http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209...googlenews_wsj
Not exactly "sad", because any Democrat crashing and burning is IMO quite nice.
Home | http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209...googlenews_wsj
Not exactly "sad", because any Democrat crashing and burning is IMO quite nice.
I actually respect President Carter in his efforts. Sure, he is old and his days on earth are numbered, but the fact that a man of his age is staying involved and working towards a goal is commendable. I also respect the fact that he is willing to stray away from what is safe, popular, and conventional. The current peace process is not working and the sure sign of foolishness and insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. President Carter seems to understand that and is willing to go out on a limb, despite public ridicule. Maybe you don't agree with his stance, but how many 84 year old men are willing to forgo the comforts of retirement in order to strive towards something that they believe in, despite the personal risk?
Poor Carter....
Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.
Originally Posted by martalus
Castro, Duvallier, Pinochet, Franco, Somoza, Mubarek, Khomeni, Mao...They all stayed on to the bitter end because they wanted their place in history, or infamy, whichever. Carter is just our version of that.
I think its unfair, outrageous, and morally dispicable to even compare Jimmy Carter with a list of murderous dictators. To follow is the mission statement of the Carter Statement. Notice the section where it talks about remaining neutral in dispute resolution activities. I assume that many people don't like him here becaue he is trying to remain neutral, see the conflict from all sides, talk to all parties involved, and not necessarily give Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
The Carter Center, in partnership with Emory University, is guided by a fundamental commitment to human rights and the alleviation of human suffering; it seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, enhance freedom and democracy, and improve health. While the program agenda may change, The Carter Center is guided by five principles:
The Center emphasizes action and results. Based on careful research and analysis, it is prepared to take timely action on important and pressing issues.
The Center does not duplicate the effective efforts of others.
The Center addresses difficult problems and recognizes the possibility of failure as an acceptable risk.
The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral in dispute resolution activities. The Center believes that people can improve their lives when provided with the necessary skills, knowledge, and access to resources.
The Carter Center collaborates with other organizations, public or private, in carrying out its mission.
I don't care what his published pamphlets say they do. After all even the Soviet Union had a constitution on paper that would have made Rosseau proud. Not what matters is actions. And his actions speak for themselves. His books always portray Israel as being 1000% the guilty and responsible party. His public speaking mimics that. He deals with terrorists who are ATTACKING JEWS THE VERY DAY HE IS SITTING DOWN TO TALK WITH THEM and he's blaming Israel for that.
Jimmy Carter can sizzle in whatever hell is reserved for him.
By Martalus:
I think its unfair, outrageous, and morally dispicable to even compare Jimmy Carter with a list of murderous dictators.
But he is proposing talking to these dictators..... Not sure how this is possible with his moral values.
To follow is the mission statement of the Carter Statement. Notice the section where it talks about remaining neutral in dispute resolution activities.
What is your definition of neutrality. For example Chamberlain talking to Hitler in 1938 was it neutral? In 1938 the thought on the street was no different from the one you are having right now. The thought was about NEGOTIATING! Hitler Adolf had other thoughts.
I assume that many people don't like him here becaue he is trying to remain neutral,
No. Many people don't like him because he is talking to dictators and very dubious people trying to "negotiate" something. Either Carter is naive (which is doubtful), has lowered his moral standards (which would make one question his "wiseness"), or is trying to make a legacy for himself of some sorts (I am unclear of what this legacy is exactly). Believe me - Carter is not "Neutral".
see the conflict from all sides, talk to all parties involved, and not necessarily give Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
So Carter goes to Iran and Mahmud A., after a good dinner and a few drinks, tells Carter that Iran is really behind economic and political dominance in the Gulf, however, the stupid and greedy Arabs are not letting Iran have its glory. So Iran counters the Arabs by involving itself in the Israel/Pal conflict and provoking the Arab masses to its, Iran's, side. Iran's place in the region and the world is so important that its willing to destroy Lebanon (the Mullahs would never allowing anything like Hizbullah or Hamas to ever exist in Iran) by provoking wars both internal and external, destroy Iraq, support completely idiotic organizations like Hamas trying to prolong the Israeli/Pal conflict indefinetly, and along with Syria (ruled by another dictator with his own agenda) play self serving political games. Carter knows all this very well especially given that he was involved in the very first successful Arab-Israeli peace initiative. The Carte Blanche which you attribute to Israel is just a naive way of saying that you simply don't know what you are talking about. There is a lot more to all this then just the CONFLICT.
Why don't you read up on the Middle East first. If Carter really wants to build bridges he should really take a cultural approach, like creating joint Israeli-Pal day camps, rather then going around playing "good samaritan" policy maker on my tax-dollars. We have elected and appointed politicians to do that.
The Carter Center, in partnership with Emory University, is guided by a fundamental commitment to human rights and the alleviation of human suffering;
it seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, enhance freedom and democracy, and improve health. While the program agenda may change, The Carter Center is guided by five principles:
The Center emphasizes action and results. Based on careful research and analysis, it is prepared to take timely action on important and pressing issues.
The Center does not duplicate the effective efforts of others.
The Center addresses difficult problems and recognizes the possibility of failure as an acceptable risk.
The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral in dispute resolution activities. The Center believes that people can improve their lives when provided with the necessary skills, knowledge, and access to resources.
The Carter Center collaborates with other organizations, public or private, in carrying out its mission.
Good for Carter. I hope he leaves a good library behind too.
Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.
Ok, I will ask a very naive question-what do I, as a US taxpayer, receive in return for America's generous aid to Israel? I am sure you have an excellent answer, so lets hear it.
Israel is not economically self-sufficient,
and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing
to maintain its economy. Since 1985, the
United States has provided $3 billion in grants
annually to Israel. Since 1976, Israel has been
the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign
assistance, and is the largest cumulative recipient
since World War II. In addition to U.S.
assistance, it is estimated that Israel receives
about $1 billion annually through philanthropy,
an equal amount through short- and
long- term commercial loans, and around $1
billion in Israel Bonds proceeds.
This is not from some biased source, it is directly from a Congressional issue brief found in the library of congress. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf
Israel's GDP is approximately USD$185 billion (FY2007). It exports more than USB 8 billion back the US. The EU is a larger import/export partner than is the US. So to say that the nation is not economically self sufficient is not in the ballpark.
What do you get for it? Well what do you get for any foreign aid? What do you get for the 2 billion in direct military aid to Egypt or the 8 billion dollar cost to station a military contingent in South Korea or the 18 billion dollar contingent in Germany, or the cost of stationing American troops in Japan which has 5x the defense budget of Israel and no one is even shooting at them?
You also get Israeli defense avionics, UAVs, AT missiles, smart bombs used in today's US arsenal. Also every US dollar spent on military aid to Israel is spent in the United States with US companies employing US workers. You also get tactical training for urban warfare and counter terrorism.
Now strategically you get a political ally in the only socially stable friendly country in the region. Otherwise the EU wouldn't open the kimono and allow Israel into the EU neighbourhood program if it didn't meet some standard of modernity and stability and strategic location and economic viability.
That statement about Israel being not self sufficient is not from me, but from a US Congressional issue brief.
One more question-you have mentioned the positive points of our relationship with Israel-Are there any negative points to it? Does the US need Israel as much as Israel needs the US. I am trying to look at this from the neo-realist perspective. As Kissinger said, America doesn't have friends, only interests.
It's clearly not a traditional relationship of allies. There are TWO foreign policies in effect. One from Congress and the White House and one from the State Department and the Justice Department. Part of the US apparatus wants to work with Israel and part of it does not. If you go back all the way to the formation of Israel you'll see active State Dept and CIA involvement in counter soviet operations in the Arab mideast that attempted to paint all things communist as 'Jewish', 'Zionist' and such in a effort to play on ancient Jew hatred to deflect the Soviets there. Truman recognized Israel against the advice of his own State Department. And the US had a practically nonexistent relationship with Israel until the JFK administration. This is what drove Israel to go to Czechoslovakia and France as their key arms dealers until the mid 60's. So it's an antagonistic partnership. One based on the fundamental assumption that's it's an unequal partnership. I think that's the biggest downside to Israel. Now what does the US lose by partnering with Israel? That's obvious.
Whoa, hold the phone! Is that a quote or do you really believe that Eisenhower had a non-existent relationship?
The relationship of US administration with Israel was not very strong in the post war years. Israel's main allies were France and Britain.
Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.
Will it always be worthwhile for Israel to have their 'special relationship' with the US (especially if Obama gets into power)? Didn't the US veto a billion dollar arms deal between China and Israel a few years ago?
Agitprop to the contrary, Israel's largest trade partner is the EU. What Israel gets from the US (and the US gets from Israel in return) is some highly specific and highly exotic R+D in both the defense and civilian sectors. Should the US decide it would rather offer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia
Oh wait THEY DID
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984311.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Then Israel could probably turn the Eurofighter 2000 4.5 generation into a credible substitute for the F-16i. After all most of the power comes from compute technology, software and avionics. They already make their own tanks. The best field artillery comes from Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, they have an indigenous space lifter/IRBM program, their submarines are German, most of the rest of the materiel they make is so good it puts them in the 4th or 5th slot for the biggest arms dealers in the world. Why do you think there's an urgency to their spy satellite program? Why rely on the US when the US isn't always a reliable partner?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks