http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/19/carter.blair.ap/index.html
It is quite unprecedented for an ex-president to make a statement like this about a current president, regardless of party-differences.
Real classy thing to say by a former preident. Jump on the dogpile with rest of the commoners. Carter is a schmuck.
Carter has established himself as a statesman. He isn't running for office and his willingness to tell the truth about Bush and other big issues has been refreshing. Bill Clinton has never given us this kind of candid assessment because he has continued to seek political power.
Tulsa has a large number of core Republicans who still support Bush. There is a real schism between that stand and national popular opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Tulsa has a large number of core Republicans who still support Bush. There is a real schism between that stand and national popular opinion.
Either that, or some people just dont have the stones to admit to anyone-including themselves-that they backed the wrong horse.
Since leaving office President Carter has distinguished himself by thoroughly analyzing conditions, situations and reaching independent decisions with a exceptionally high level of integrity without regards to political association.
former President Carter can eat the peanuts out of W's $H%*!
He needs to go back to his fireplace, put his sweater on and review his lackluster job as president.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
He needs to go back to his fireplace, put his sweater on and review his lackluster job as president.
Same thing Bush will be doing in 2 years.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
He needs to go back to his fireplace, put his sweater on and review his lackluster job as president.
Same thing Bush will be doing in 2 years.
No. President Bush will be at his ranch in Crawford, wearing a Cowboy hat and partying with his old Frat brothers.
quote:
Since leaving office President Carter has distinguished himself by thoroughly analyzing conditions, situations and reaching independent decisions with a exceptionally high level of integrity without regards to political association.
Damned shame he couldn't have done it when he actually
WAS president. It's always easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe like a ***** and ole peanut packer is great at that.
If I remember correctly wasn't it Carter who sold arms to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that eventually turned into Al-Qaeda?
quote:
without regards to political association
I almost snorted my diet coke up my nose when I read this. You should post warnings on you responses that say "may create uncontrolled laughter."
He's already capitulating:
Former President Jimmy Carter on Monday said his comments over the weekend about the Bush administration were "careless."
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
He's already capitulating:
Former President Jimmy Carter on Monday said his comments over the weekend about the Bush administration were "careless."
Must've been the Jim Beam talking.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
If I remember correctly wasn't it Carter who sold arms to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that eventually turned into Al-Qaeda?
I think that was more Reagan that Carter....
1. Carter was a horrible president, few would argue that.
2. Carter is not saying anything without regard to politics, he has taken only single line: against Bush. Statements without regard to politics would give credit to Republicans at least now and again (though, I admit, they have deserved little lately). Carter only speaks when it serves the liberal side of the isle.
3. Afghanistan, Iran, and support of Saddam... oh yeah, Carter set that all up.
Kettle, pot. Pot, kettle.
I think he has lost it....I really wonder what he remembers as President.....Do you think he recalls the Carter Doctrine that he and Zbigniew came up with......
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
If I remember correctly wasn't it Carter who sold arms to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that eventually turned into Al-Qaeda?
I think that was more Reagan that Carter....
Not.....Carter was the one that hatched that plan......Billions of dollars were spent under Carter to train those "terrorist" to fight against the Russians.....
I believe the comment originatee when he was asked by the reporter to compare Bush's foreign policy with Nixon's. That's the context. But regardless of the context, he's right on.
Yeah! Just like he's right on about those damned jews as well.[xx(][xx(]
(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Carter_irrelevance.jpg)
(http://www.jewlicious.com/wp-content/uploads/Yo/palestine_is_for_lovers.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
If I remember correctly wasn't it Carter who sold arms to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that eventually turned into Al-Qaeda?
I think that was more Reagan that Carter....
Wrong. http://www.islandnet.com/~contempo/library/wtc/brzezinski.html
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
If I remember correctly wasn't it Carter who sold arms to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that eventually turned into Al-Qaeda?
I think that was more Reagan that Carter....
Wrong. http://www.islandnet.com/~contempo/library/wtc/brzezinski.html
All that says is that Carter started it, a fact I didn't dispute. The vast bulk of funding was, however, under Reagan.
Folks you need some experience and a memory to truly appreciate how absurd our politics were and are.
I can remember Reagan's speeches to the nation about the brave Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan. We created and armed them. I learned later that the brave Freedom Fighters were what became Al-Qaeda.
Carter's failures as a president were mostly a matter of public relations blunders and not knowing how little tolerance Americans had for sacrifice.
Reagan told us we could have everything we wanted and it would cost us nothing. Guess what, Reagan was wrong and the bill is coming due.
Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.
Presidents support factions and causes that best represent our interests at the time. Once the Russians got bored with the Afghani's and went home, the rebel Afghani's turned their attention elsewhere. Much like how we were silently working in the background of the Iran/Iraq war. We had a common enemy in the USSR at the time.
How many other times throughout history have allies turned into enemies and enemies to allies?
Name one good, substantive part of Carter's foreign policy that anyone can remember aside from the Camp David Accord.
Here's what I remember of Carter:
-High unemployment
-High inflation
-High interest rates
-Bungled policies with Iran
-Ill-fated "windfall profits tax"
-Push to de-regulate oil, which we appear to be paying for now.
He's just trying to polish his own pathetic legacy by lampooning Bush.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Folks you need some experience and a memory to truly appreciate how absurd our politics were and are.
I can remember Reagan's speeches to the nation about the brave Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan. We created and armed them. I learned later that the brave Freedom Fighters were what became Al-Qaeda.
Carter's failures as a president were mostly a matter of public relations blunders and not knowing how little tolerance Americans had for sacrifice.
Reagan told us we could have everything we wanted and it would cost us nothing. Guess what, Reagan was wrong and the bill is coming due.
Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.
Mr. Reagan's habitual usage of the word "freedom" was merely a component of his other empty rhetoric. Once the Afghan rebels ran the Soviets out of Afghanistan, do you really think the country was a freer place to live in? Compared to how the Taliban ran the country, one kind of wonders if perhaps Afghanistan was better off under Soviet influence. As anti-Soviet as I was and still am, I think even the most politically conservative among us, if they had to choose, would probably much rather live under Lenin than live under Islam.
Let's go further. Mr. Reagan's foreign policy benefitted some of the worst butchers in Central and South America, such as the bloody regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, whose leaders were regarded as allies in the Cold War era. And of course, I've yet to find anything politically or socially redeeming about the Contras of Nicaragua, but hey, it's all about "freedom" right?
And Oliver North, give me a break. Here's a guy who circumvented Federal laws to negotiate with Islamic extremists in Iran to finance a group of drug-dealing cutthroats in Central America, lied to the Congressional committee investigating this, and he's regarded by some as an American hero. Now he's got a show on Fox News, but then, that seems kind of fitting.
I think the Carter intervention in Afghanistan is fascinating. He intervened in Afghanistan supporting the rebels after a Communist gov't took power, but before the Soviets entered. His intervention caused the Soviets to invade. Part of me thinks that's hilarious, for some reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Presidents support factions and causes that best represent our interests at the time. Once the Russians got bored with the Afghani's and went home, the rebel Afghani's turned their attention elsewhere. Much like how we were silently working in the background of the Iran/Iraq war. We had a common enemy in the USSR at the time.
How many other times throughout history have allies turned into enemies and enemies to allies?
Name one good, substantive part of Carter's foreign policy that anyone can remember aside from the Camp David Accord.
Here's what I remember of Carter:
-High unemployment
-High inflation
-High interest rates
-Bungled policies with Iran
-Ill-fated "windfall profits tax"
-Push to de-regulate oil, which we appear to be paying for now.
He's just trying to polish his own pathetic legacy by lampooning Bush.
I've yet to see how our "best interests" were served by supporting the death squads in El Salvador, or by overthrowing popularly-elected governments by the people of various third world nations in the Americas. Guatemala (before the bloodbath) had Arbenz, Chile had Allende, Haiti had Aristide, Nicaragua had Ortega (and guess who's back), all democratically elected, all looking to make reforms and changes in the status quo-much the same in some ways as we did back in 1776. But for some reason, it was not in our "best interests" that these individual states have the governments that their peoples wanted, so we "destabilize" them and install someone more "subservient" to our agenda.
As for foreign policy, I won't yet comment on Carter's track record, but on a visit to Havana in 2002, he did call for an end to the embargo against Cuba, and to that I say right on. What purpose does it serve anyway.
That is up to admins, the CIA, military, et. al. to decide which ones benefit us strategically and which don't. There was some dark, shady stuff in Central America during the Reagan years, I don't think anyone disputes it. For some reason, the powers that be decided what we did was in our best interests.
Re: Cuba. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, I really don't get the point of an embargo. American investment could do wonders for that place.
Castro has been pretty much impotent for the last 10-15 years, moreso now. Perhaps it would improve the human condition there. I believe our embargo hinges upon human rights issues, yes?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I think the Carter intervention in Afghanistan is fascinating. He intervened in Afghanistan supporting the rebels after a Communist gov't took power, but before the Soviets entered. His intervention caused the Soviets to invade. Part of me thinks that's hilarious, for some reason.
Reading the article that I linked to, the author, Brzezinski, aledges that we were involved in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviets ever stepped foot in the country we wanted them to get mired in their own Vietnam.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I think the Carter intervention in Afghanistan is fascinating. He intervened in Afghanistan supporting the rebels after a Communist gov't took power, but before the Soviets entered. His intervention caused the Soviets to invade. Part of me thinks that's hilarious, for some reason.
Reading the article that I linked to, the author, Brzezinski, alleges that we were involved in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviets ever stepped foot in the country. It was apparently our will that they get mired in their own Vietnam.
And it came back to bite us on September 11, 2001.
I think we've learned that the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy. That being said, no one could have forseen Al-Qaeda, not Carter or Reagan. It's too easy to say that it was the wrong decision to make, but where would we be if the Soviet Union was still a major superpower? Neither alternative is pretty.
As for Carter, it was just one many, many blunders.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I think we've learned that the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy. That being said, no one could have forseen Al-Qaeda, not Carter or Reagan. It's too easy to say that it was the wrong decision to make, but where would we be if the Soviet Union was still a major superpower? Neither alternative is pretty.
They did however know about Bin Laden, even then.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I think we've learned that the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy. That being said, no one could have forseen Al-Qaeda, not Carter or Reagan. It's too easy to say that it was the wrong decision to make, but where would we be if the Soviet Union was still a major superpower? Neither alternative is pretty.
They did however know about Bin Laden, even then.
They most certainly did not...do you have anything to back this up? You can half-attribute a pinch of causation to both Carter and Reagan, but they had no idea who Bin Laden was. OBL didn't even split from MAK until 1988...
His first fatwa was in 1996, smack dab in the middle of BJ's last term.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I think we've learned that the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy. That being said, no one could have forseen Al-Qaeda, not Carter or Reagan. It's too easy to say that it was the wrong decision to make, but where would we be if the Soviet Union was still a major superpower? Neither alternative is pretty.
They did however know about Bin Laden, even then.
They most certainly did not...do you have anything to back this up? You can half-attribute a pinch of causation to both Carter and Reagan, but they had no idea who Bin Laden was. OBL didn't even split from MAK until 1988...
His first fatwa was in 1996, smack dab in the middle of BJ's last term.
They knew him not as a cleric nor terrorist, but they did know him as a "Freedom Fighter" during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. And the "they" in question may not necessarily even refer to Carter or Reagan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
That being said-and willing to acknowledge a mistake to some degree- the terrorist that was widely mentioned in that era was one Abu Nidal. The tale of Oliver North predicting Osama Bin Laden's potential impact is merely an urban legend.
Under Carter our nation stood for Human Rights. Under Bush our nation stands for Torture.
Anyone remember The Panama Canal?
Mr. Jaynes. Thank you for mentioning our blundering heavy handed, oftentimes criminal role in Nicaragua and Guatemala. The issue of Refuges (that we created) has been sadly lacking in TulsaNow's various threads discussing undocumented workers. But that's another thread.
We'll see how class clown, chicken hawk, Junior is perceived in another 27 years. Given his penchant for secrecy and his disregard for law, I imagine we'll be learning a lot about our recent history.
You Republicans have really outdone the Left this time. You make the Left's past excesses look tame.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
That is up to admins, the CIA, military, et. al. to decide which ones benefit us strategically and which don't. There was some dark, shady stuff in Central America during the Reagan years, I don't think anyone disputes it. For some reason, the powers that be decided what we did was in our best interests.
And I've yet to hear a rational and credible explanation from any of these agencies on the matter-not that they apparently feel any obligation to provide one.
From all I'd gotten, Guatemala and Nicaragua wanted to determine their own domestic policy without any intervention-much the same way we did before our revolution. Apparently, the powers-that-be in DC and New York saw such as a personal affront and would not tolerate such an act of impudence. And El Salvador? Well, Good God, judging by the bloody antics of the government there in the 1980s, I can't say I blame the people there for saying enough's enough and trying to better the situation.
quote:
Re: Cuba. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, I really don't get the point of an embargo. American investment could do wonders for that place.
I'm no defender of Cuba or its leadership, before or after their revolution, but perhaps the embargo is in place because Cuba openly defied the more darker aspects of the Monroe Doctrine.
I may not be a big fan of the current regime in Havana these days, but if there's universal literacy and education, and a health care system that seems to attract people from all over the world for medical attention; if they were able to solve the drug problem and prostitution there; if they were able to shut down organized crime's stranglehold on their country, what would anybody have to complain about (besides 4hr marathon speeches by their leader, or some degree of political oppression). As for the drug situation, it would seem that Cuba is the one place that drug traffickers fear the most, due to how they are known to deal with cocaine and drug trafficking. In my eyes, when it comes to dealing with the effects of the previous regime's corruptions and excesses, well, even if I'm no fan of the current government there, that kind of reform is commendable-even if the current form of government and its leadership isn't. Why would anybody object to that kind of progress?
Once again, it seems that the Castro brothers defied the big money and organized crime interests that controlled their nation for years, and tried to assert the sovereignty of their own nation. Perhaps the US Government saw this, and once again judged this kind of defiant stance an unforgiveable insult, and sought to punish them for their impudence.
As for the embargo, it was set up to disrupt and destabilize the current regime, but it's seem to take a different turn, as other nations have come in to invest in Cuba and these investors have done well for themselves economically through their ventures there. Let's face it, the embargo is a failure, didn't do what it set out to accomplish, and has made us look foolish in the eyes of the world.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
That being said-and willing to acknowledge a mistake to some degree- the terrorist that was widely mentioned in that era was one Abu Nidal. The tale of Oliver North predicting Osama Bin Laden's potential impact is merely an urban legend.
Interestingly enough, Abu Nidal was actually a part of the Baath party, and operated out of Baghdad, so the whole area is just a hornet's nest.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I think we've learned that the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy. That being said, no one could have forseen Al-Qaeda, not Carter or Reagan. It's too easy to say that it was the wrong decision to make, but where would we be if the Soviet Union was still a major superpower? Neither alternative is pretty.
They did however know about Bin Laden, even then.
Reading the stories you cited, it's hindsight. It's the author using hyperbole to say
we supported Bin Laden at one point. FYI, I'm always skeptical of authors and web sites who make claims like: "there are still 10 million land mines in Afghanistan" sentences like that tell me there was a short-cut in someone's research and a lot of their facts flew out their donkey.
We supported the movement OBL was involved with. He was not a leader of it when our support started and he was amongst our allies at the time. When Carter and Regan were in office he was one of thousands of freedom fighters. The USSR was our primary enemy in those days, we supported those trying to thwart the occupation. IOW- there is nothing sinister about having supported the freedom fighters, that was the foreign policy of the time.
Throughout history, people have turned weapons supplied by allies onto their former allies. You deal with the present threats and there is always the chance that you will be fighting against those you once fought alongside.
On one of those days when I'm struggling to find something nice to say about Republicans I usually cite Eisenhower because he had the guts to stand up against our military, but ever present in the back of my mind is what Eisenhower and our CIA did to Guatemala.
Guatemala had freely elected a left leaning president who had campaigned with an agenda of Land Reform. He started the process of redistributing land to Guatemala's Indian peasant farmers when an American corporation complained to Eisenhower. Del Monte Corporation was going to lose some land in the redistribution scheme. So Eisenhower had our CIA step in and arrange a coup against Guatemala's left leaning government. We installed our pick and set up a puppet government in Guatemala City. Our actions set in motion Guatemala's devastating civil war which was finally brought to an end in the late 90s. Over 100,000 Guatemalans died because of our actions.
Canada had a long standing policy of automatically granting refugee status to Guatemalans. We did not.
Late in his term Clinton apologized to the Guatemala for what we did. He offered no reparations, nothing to compensate Guatemala for the damages. Just an, I'm sorry.
Recently the world has complained about our cavalier disrespect for sovereign nations and our disregard for international treaties, but Latin America was already quite familiar with this aspect of our personality. We have always acted as if we are in charge in Latin America. You can imagine we are not at all admired.
Anyway, one of the few things we've done right in Latin America is honoring our agreements in respect to the Panama canal. We can thank Carter for that.
I realize Oklahoma is land locked and many of you have never been outside of the state, but actions taken in Oklahoma ultimately impact our foreign policy and touch the lives of real people, just like you and me, all around the world.
Now go buy some Del Monte canned goods and think about all the little compromises we Americans have to make.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
On one of those days when I'm struggling to find something nice to say about Republicans
agreed.
quote:
Guatemala had freely elected a left leaning president who had campaigned with an agenda of Land Reform.
Read: The government was going to take property away from people and give it to other people.
This is not an excuse for the US to intervene unless there was some treaty I do not know about, nationalization is a cost of doing business is less reputable parts of the world. It is also the reason that many parts of the world can not attract foreign investment and remain in poverty.
quote:
Our actions set in motion Guatemala's devastating civil war which was finally brought to an end in the late 90s. Over 100,000 Guatemalans died because of our actions.
I agree that we set the events in motion, but it appears to me that it was the straw that broke the camels back. The government we put into power lasted 4 years until a military coup unseated it. That coup then fought itself for power with general v. general. Other forces saw a chance and drawing Cuban support joined in to form a communist government. By the end of the spiral, 4 or 5 groups were fighting for power and our horse wasnt even in the race.
So it is safe to say the United States played a roll, but things were well on their way to trouble by that point.
quote:
He offered no reparations, nothing to compensate Guatemala for the damages. Just an, I'm sorry.
Reparations are rarely a good idea. They are scoffed at no matter what the amount, and then lead to fighting over who was the biggest victim. No good would have come from reparations to Guatemala, the Panamanians, the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaiians, the Nicaraguans, the Vietnamese or any other group of people we have messed with.
quote:
Recently the world has complained about our cavalier disrespect for sovereign nations and our disregard for international treaties
What national treaties have we disregarded? We have refused to join some (KYOTO) and pulled out of others (Strategic Arms) but I am not aware of any we have disregarded.
quote:
We have always acted as if we are in charge in Latin America.
We do not act like we are in charge, we have put ourselves in charge. Like it or not, that's the point of the Monroe Doctrine. You'll note that Latin nations that keep it together have seen little if any US interference in recent history. Again, not that we should have in the past... just pointing it out.
quote:
Anyway, one of the few things we've done right in Latin America is honoring our agreements in respect to the Panama canal. We can thank Carter for that.
Building the canal and essentially creating and running Panama for 80 years has made that a stable, prosperous nation. I'm not saying it was the right or wrong thing for us to do, but the result has been favorable to the people there.
We have done other good things in Latin America. Like the $3,000,000,000.00 in direct aid we supply every year. Or CAFTA creating jobs there. Or helping stabilize Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, and several other areas when they needed it. Clearly our relationship has been a bed of roses with might big thorns, but pretending we have done no good is a farce. South America is far more prosperous than other formerly colonized areas and has seen remarkable stability.
All Carter did on that front was honor his predecessors agreement. Lets give GW credit for honoring our SALT treaties and act like its a big deal.
quote:
I realize Oklahoma is land locked and many of you have never been outside of the state
Ahhh-ha! Oklahoma is not land locked, we have an inland sea port soooo there!
I would seriously question though, that anyone posting on this board has never left Oklahoma. I shutter to think such a thing is possible with anyone that pretends to have a learned viewpoint on world affairs (or anyone for that matter).
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Under Carter our nation stood for Human Rights. Under Bush our nation stands for Torture.
It seems to trickle down to the street level. Witnesses said this woman fought each time she was shocked until she finally died:
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Oklahoma City police say a woman who died after being shot with a Taser gun was handcuffed when she was shot.
Police say a surveillance camera at the mission caught most of the incident on tape but police would not release the video because the investigation is ongoing.
The two officers involved are on paid administrative leave.It's a different America...
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Under Carter our nation stood for Human Rights. Under Bush our nation stands for Torture.
Anyone remember The Panama Canal?
Mr. Jaynes. Thank you for mentioning our blundering heavy handed, oftentimes criminal role in Nicaragua and Guatemala. The issue of Refuges (that we created) has been sadly lacking in TulsaNow's various threads discussing undocumented workers. But that's another thread.
We'll see how class clown, chicken hawk, Junior is perceived in another 27 years. Given his penchant for secrecy and his disregard for law, I imagine we'll be learning a lot about our recent history.
You Republicans have really outdone the Left this time. You make the Left's past excesses look tame.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
On one of those days when I'm struggling to find something nice to say about Republicans I usually cite Eisenhower because he had the guts to stand up against our military, but ever present in the back of my mind is what Eisenhower and our CIA did to Guatemala.
Guatemala had freely elected a left leaning president who had campaigned with an agenda of Land Reform. He started the process of redistributing land to Guatemala's Indian peasant farmers when an American corporation complained to Eisenhower. Del Monte Corporation was going to lose some land in the redistribution scheme. So Eisenhower had our CIA step in and arrange a coup against Guatemala's left leaning government. We installed our pick and set up a puppet government in Guatemala City. Our actions set in motion Guatemala's devastating civil war which was finally brought to an end in the late 90s. Over 100,000 Guatemalans died because of our actions.
Canada had a long standing policy of automatically granting refugee status to Guatemalans. We did not.
Late in his term Clinton apologized to the Guatemala for what we did. He offered no reparations, nothing to compensate Guatemala for the damages. Just an, I'm sorry.
Recently the world has complained about our cavalier disrespect for sovereign nations and our disregard for international treaties, but Latin America was already quite familiar with this aspect of our personality. We have always acted as if we are in charge in Latin America. You can imagine we are not at all admired.
Anyway, one of the few things we've done right in Latin America is honoring our agreements in respect to the Panama canal. We can thank Carter for that.
I realize Oklahoma is land locked and many of you have never been outside of the state, but actions taken in Oklahoma ultimately impact our foreign policy and touch the lives of real people, just like you and me, all around the world.
Now go buy some Del Monte canned goods and think about all the little compromises we Americans have to make.
Now that the US is mired in its misadventures in other hemispheres and is stretched too thin to do much to meddle in Latin america, it seems that nationa such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and others are looking to make their own way. It'll be curious to see what they do with this opportunity.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Now that the US is mired in its misadventures in other hemispheres and is stretched too thin to do much to meddle in Latin america, it seems that nationa such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and others are looking to make their own way. It'll be curious to see what they do with this opportunity.
So are you complaining about our current non-involvement or complaining because we were too involved in the past?
On one of those days when I'm struggling to find something nice to say about Democrats I usually cite Kennedy because he had the guts to stand up against our military, but ever present in the back of my mind is what Kennedy and our CIA did to the people of Cuba.
One brutal dictator was replaced by another who wasn't so friendly to U.S. interests. Sam Giancana and the rest of Kennedy's mob supporters were going to lose some land, casinos, hotels, and money in the redistribution scheme. So Kennedy had our CIA step in and arrange an invasion against Cuba's left leaning government. After that little fiasco and our embargo of their goods, the human condition deteriorated to a complete cesspool.
Florida created a long standing policy of automatically granting refugee status to Cubans arriving on banana boats.
Late in his term Clinton secretly smoked contraband Cuban cigars with interns in his office. He offered no reparations, nothing to compensate Ms. Lewinsky for the damages. Just an, I'm sorry.
Blah, blah, blah, blah....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Now that the US is mired in its misadventures in other hemispheres and is stretched too thin to do much to meddle in Latin america, it seems that nationa such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and others are looking to make their own way. It'll be curious to see what they do with this opportunity.
So are you complaining about our current non-involvement or complaining because we were too involved in the past?
I'm no big fan of our past involvement in that region, and I'm actually interested in seeing what the future will bring to that region.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Florida created a long standing policy of automatically granting refugee status to Cubans arriving on banana boats.
Among the original group of Cubans who fled after the revolution were the gangsters, operatives of the brutal secret police and military, the landholders, etc., hardly the salt of the earth. They're the ones who got into drug trafficking and other nefarious schemes once they got here. They lost their country and they can't admit that maybe they brought some of that upon themselves.
Carter has clarified that he meant to say that Bush is now less popular than Nixon was at the time of his resignation.
He is right on the mark, and the truth hurts... particularly to those of us who are registered republicans that feel betrayed.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Carter has clarified that he meant to say that Bush is now less popular than Nixon was at the time of his resignation.
He is right on the mark, and the truth hurts... particularly to those of us who are registered republicans that feel betrayed.
I don't think we needed Carter to provide that "duh" statement. All one has to do is look at the approval (or in this case disapproval) ratings.
The unspoken protocol in the past has been for previous Presidents to refrain from publicly commenting on sitting President's job performance and/or policies.
Cannon, You say,
"The government was going to take property away from people and give it to other people."
Yes, not unlike our imminent domain.
"The government we put into power lasted 4 years until a military coup unseated it. That coup then fought itself for power with general v. general."
The generals were in our pocket too. In fact Guatemala is still in our pocket. Remember all of the CIA's handiwork in Guatemala in the 80s?
"So it is safe to say the United States played a roll...."
Cannon I'm assuming there was some belief behind this statement. And I have to say you are a little naive and chauvinistic about the role we played and play. There's not a whole lot you can do to "make nice" about what we've done in Latin America.
Just read off a list of Latin American countries and it is hard to find a country that has not had a troubled relationship with the U.S. You have conveniently forgotten a lot of history you lived through. Argentina. Chile. Noriega. The School of the Americas. The untold story now is our involvement in Columbia's civil war. Columbia is a real black mark on Clinton's legacy.
Like I say, the rest of the world has recently gotten to see a part of our personality that Latin America was already completely familiar with. Stabilizing force? Not if you take your sovereignty and right to self determination seriously.
Patric, I hear you about the woman in OKC. Oklahoma is short on watchdog groups. There have been several police shootings in Tulsa recently and I never hear anything from watchdog groups. I'm inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but I hope the DA's office is taking a critical look and I sure would like to see an independent group of citizens that monitor police shootings and deaths of people in police custody.
Carter's just pissed because Bush Jr. is going to take away his title of Worst President Since World War II.
And the Contras-a legion of butchers, cutthroats, drug traffickers and thieves. These people fought for freedom? No, they fought for a restoration of the old staus quo (but settled for an election instead). I'm wondering if Mr. Bush is willing to leave well enough alone and allow the government there to find its own way? Part of me hopes that he will, but the other part of me thinks that Mr. Ortega may once again be seen as something of an affront to the powers-that-be in Washington.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Carter's just pissed because Bush Jr. is going to take away his title of Worst President Since World War II.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Cannon, You say,
"The government was going to take property away from people and give it to other people."
Exactly what your beloved Democrats in Congress are planning to do with the new tax bill. Read it, it will brutalize the middle class they supposedly represent.
The U.S. has a long history of exploiting the natural resources and governments of foreign nations to our own benefit. You have benefitted from this as have every citizen and illegal resident. Get over it.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Folks you need some experience and a memory to truly appreciate how absurd our politics were and are.
I can remember Reagan's speeches to the nation about the brave Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan. We created and armed them. I learned later that the brave Freedom Fighters were what became Al-Qaeda.
Carter's failures as a president were mostly a matter of public relations blunders and not knowing how little tolerance Americans had for sacrifice.
Reagan told us we could have everything we wanted and it would cost us nothing. Guess what, Reagan was wrong and the bill is coming due.
Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.
And what's sad about that is, he was empty rhetoric and misguided action, not realizing that his policies would have repercussions throughout the world, seeing things in terms of lofty ideals rather than the brutal realities.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.
And what's sad about that is, he was empty rhetoric and misguided action, not realizing that his policies would have repercussions throughout the world, seeing things in terms of lofty ideals rather than the brutal realities.
Empty rhetoric? Huh?
Care to explain or are you just running away with HT's imagination?
Conan, Your assumption is that the spoils of these cold wars are evenly divided. And you also assume that short term material gains outweigh less mundane considerations like one's honor or creating a world where your descendants will be welcome members of the family of man.
I would argue that the sole beneficiary of the policies mentioned above have been certain U.S. corporations and their shareholders and that any short term benefit they may have received was not passed on to the American middle or working classes. Did Del Monte pass on economies they believe they gained by precipitating a devastating civil war?
It looks to me that any loyalty American corporations may have had to American citizens were tossed out the window round about the time of the first oil embargo. You and I don't get any special consideration.
I mentioned the compromises we Americans have to make and I think it would be more specific to say compromises we have to make with the devil.
I believe in a better United States than you do. We are more than strong enough to do the right thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.
And what's sad about that is, he was empty rhetoric and misguided action, not realizing that his policies would have repercussions throughout the world, seeing things in terms of lofty ideals rather than the brutal realities.
Empty rhetoric? Huh?
Care to explain or are you just running away with HT's imagination?
Mr. Reagan prattled on about "freedom" and "self-determination" for everyone in the world, but in practice, it seems that some in the third world aren't worthy of such a blessing. Look at El Salvador and Guatemala; look at Paraguay (while Stroessner was still in charge) and Chile (under the Pinochet government), and for that matter, Haiti (under Duvalier) and Philippines (under Marcos). Hardly beacons of light in terms of freedom. The track record of supporting these butchers speaks for itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Conan, Your assumption is that the spoils of these cold wars are evenly divided. And you also assume that short term material gains outweigh less mundane considerations like one's honor or creating a world where your descendants will be welcome members of the family of man.
I would argue that the sole beneficiary of the policies mentioned above have been certain U.S. corporations and their shareholders and that any short term benefit they may have received was not passed on to the American middle or working classes. Did Del Monte pass on economies they believe they gained by precipitating a devastating civil war?
It looks to me that any loyalty American corporations may have had to American citizens were tossed out the window round about the time of the first oil embargo. You and I don't get any special consideration.
I mentioned the compromises we Americans have to make and I think it would be more specific to say compromises we have to make with the devil.
I believe in a better United States than you do. We are more than strong enough to do the right thing.
Belief is one thing, it can be based in reality or fantasy.
Seeing is entirely another. I
see a better United States than you do.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Mr. Reagan prattled on about "freedom" and "self-determination" for everyone in the world, but in practice, it seems that some in the third world aren't worthy of such a blessing. Look at El Salvador and Guatemala; look at Paraguay (while Stroessner was still in charge) and Chile (under the Pinochet government), and for that matter, Haiti (under Duvalier) and Philippines (under Marcos). Hardly beacons of light in terms of freedom. The track record of supporting these butchers speaks for itself.
Many of the same reasons cited for our involvement in Central and South America were similar to why we wound up in SE Asia under previous admins.
We were already directly involved in Latin America directly prior to Reagan's first term due to Carter's human rights initiatives. There was blood-letting before Reagan took office and after. The whole decision was whether or not to support right-wing movements or leftist movements backed by larger enemies.
Communism was still a big fear to our government in 1980. A lot of the foreign policy revolved around keeping communism as far from the U.S. and U.S. interests as the fear was that Moscow was supporting most of the leftist movements. In case you have forgotten, the USSR and the USA were still bitter enemies when Reagan was sworn into office and strategic placement of missiles with Moscow-friendly gov'ts was more than a minor concern.
I'm not sure there is a single President since Teddy Roosevelt whom we can't look back at and see a failure somewhere in their foreign policy or something which transpired in their tenure which was good at the time but came back to bite us in the donkey later.
Sometimes, foreign policy means choosing the lesser of two evils. That's not perfect, and that certainly isn't ideal, but often those are the only two choices available. There are still people to this day who say that monster Pinochet saved Chileans from a worse fate.
Many men who have turned out to be brutal dictators duped their own people and the rest of the world into believing they were saviors or presented themselves as revolutionaries who were going to make a better life for people in their country and to be a good neighbor to their region.
Two of the dictators you cited were deposed during Regan's tenure in 1986, Marcos and Baby Doc Duvalier.
Trying to put this
all on the back of Reagan is revisionist history and is wiping clean the slate of questionable decisions of previous Presidential administrations and really doesn't take into account what Reagan walked into.
I'm not being a Reagan apologist, it just annoys me when people ignore previous history and fail to look at the big picture of previous events that lead up to the next cataclysm.
Reagan was nowhere near perfect, I don't believe there will ever be a perfect President. Just as any other President has done throughout the history of this country, he did what he thought was best at the time. The rear-view mirror is always much clearer than the crystal ball.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Mr. Reagan prattled on about "freedom" and "self-determination" for everyone in the world, but in practice, it seems that some in the third world aren't worthy of such a blessing. Look at El Salvador and Guatemala; look at Paraguay (while Stroessner was still in charge) and Chile (under the Pinochet government), and for that matter, Haiti (under Duvalier) and Philippines (under Marcos). Hardly beacons of light in terms of freedom. The track record of supporting these butchers speaks for itself.
Many of the same reasons cited for our involvement in Central and South America were similar to why we wound up in SE Asia under previous admins.
We were already directly involved in Latin America directly prior to Reagan's first term due to Carter's human rights initiatives. There was blood-letting before Reagan took office and after. The whole decision was whether or not to support right-wing movements or leftist movements backed by larger enemies.
Communism was still a big fear to our government in 1980. A lot of the foreign policy revolved around keeping communism as far from the U.S. and U.S. interests as the fear was that Moscow was supporting most of the leftist movements. In case you have forgotten, the USSR and the USA were still bitter enemies when Reagan was sworn into office and strategic placement of missiles with Moscow-friendly gov'ts was more than a minor concern.
I'm not sure there is a single President since Teddy Roosevelt whom we can't look back at and see a failure somewhere in their foreign policy or something which transpired in their tenure which was good at the time but came back to bite us in the donkey later.
Sometimes, foreign policy means choosing the lesser of two evils. That's not perfect, and that certainly isn't ideal, but often those are the only two choices available. There are still people to this day who say that monster Pinochet saved Chileans from a worse fate.
Many men who have turned out to be brutal dictators duped their own people and the rest of the world into believing they were saviors or presented themselves as revolutionaries who were going to make a better life for people in their country and to be a good neighbor to their region.
Two of the dictators you cited were deposed during Regan's tenure in 1986, Marcos and Baby Doc Duvalier.
Trying to put this all on the back of Reagan is revisionist history and is wiping clean the slate of questionable decisions of previous Presidential administrations and really doesn't take into account what Reagan walked into.
I'm not being a Reagan apologist, it just annoys me when people ignore previous history and fail to look at the big picture of previous events that lead up to the next cataclysm.
Reagan was nowhere near perfect, I don't believe there will ever be a perfect President. Just as any other President has done throughout the history of this country, he did what he thought was best at the time. The rear-view mirror is always much clearer than the crystal ball.
Of course, I see your point. Evenso, I think that while Carter was more insistent on human rights, it was atrifling inconvenience to Mr. Reagan where these third world right-wing butchers were concerned. As for Duvalier and Marcos, their people overthrew them, it wasn't anything Reagan did.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Of course, I see your point. Evenso, I think that while Carter was more insistent on human rights, it was atrifling inconvenience to Mr. Reagan where these third world right-wing butchers were concerned. As for Duvalier and Marcos, their people overthrew them, it wasn't anything Reagan did.
Reagan stepped up pressure on Duvalier to leave office, going so far as threatening to reduce aid to the Haitians. He convinced Marcos to step down after the questionable elections in 1986. Sure, there is little doubt that the U.S would have continued to support these two governments had public opinion in those two countries not turned overwhelmingly against their leaders. In those two actions, there is a good chance much blood-shed went unrealized.
However, no one can ever count the number of deaths prevented by supporting one faction, only the ones who are killed.
Here's a decent non-partisan take on our penchant for manipulating other govt's. You seem somewhat less biased than HT, so you might enjoy this. Careful, it's a long read:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/39416/?page=1
The article I've cited above makes it sound like the Dulles brothers were running the foreign policy game while Ike was out playing golf. Now Those were two corrupt individuals and they were the ones with the relationship to the fruit and oil companies- both having acted as "counsel" for United Fruit Co and the large oil companies.
Attributed to Woodrow Wilson:
"It is to make the United States a mighty Christian nation, and to Christianize the world."
-sounds a little like Osama Bin Laden today.
My overall point is, government is a breeding ground for political favors, paybacks, and outright kick-backs for politicians supporting interests of their close friends. It's not a Dem or Rep issue, but rather an issue of power and influence.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Of course, I see your point. Evenso, I think that while Carter was more insistent on human rights, it was atrifling inconvenience to Mr. Reagan where these third world right-wing butchers were concerned. As for Duvalier and Marcos, their people overthrew them, it wasn't anything Reagan did.
Reagan stepped up pressure on Duvalier to leave office, going so far as threatening to reduce aid to the Haitians. He convinced Marcos to step down after the questionable elections in 1986. Sure, there is little doubt that the U.S would have continued to support these two governments had public opinion in those two countries not turned overwhelmingly against their leaders. In those two actions, there is a good chance much blood-shed went unrealized.
However, no one can ever count the number of deaths prevented by supporting one faction, only the ones who are killed.
Here's a decent non-partisan take on our penchant for manipulating other govt's. You seem somewhat less biased than HT, so you might enjoy this. Careful, it's a long read:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/39416/?page=1
The article I've cited above makes it sound like the Dulles brothers were running the foreign policy game while Ike was out playing golf. Now Those were two corrupt individuals and they were the ones with the relationship to the fruit and oil companies- both having acted as "counsel" for United Fruit Co and the large oil companies.
Attributed to Woodrow Wilson:
"It is to make the United States a mighty Christian nation, and to Christianize the world."
-sounds a little like Osama Bin Laden today.
My overall point is, government is a breeding ground for political favors, paybacks, and outright kick-backs for politicians supporting interests of their close friends. It's not a Dem or Rep issue, but rather an issue of power and influence.
Duly noted, Conan71. This does make for compelling reading. I do understand where you're coming from on that.
^^
A President, with as many responsibilities which fall under his belt, has to have absolute trust in his advisors. A President operates and makes decisions based on summarized information. In news stories, that is why we often hear the phrase: "The President was briefed by his XXXXXX advisor about..."
No one would physically be able to read as much detailed information in every intelligence report, every piece of legislation, every financial summary, etc. There are probably thousands of pages of text which come into the White House every day. If someone within an administration has particular agendas or biases they want to serve, the President will wind up with filtered, summarized information. According to the account I read about Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers, it sounds as if they totally duped him on justification for Central American foreign policy.
I know some of you are thinking, since I lean to the conservative side, this is leading to absolving Bush II or Reagan of certain responsibilities. Not at all.
It's understanding that there are a lot of un-elected officials and un-appointed beaurocrats who wind up influencing things like foreign policy and fiscal policy. All a leader can do is rely on his trust for an advisor and his gut instinct of what to do in a particular situation.
My wife and I had dinner last night with a friend who worked in a defense think tank in D.C. for a few years. He said he was exposed to the underbelly of Congress, Congressional aides, and unbelievable arm twisting which happens behind closed doors.
It really doesn't matter which party a politician represents, all that matters is attaining power and keeping it. That is all accomplished by returning favors to those who put them there in the first place and those who keep them there. No one in power can claim to have clean hands. Even with the "reforms" touted by the new Congress, lobbyists are alive and well in D.C.
I must, however, say that simply because these governments were just as committed to halting the spread of Soviet influence, we must in no way confuse that with being committed to "freedom" and "liberty," and any other noble terms that eventually become reduced to little more than buzzwords. Simply put, there has always been a viable alternative to Soviet-Marxist ideologies taking root in the third world: it's called Democracy, and rather than back various thieves and butchers, it's painfully clear that no effort seemed to be made to seek out those who best exemplified this ideal.
I was still in my public school days when the Iran-Contra scandal came about. I can still remember Reagan's words of solidarity and support for the Contras, calling them the "Moral equivalent to our Founding Fathers," and "I am a Contra", and then I began to see just what the Contras were capable of, including (but not limited to) deliberate war against the populace, and drug trafficking. I saw people like Oliver North and his public persona, carefully cultivated, as if to minimize what he'd done in the effort to supply the Contras, and yes, even Fawn Hall, in effect rationalizing various perfidies.
What they'd failed to realize was that the Contras had little support in Nicaragua or even in the US, that the government of Nicaragua was legitimately elected, and I'm still trying to figure out just how the Contras best fulfilled any US objective other than being a terrorist organization that happened to be against the Sandinista government. Obviously, a renegade action on the part of the NSC and any other Federal agency that had no popular support at home or abroad.
But Conan, that was a good link you posted, and it was good reading, and I do mean that. It fascinates me insofar as the roles that other players such as Dulles and Kissinger had in shaping our policies concerning other nations. I do find it interesting that Kissinger has yet to be brought to account for some of these things.
History has probably been kinder to Kissinger than what is deserved.
Corruption is a way of life in government and power. Other than the most idealistic of American voters, we all know deep down we are voting for who we think is "least" corrupt when we go to the polls.
I sat down with Representative Lance Cargill, who is the present speaker of the house in the Oklahoma legislature on some legislative initiatives when he was toward the end of his first term in office (or early in his second term, can't remember which). I was doing some volunteer lobbying for an NPO. The young man I saw was idealistic, clean as a whistle, no political dirt under his fingernails, and seemed unaffected by politics as usual in Oklahoma City.
Fast-forward four or five years, and the word around the Capital is that he is a "pay-to-play" politician whose first priority is working to build up PAC money in exchange for political favors. IOW- either I mis-read him initially, or the system finally got to him.
We can scratch our heads over odd bedfellows we've supported over the years in Central America and other countries, but when basically all the options for leadership are corrupt, you wind up supporting and sustaining the one who will provide the best alliance for business, security, and other American interests.
I'm not saying it's right, it's just how it works especially when corruption is more a way of life in many of these countries than it is here.
"Liberty" and "freedom" are two marketing phrases frequently repeated over the years to justify questionable foreign policy. They are deeply rooted in the American psyche since that is what our DOI and Constitution were written around.
As mentioned before, you can only count the death toll when you support one faction over another. No one can ever quantify lives saved unless you are talking about a sinking ship, burning building, or crashed airliner.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
History has probably been kinder to Kissinger than what is deserved.
Absolutely. And while I've always known that life ain't always fair, I always wondered just how he has been able to evade any accountability and essentially remain above the law as he has.
quote:
Originally posted by teddy jack eddy
.
Too bad all your posts don't look just like this one does.
The facts speak for themselves concerning the dirty work of Kissinger's State Department, and he really hasn't been called to account for it. I refer you to examine his policies referring to Vietnam, Cyprus, Cambodia, Chile, East Pakistan, Argentina, East Timor, and a little thing called Operation Condor.
quote:
Originally posted by teddy jack eddy
.
?