[americandream]

I am not going to argue with you as it is rather pointless seeing as this horse has bolted and one has only to make Google one's friend to get some background on the Afghan conflict, especially the part played by our friend Brzezinski in hothousing the Mujaheddin (todays Taliban) in a bid to draw in the Soviets into their own Vietnam (lol. How any peabrain in their right mind could compare such motives with that of the US in it's interventionism is beside me. However, facts have never mattered in this game.)

There was of course Moussadeq in Iran, secular and nartionalsit with an agenda distinctly to the left of centre for Iran. We know what became of him.

Oh. And that famour British invenmtion. The House of Saud (Saudi top dogs for those not familiar with this crowd and the keeprs of Wahhabist lunacy.).

Let us not forget the Marxists in South Yemen. Ousted in the "progress to democracy".

To name a few.

As usual the incompetents who played a role in the current slide into barbarism will deny all of this, as if it matters. They will pay the price in due course as a resurgent Islam, backed by oil money, progressively extends into neighbourhoods near you.

Thankyou Jimmyboy


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'A')nd here I mean Islam. Carter and Brzezinski together played a significant role in nurturing an Islamic resurgence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East

[Plantagenet]

[Tanada]

Posts about topics other than President Carter have been removed, please try and stay on topic everyone.

[Shar_Lamagne]

In March of 1979 the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah in Iran. Not the US.
The Reagan Administration provided weapons to the Islamic Revolutionary Government as part of the Iran-Contra Affair. (By way of Israel I might add.)

In March of 1979 The Camp David Accords were signed, bringing peace between Egypt and Israel. Brokered by Carter.

On December 27, 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Support for the Mujahadeen, who were primarily Taliban, began under the Reagan Administration. As a matter of fact, it was called the Reagan Doctrine.

In 1979 the US backed the Royalists (the current government at the time) against the communists (the insurgents) in the Yemen civil war.

Due to your professed love for the communists, I can see how you might not like that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Islām (Arabic الإسلام, "submission (to God)") is a monotheistic faith and the world's second-largest religion. Followers of Islam, known as Muslims, believe that God (or, in Arabic, Allāh) revealed His Will to Muhammad (c. 570–632) and other prophets, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. However, that which was revealed to Muhammad was considered to be the final and ultimate revelation, and corrective of Jewish and Christian traditions. The Muslims hold that the main written record of revelation to mankind is the Qur'an.

[Tyler_JC]

US support for the Mujahideen helped destroy the Soviet Union and liberate hundreds of millions of people. Given the choice, I'd do it again. Wouldn't you?

"I cannot understand -- it just baffles me -- why the Soviets these last few years have behaved as they have. Maybe we have made some mistakes with them. Why did they have to build up all these arms? Why did they have to go into Afghanistan? Why can't they relax just a little bit about Eastern Europe? Why do they try every door to see if it is locked?" -Walter Mondale

Picking this guy as vice president adds to the public's dislike of Carter.

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')S support for the Mujahideen helped destroy the Soviet Union and liberate hundreds of millions of people.

[americandream]

Which is why I was careful to point out that the role played by Carter's administration in formenting the culture that now sees the ME sliding into the most blatant form of elitism posing as radical society, was initiating, significant, and largely unknown. Raegan simply continued with the process started by Brezinzinski as well as turning up the rhetoric on the Soviets who he knew, at the point of his election to office, were on the back foot and risking serious demoralisation. Carter was only too aware of the precarious energy predicament faced by the US and it's Western satellites and astutely sought to build on the groundwork laid by the British. Groundwork which succeeded in elevating the Saud's and fundamental Islamic revivalism to the fore in a bid to control the Arab Peninsula and its oil, and in the process put the progression toward a scientific understanding of history in the region, in severe reversal. This argument over the leadership of the region between Iran and the Sunnis is pure theatrics. Whoever wins, the end result will a continuation of the policies that further augment economis disparity, with resource allocation still being subject to market forces. Islam is empire of the fuedal variety admittedly but it has aspirations for integration with Western capital as they seek to extend their own wealth creating apparatus.

Despite all the nonsense on the so-called Soviet Empire, the Soviet's were not empire builders but merely true to the word of Marx in seeking to internationalise communism. To suggest they they sought an empire in Afghanistan is to wilfully ignore the realities of life for the average Soviet including the then incumbent leaderships whose greatest sin was to have access to holiday homes in the resort regions in contrast with those other empire builders, the Americans, British and all of the West generally, whose lavish lifestyles from the bottom up can clearly be seen connected with their conquestidorial culture.

Finally, and with all due respect to Tanada's moderating obligations as I know that I have drifted somewhat in trying to support and fleshing out my historical input on Carter, and whom I hope will forgive this last and brief piece of drift, let me finish by saying, I am a communist, not someone who prefers a communist interpretation of history. I have a preference that the wealth I toil for in my brief life on earth, be applied to my service and not the service of someone else whose only claim to fame was that he thought up an idea whose very worth is more often than not, debateable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shar_Lamagne', 'I')n March of 1979 the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah in Iran. Not the US.
The Reagan Administration provided weapons to the Islamic Revolutionary Government as part of the Iran-Contra Affair. (By way of Israel I might add.)

In March of 1979 The Camp David Accords were signed, bringing peace between Egypt and Israel. Brokered by Carter.

On December 27, 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Support for the Mujahadeen, who were primarily Taliban, began under the Reagan Administration. As a matter of fact, it was called the Reagan Doctrine.

In 1979 the US backed the Royalists (the current government at the time) against the communists (the insurgents) in the Yemen civil war.

Due to your professed love for the communists, I can see how you might not like that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Islām (Arabic الإسلام, "submission (to God)") is a monotheistic faith and the world's second-largest religion. Followers of Islam, known as Muslims, believe that God (or, in Arabic, Allāh) revealed His Will to Muhammad (c. 570–632) and other prophets, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. However, that which was revealed to Muhammad was considered to be the final and ultimate revelation, and corrective of Jewish and Christian traditions. The Muslims hold that the main written record of revelation to mankind is the Qur'an.

[americandream]

Of course you would. You benefit from the skewed world order in which the suffering of children in faraway places can be written off to the Islamic monsters your leaders as well as the Brits helped unleash.

I am no lover of Islam but let's be clear. The trail to wahhabism starts in the Houses of Commons and serves a particular purpose, one that further sustains the status quo. So yes, I am hardly surprised that you applaud the "liberation" of the commons in Afgahans and all the other resource rich but backwards Islamic societies.

Pakistan and that corrupt "democrat" in Afghanistan played a significant role in this and are still collecting on their fees as are those renegades, the Chinese. In due course, this lot will fall out amongst themselves as often do thieves, and then the fun will start.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'U')S support for the Mujahideen helped destroy the Soviet Union and liberate hundreds of millions of people. Given the choice, I'd do it again. Wouldn't you?

"I cannot understand -- it just baffles me -- why the Soviets these last few years have behaved as they have. Maybe we have made some mistakes with them. Why did they have to build up all these arms? Why did they have to go into Afghanistan? Why can't they relax just a little bit about Eastern Europe? Why do they try every door to see if it is locked?" -Walter Mondale

Picking this guy as vice president adds to the public's dislike of Carter.

[mattduke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')HE United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.

Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.

While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.

The declaration has been invoked by human rights activists and the international community to replace most of the world’s dictatorships with democracies and to promote the rule of law in domestic and global affairs. It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government’s counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration’s 30 articles, including the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Recent legislation has made legal the president’s right to detain a person indefinitely on suspicion of affiliation with terrorist organizations or “associated forces,” a broad, vague power that can be abused without meaningful oversight from the courts or Congress (the law is currently being blocked by a federal judge). This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration.

In addition to American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate.

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable. After more than 30 airstrikes on civilian homes this year in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.

[Sixstrings]

*delete*

I did a couple posts, then realized I have cognitive dissonance on this issue, so I'm just deleting and staying out of it for now.

Nobody can do anything anyway. Only people speaking out about this is Ron Paul and Jimmy Carter. The left thinks Paul is a nut, the right says Carter is a nut, and the middle is asleep. *shrugs*

[SeaGypsy]

When are you finally gonna get it 6? They are all friggin nuts. Owned, once paid for, now pawned, NUTS.

[dissident]

There was something else that was declared at the end of WWII: the Nuremberg Convention. Starting wars is the ultimate war crime. The US wants to start wars everywhere and all the time. It uses transparent propaganda about human rights as some sort of fig leaf justification. In Syria it funds and arms militants to start an insurrection and when there are the inevitable civilian deaths and atrocities it cries that it is justified in its policy. This is right up there with the German staged attacks along the Polish border in 1939.

We have crying in the western media about atrocities on civilians but when hundreds are killed by NATO bombs, it's "sh*t happens". There were no atrocities in Syria in 2010 and before the militant FSA started its armed quest for power. Nobody who is honest would paint the FSA as some vast improvement over Assad's regime. These are jihadi fanatics who want a Sharia paradise. Assad's regime is at least secular. BTW, where is the crying in the west about the Egyptian junta trying to run the show regardless of elections. Why isn't Hillary Clinton foaming at the mouth about "unacceptable behaviour"?

Carter doesn't even attack the US foreign policy on it is main problem, violation of international law. He has to resort to the whishy-washy "human rights" tropes. Wars kill people and that is the ultimate violation of human rights.

[SeaGypsy]

Because it's much easier to totally rort a basket case 3rd world country than one which is reasonably well organised and centrist. Take a look at Nigeria for a long running religious based psy-ops divisionary smoke screen. The place has been supplying a serious chunk of the world's oil for near a decade, with very little to show for it. Whilst on the conspiracy tack, I suspect the same motive across the ongoing 'Arab Spring'; the moment is ripe to strike/ sentiment is down, everything is down except the amount of oil these producing/ break even nations are requiring internally (ELM).

[Fishman]

Just hillarious. Three years ago, Jimmah's comments
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American,"

Jimmah's turned. Help me out my liberal friends, was he wrong then, or is he wrong now? Cause we know if you criticise Obama, you are racist. Jimmah said it.

[Fishman]

Dis, not much logic in your argument. Was supporting Mubarac in Egypt right? Wrong? And the failed state that is resulting, which side do we take? Actually most Americans don't give a s%^t what happend in Syria. So any stand against a dictator is wrong in Syria but right in Egypt? Get back to us when you've picked up a history book.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fishman', 'J')immah's turned. Help me out my liberal friends, was he wrong then, or is he wrong now? Cause we know if you criticise Obama, you are racist. Jimmah said it.

[FarQ3]

As an Australian I can't say I know too much about Jimmy Carter's time as US president. I was barely politically aware back then although at the time I remember him as a seemingly good man. Australia is also implicit in the USA's use of drones as we gave both tactical and technical support to the development and use of these aircraft. I don't agree with the use of drones in civillian housing areas, I thought that US intelligence did a cleaner job of weeding out these terrorist types in the past and disposing of them, but maybe I 'm wrong. I guess then it's a good thing there aren't Libyan/Yemeni/Syrian drones flying in our own collective skies killing anyone that may be seen as supporting terrorist/anti-government activities in those countries.

[Fishman]

So for simplicity, Six, you're saying Jimmah is now a racist.

Nuanced, hand wringing, whatever. Drones killing terrorist, focused, with fewer losses to civilians than any other option, no problems. They picked a fight with the Cole, the Nairobi embassy (which I have visited). Pick up a history book sometime. Get back to me when you find a country that does fight when someone tries to kill their people. (notice I left out 9/11 for the assorted loons out here)
Actually read the koran sometime, then get back to us.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fishman', 'S')o for simplicity, Six, you're saying Jimmah is now a racist.

[Fishman]

Well Six if you can't figure it out.
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," means YOU must be racist, because you "demonstrated animosity" to Obama by questioning his moral view.
"Regardless of what your enemy does, you have to keep the moral high ground and not forget who YOU are in the course of the fight"

As for your "demonstrated animosity" your racial view must be "But as I say, it's complicated, I realize that"

I noticed our liberal contingent dropped the thread. Logic never was their thing.