, jellifish.Turquoise wrote:
I'm typically an isolationist myself, but I would agree that Iran needed to be dealt with more aggressively.lowing wrote:
Carter was weak, indecisive, he was an appeaser,( the nations first presidential appeaser) the world knew this of Carter. Iran knew this of Carter.
Well, not sure about all of that. But, him and Clinton seemed to share the same philosophy. Be nice to everyone and they will be nice to you.lowing wrote:
translation.............Carter was a an appeasing, pussified, modern liberal, jellifish.
LOL yeah, they will be nice to you, or fuck you in the ass, whichever, as long as YOU keep being nice.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, not sure about all of that. But, him and Clinton seemed to share the same philosophy. Be nice to everyone and they will be nice to you.lowing wrote:
translation.............Carter was a an appeasing, pussified, modern liberal, jellifish.
Well, that is where I think the people bashing Bush need to relax a bit. He may be wrong, but he may be right. I bet everyone said give money and weapons to Afghanistan when Russia invaded. Not too many people had any idea who the Taliban or Bin Laden was. At the time, it seemed like a very good thing to do, but now, who knows.lowing wrote:
LOL yeah, they will be nice to you, or fuck you in the ass, whichever, as long as YOU keep being nice.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, not sure about all of that. But, him and Clinton seemed to share the same philosophy. Be nice to everyone and they will be nice to you.lowing wrote:
translation.............Carter was a an appeasing, pussified, modern liberal, jellifish.
I know I didn't at that time, and I was in the military.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, that is where I think the people bashing Bush need to relax a bit. He may be wrong, but he may be right. I bet everyone said give money and weapons to Afghanistan when Russia invaded. Not too many people had any idea who the Taliban or Bin Laden was. At the time, it seemed like a very good thing to do, but now, who knows.lowing wrote:
LOL yeah, they will be nice to you, or fuck you in the ass, whichever, as long as YOU keep being nice.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, not sure about all of that. But, him and Clinton seemed to share the same philosophy. Be nice to everyone and they will be nice to you.
Hmmm... I seem to remember something about Bosnia and continual air strikes on Iraq. Clinton did what was necessary to keep things stable. The only foreign policy blunder he made was in how he dealt with Somalia. We should have kicked some serious ass unilaterally over there.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, not sure about all of that. But, him and Clinton seemed to share the same philosophy. Be nice to everyone and they will be nice to you.lowing wrote:
translation.............Carter was a an appeasing, pussified, modern liberal, jellifish.
That just demonstrates how we shouldn't fuck with other countries most of the time. The more we get involved, the worse it becomes. I felt Bosnia, taking out the Taliban, and Somalia were all necessary conflicts, but some of these things would have turned out better if we hadn't fucked around in the first place.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, that is where I think the people bashing Bush need to relax a bit. He may be wrong, but he may be right. I bet everyone said give money and weapons to Afghanistan when Russia invaded. Not too many people had any idea who the Taliban or Bin Laden was. At the time, it seemed like a very good thing to do, but now, who knows.lowing wrote:
LOL yeah, they will be nice to you, or fuck you in the ass, whichever, as long as YOU keep being nice.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, not sure about all of that. But, him and Clinton seemed to share the same philosophy. Be nice to everyone and they will be nice to you.
First of all, we shouldn't be selling weapons to Islamic extremists or dictators. Second, the vast majority of the time, we shouldn't enter a conflict without the world's approval.
This isn't about presidents -- it's about being sensible and balanced.
No one was fucking with the taliban on 911. Don't think for a second that Carter would have gone to war over it.Turquoise wrote:
That just demonstrates how we shouldn't fuck with other countries most of the time. The more we get involved, the worse it becomes. I felt Bosnia, taking out the Taliban, and Somalia were all necessary conflicts, but some of these things would have turned out better if we hadn't fucked around in the first place.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, that is where I think the people bashing Bush need to relax a bit. He may be wrong, but he may be right. I bet everyone said give money and weapons to Afghanistan when Russia invaded. Not too many people had any idea who the Taliban or Bin Laden was. At the time, it seemed like a very good thing to do, but now, who knows.lowing wrote:
LOL yeah, they will be nice to you, or fuck you in the ass, whichever, as long as YOU keep being nice.
First of all, we shouldn't be selling weapons to Islamic extremists or dictators. Second, the vast majority of the time, we shouldn't enter a conflict without the world's approval.
This isn't about presidents -- it's about being sensible and balanced.
That depends on what you mean by that. Carter would have definitely attacked Afghanistan after 9/11.lowing wrote:
No one was fucking with the taliban on 911. Don't think for a second that Carter would have gone to war over it.Turquoise wrote:
That just demonstrates how we shouldn't fuck with other countries most of the time. The more we get involved, the worse it becomes. I felt Bosnia, taking out the Taliban, and Somalia were all necessary conflicts, but some of these things would have turned out better if we hadn't fucked around in the first place.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, that is where I think the people bashing Bush need to relax a bit. He may be wrong, but he may be right. I bet everyone said give money and weapons to Afghanistan when Russia invaded. Not too many people had any idea who the Taliban or Bin Laden was. At the time, it seemed like a very good thing to do, but now, who knows.
First of all, we shouldn't be selling weapons to Islamic extremists or dictators. Second, the vast majority of the time, we shouldn't enter a conflict without the world's approval.
This isn't about presidents -- it's about being sensible and balanced.
My mistake... The Afghan Civil War began in 1979, so yes, he actually did mess with Afghanistan by aiding one of the rebel groups. My argument is that we shouldn't have aided the rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviet-supported group. If we hadn't, then the Taliban would probably have never chosen to attack us. I phrase it this way, since Al Quida was being harbored by them.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-25 13:11:36)
There is nothing in the Carter presidency that suggests he had the balls to attack anyone that attacked the US. I count storming our embassy and taking hostages as just such an event that went unchallenged by Carter.Turquoise wrote:
That depends on what you mean by that. Carter would have definitely attacked Afghanistan after 9/11.lowing wrote:
No one was fucking with the taliban on 911. Don't think for a second that Carter would have gone to war over it.Turquoise wrote:
That just demonstrates how we shouldn't fuck with other countries most of the time. The more we get involved, the worse it becomes. I felt Bosnia, taking out the Taliban, and Somalia were all necessary conflicts, but some of these things would have turned out better if we hadn't fucked around in the first place.
First of all, we shouldn't be selling weapons to Islamic extremists or dictators. Second, the vast majority of the time, we shouldn't enter a conflict without the world's approval.
This isn't about presidents -- it's about being sensible and balanced.
My mistake... The Afghan Civil War began in 1979, so yes, he actually did mess with Afghanistan by aiding one of the rebel groups. My argument is that we shouldn't have aided the rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviet-supported group. If we hadn't, then the Taliban would probably have never chosen to attack us. I phrase it this way, since Al Quida was being harbored by them.
You know, we did try (unsuccessfully) to send a counterterrorism force to retrieve the hostages. The failure of that plan isn't something I blame Carter for -- that was the failure of the forces themselves.lowing wrote:
There is nothing in the Carter presidency that suggests he had the balls to attack anyone that attacked the US. I count storming our embassy and taking hostages as just such an event that went unchallenged by Carter.
Still, as I've said before, Carter wasn't aggressive enough with Iran.
I think we have the opposite problem now. Bush was overbearing and reckless in his choice to invade Iraq.
That plan was a hap hazzard last minute effort on the Carter administration to save face before he got thrown out of office. It was ill concieved and took place a year and a half after the hostages were taken. If everyone insists the president is fully responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in his administration, then certainly Carter is responsible for THAT fiasco.Turquoise wrote:
You know, we did try (unsuccessfully) to send a counterterrorism force to retrieve the hostages. The failure of that plan isn't something I blame Carter for -- that was the failure of the forces themselves.lowing wrote:
There is nothing in the Carter presidency that suggests he had the balls to attack anyone that attacked the US. I count storming our embassy and taking hostages as just such an event that went unchallenged by Carter.
Still, as I've said before, Carter wasn't aggressive enough with Iran.
I think we have the opposite problem now. Bush was overbearing and reckless in his choice to invade Iraq.
Well, I've never suggested that Bush is responsible for everything that happens under his watch. I didn't blame him for 9/11. I didn't blame him for Katrina, and I only partially blamed him for FEMA's failure. I didn't blame him for even how Iraq has turned out (I blame Rumsfeld and various others handling Iraq for that). I do blame Bush for getting us into Iraq though.lowing wrote:
That plan was a hap hazzard last minute effort on the Carter administration to save face before he got thrown out of office. It was ill concieved and took place a year and a half after the hostages were taken. If everyone insists the president is fully responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in his administration, then certainly Carter is responsible for THAT fiasco.Turquoise wrote:
You know, we did try (unsuccessfully) to send a counterterrorism force to retrieve the hostages. The failure of that plan isn't something I blame Carter for -- that was the failure of the forces themselves.lowing wrote:
There is nothing in the Carter presidency that suggests he had the balls to attack anyone that attacked the US. I count storming our embassy and taking hostages as just such an event that went unchallenged by Carter.
Still, as I've said before, Carter wasn't aggressive enough with Iran.
I think we have the opposite problem now. Bush was overbearing and reckless in his choice to invade Iraq.
I think a more sensible thing to blame Carter for is his handling of the oil crisis. I would blame him for not being aggressive enough with Iran, but the actual operation of retrieving the hostages was beyond his leadership. That's like blaming Bush for how Rumsfeld foolishly decided to decommission the Iraqi Republican Guard.
Carter DID NOTHING with the hostage situation for a year and a half, I coulda put together a better concieved plan in THAT amount of time. It was the last minute effort that ultimitaly doomed that mission, AND THAT was Carters fault.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I've never suggested that Bush is responsible for everything that happens under his watch. I didn't blame him for 9/11. I didn't blame him for Katrina, and I only partially blamed him for FEMA's failure. I didn't blame him for even how Iraq has turned out (I blame Rumsfeld and various others handling Iraq for that). I do blame Bush for getting us into Iraq though.lowing wrote:
That plan was a hap hazzard last minute effort on the Carter administration to save face before he got thrown out of office. It was ill concieved and took place a year and a half after the hostages were taken. If everyone insists the president is fully responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in his administration, then certainly Carter is responsible for THAT fiasco.Turquoise wrote:
You know, we did try (unsuccessfully) to send a counterterrorism force to retrieve the hostages. The failure of that plan isn't something I blame Carter for -- that was the failure of the forces themselves.
Still, as I've said before, Carter wasn't aggressive enough with Iran.
I think we have the opposite problem now. Bush was overbearing and reckless in his choice to invade Iraq.
I think a more sensible thing to blame Carter for is his handling of the oil crisis. I would blame him for not being aggressive enough with Iran, but the actual operation of retrieving the hostages was beyond his leadership. That's like blaming Bush for how Rumsfeld foolishly decided to decommission the Iraqi Republican Guard.
^^^^^^^^^
Bummer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.
Bummer
"Nothing" might apply to military methods in dealing with the crisis, but Carter did far more than nothing in other routes....lowing wrote:
Carter DID NOTHING with the hostage situation for a year and a half, I coulda put together a better concieved plan in THAT amount of time. It was the last minute effort that ultimitaly doomed that mission, AND THAT was Carters fault.
"Although the hostage takers initial plan was only to hold the embassy for a few hours, this changed. The Ayatollah Khomeini made no comment on the occupation for several days, waiting to gauge American reaction to the hostage taking, which he feared might be violent. It was not. At least some credit the soft line of American President Jimmy Carter -- whose immediate response was to appeal for release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds -- and his hopes for a strategic anti-communist alliance with the Islamic Republic for the Iranian decision not to release the hostages quickly. Iran's moderate prime minister Mehdi Bazargan and his cabinet resigned just after the event (Nov. 6), unable to muster support for the release of the hostages. Ayatollah Khomeini claimed he was not aware of the Muslim student followers of the Imam's line' plan, but applauded the action afterwards. Supposedly, the Ayatollah had been informed on November 3.
President Jimmy Carter, did apply economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran: oil imports from Iran were ended on November 12, 1979, a number of Iranians in the U.S. were expelled (some of whom were unrelated to the crisis or the new Iranian government), and around USD 8 billion of Iranian assets in the U.S. were frozen on November 14, 1979.
The Muslim student followers of the Imam's line justified taking the hostages as retaliation for the admission of the Shah into the U.S., and demanded the Shah be returned to Iran for a trial. The new Iranian regime believed the Shah was in the U.S. so that the U.S. could carry out another coup d'état in Iran. The U.S. claimed he had come there only to seek medical attention; the Shah was suffering from cancer and died less than a year later in July 1980. Other demands of the Muslim student followers of the Imam's line included an apology by the U.S. government for its interference in the internal affairs of Iran and for the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, and that Iran's assets in the U.S. frozen by the U.S. government in response to the hostage taking be released. Revolutionary teams displayed secret documents taken from the embassy, sometimes painstakingly reconstructed after shredding, to buttress their claim that U.S. intelligence was trying to destabilize the new regime.
The hostage takers, declaring their solidarity with other "oppressed minorities" and "the special place of women in Islam," released 13 women and African Americans in the middle of that November. One more hostage, Richard Queen, was released in July 1980 after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The remaining 52 hostages were held captive until January 1981 and often paraded blindfolded before local crowds and television cameras. The crisis led to daily (yet seemingly unchanging) news updates.
The length of time of the hostage taking has been blamed on internal Iranian revolutionary politics. Not only theocratic Islamists, but leftist political groups like radical leftist People's Mujahedin of Iran supported the taking of American hostages as an attack on American imperialism. By embracing the hostage-taking under the slogan "America can't do a damn thing", Khomeini rallied support and deflected criticism from his controversial Islamic theocratic constitution, a referendum vote on which was less than one month away. Opponents of theocracy onthe radical left were split from the moderates, and Khomeini's forces were able to suppress moderate opposition, led by Grand Ayatollah Shari'atmadari, and leave their radical opponents (primarily the People's Mujahedin) for another day."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
In summary, I would agree that he should have done far more, but he did far more than nothing....
Thanks for the thought anyway, boss.ATG wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.
Bummer
yadda yadda yadda, .........they were held hostage for 444 days!!!..............HE DID NOTHING.....talking for a year and a half is still NOTHING.............Reagan crossed the threashhold of the White House and the hostages were put on a plane home. Iran KNEW Reagan was NOT going to FUCK AROUND with them.Turquoise wrote:
"Nothing" might apply to military methods in dealing with the crisis, but Carter did far more than nothing in other routes....lowing wrote:
Carter DID NOTHING with the hostage situation for a year and a half, I coulda put together a better concieved plan in THAT amount of time. It was the last minute effort that ultimitaly doomed that mission, AND THAT was Carters fault.
"Although the hostage takers initial plan was only to hold the embassy for a few hours, this changed. The Ayatollah Khomeini made no comment on the occupation for several days, waiting to gauge American reaction to the hostage taking, which he feared might be violent. It was not. At least some credit the soft line of American President Jimmy Carter -- whose immediate response was to appeal for release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds -- and his hopes for a strategic anti-communist alliance with the Islamic Republic for the Iranian decision not to release the hostages quickly. Iran's moderate prime minister Mehdi Bazargan and his cabinet resigned just after the event (Nov. 6), unable to muster support for the release of the hostages. Ayatollah Khomeini claimed he was not aware of the Muslim student followers of the Imam's line' plan, but applauded the action afterwards. Supposedly, the Ayatollah had been informed on November 3.
President Jimmy Carter, did apply economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran: oil imports from Iran were ended on November 12, 1979, a number of Iranians in the U.S. were expelled (some of whom were unrelated to the crisis or the new Iranian government), and around USD 8 billion of Iranian assets in the U.S. were frozen on November 14, 1979.
The Muslim student followers of the Imam's line justified taking the hostages as retaliation for the admission of the Shah into the U.S., and demanded the Shah be returned to Iran for a trial. The new Iranian regime believed the Shah was in the U.S. so that the U.S. could carry out another coup d'état in Iran. The U.S. claimed he had come there only to seek medical attention; the Shah was suffering from cancer and died less than a year later in July 1980. Other demands of the Muslim student followers of the Imam's line included an apology by the U.S. government for its interference in the internal affairs of Iran and for the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, and that Iran's assets in the U.S. frozen by the U.S. government in response to the hostage taking be released. Revolutionary teams displayed secret documents taken from the embassy, sometimes painstakingly reconstructed after shredding, to buttress their claim that U.S. intelligence was trying to destabilize the new regime.
The hostage takers, declaring their solidarity with other "oppressed minorities" and "the special place of women in Islam," released 13 women and African Americans in the middle of that November. One more hostage, Richard Queen, was released in July 1980 after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The remaining 52 hostages were held captive until January 1981 and often paraded blindfolded before local crowds and television cameras. The crisis led to daily (yet seemingly unchanging) news updates.
The length of time of the hostage taking has been blamed on internal Iranian revolutionary politics. Not only theocratic Islamists, but leftist political groups like radical leftist People's Mujahedin of Iran supported the taking of American hostages as an attack on American imperialism. By embracing the hostage-taking under the slogan "America can't do a damn thing", Khomeini rallied support and deflected criticism from his controversial Islamic theocratic constitution, a referendum vote on which was less than one month away. Opponents of theocracy onthe radical left were split from the moderates, and Khomeini's forces were able to suppress moderate opposition, led by Grand Ayatollah Shari'atmadari, and leave their radical opponents (primarily the People's Mujahedin) for another day."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
In summary, I would agree that he should have done far more, but he did far more than nothing....
Ah yes... the October surprise. It always helps to have friends in the CIA. The first Bush president deserves credit for that, not Reagan.lowing wrote:
yadda yadda yadda, .........they were held hostage for 444 days!!!..............HE DID NOTHING.....talking for a year and a half is still NOTHING.............Reagan crossed the threashhold of the White House and the hostages were put on a plane home. Iran KNEW Reagan was NOT going to FUCK AROUND with them.
Yeah, tell that to Libya after the barracks bombing in Beruit. Reagan had 3 secret service agents assigned to cover his BALLS alone.Turquoise wrote:
Ah yes... the October surprise. It always helps to have friends in the CIA. The first Bush president deserves credit for that, not Reagan.lowing wrote:
yadda yadda yadda, .........they were held hostage for 444 days!!!..............HE DID NOTHING.....talking for a year and a half is still NOTHING.............Reagan crossed the threashhold of the White House and the hostages were put on a plane home. Iran KNEW Reagan was NOT going to FUCK AROUND with them.