Carter says Bush's presidency 'worst in history'

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

It has nothing to do with 'unjust' war...get that? Every country that tried to create a presense in Vietnam, had men killed by the large amounts.

What exactly are you arguing here?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or perhaps Reagan gave them a deadline, or else.

Or like one of the people involved in taking the hostages said, they wanted to make a fool out of Carter.

Well, we actually know the reason, and that reason is Reagan unfroze the billions of dollars of foreign assets that Carter had frozen as a consequence of the hostage taking, and then sold them cheap weaponry that would be used in an offensive capacity, undoubtedly against civilian populations as well as military. That happens to be against the law, by the way.

Maybe Reagan offered them a lifetime supply of NASA quality Tang?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What exactly are you arguing here?

Follow a bit more closely perhaps?

Vulcan said that things 'usually' go wrong in an unjust war.

Do they? Or are some situations out of control, no matter how just, or unjust it is?

Like Somolia? Was it just, or unjust for the US to get involved and have 18 of their finest killed?

According to Vulcan, unjust...because things went bad in Somolia, and things 'usually' go bad in an unjust war.

Get it?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Follow a bit more closely perhaps?

Vulcan said that things 'usually' go wrong in an unjust war.

Do they? Or are some situations out of control, no matter how just, or unjust it is?

Like Somolia? Was it just, or unjust for the US to get involved and have 18 of their finest killed?

According to Vulcan, unjust...because things went bad in Somolia, and things 'usually' go bad in an unjust war.

Get it?

So then what you're arguing is the various foreign interventions and imperialism in southeast asia were just?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So then what you're arguing is the various foreign interventions and imperialism in southeast asia were just?

My point is that just or unjust conflicts are not the deciding point as to whether a conflict will take or turn for the worst or not. Situations can get out of control no matter the circumstances.

I think sending 20,000 Marines to Somolia to force the aid through, and stop Aidid's men from seizing it was worthwhile...but I guess, according to Vulcan, sending that special Task Force to try and capture Aidid was unjust, because they didn't exactly accomplish much before Clinton pulled them out.

But if you're asking...I have a yes/no attitude towards Vietnam... But hey, nice job Democrats!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

My point is that just or unjust conflicts are not the deciding point as to whether a conflict will take or turn for the worst or not. Situations can get out of control no matter the circumstances.

I think sending 20,000 Marines to Somolia to force the aid through, and stop Aidid's men from seizing it was worthwhile...but I guess, according to Vulcan, sending that special Task Force to try and capture Aidid was unjust, because they didn't exactly accomplish much before Clinton pulled them out.

But if you're asking...I have a yes/no attitude towards Vietnam... But hey, nice job Democrats!

Thanks for the laugh, what's your 'yes' position towards Vietnam?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're really pulling strings today, aren't you?

It has nothing to do with 'unjust' war...get that? Every country that tried to create a presense in Vietnam, had men killed by the large amounts.

I will ask you one question though. Was Somolia unjust? Must have been, because the US failed miserably. According to your theory.

Okay lets make Vietnam an equal opportunity host. Lets include France, Japan etc. establishing a presence there. Do you think anyone other than the Vietnamese had a right to be there? I call it unjust.

As for Somalia, I didn't follow it much but I did say usually and what the Americans did does come down to outside interference. I don't like the situation in Africa but the situation there can be traced back to foriegn conquest and interference to this day. Where do these people get their weapons? What's a main cause of poverty in Africa today?

[Flashpoint]

So is the argument that Carter isn't qualified to judge Bush because his own admin was pretty bad? I don't think much of Doug Reisbrough's time as GM, but if he called Keven Lowe the worst GM in Oiler's history, I would probably listen to his reasoning.

Or is the argument that Bush's foreign policy isn't the worst in the history of America? I can't recall a time when the US hasn't been hated as much as it is now - even in countries where the US is an Ally - like England and Canada.

I tend to think Carter is more qualified than most to make the determination, and agree with the statement he made.

Was it appropriate that he made the statement, is another question entirely. Given the lack of morality and integrity in the Bush admin, I don't blame him for calling a spade a spade, even as a social faux pas.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Okay lets make Vietnam an equal opportunity host. Lets include France, Japan etc. establishing a presence there. Do you think anyone other than the Vietnamese had a right to be there? I call it unjust.

As for Somalia, I didn't follow it much but I did say usually and what the Americans did does come down to outside interference. I don't like the situation in Africa but the situation there can be traced back to foriegn conquest and interference to this day. Where do these people get their weapons? What's a main cause of poverty in Africa today?

So basically you're saying that ALL interventions by the UN into foreign soil are unjust?

Nice try on avoiding what I said about Somalia. People were dying by the thousands, 300,00 if I remember correctly, and needed our help. Only through the brute force of 20,000 Marines, were they able to distribute the aid.

But I guess that was unjust...according to your theory.

I guess the UN and all the nations involved must have used your theory when they watched the genocide in Rwanda get worse each day.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

So basically you're saying that ALL interventions by the UN into foreign soil are unjust?

Nice try on avoiding what I said about Somalia. People were dying by the thousands, 300,00 if I remember correctly, and needed our help. Only through the brute force of 20,000 Marines, were they able to distribute the aid.

But I guess that was unjust...according to your theory.

I guess the UN and all the nations involved must have used your theory when they watched the genocide in Rwanda get worse each day.

No, what I'm saying is to look a little deeper into the causes of what's happening in Africa and the interference we're doing there for our own profit at the expense of Africans. Often problems aren't solved with the barrel of a gun.

What's that old Bible saying " you reap what you sow".

[RougeUnderoos]

Well somebody had to say it. Too bad about the backtracking though.

I don't get all this "he should show more respect" stuff. You have to earn respect. Bush has earned nothing but scorn.

I can't understand the whole "Carter isn't one to talk, he was weak" argument either. Fine, he sucked. That doesn't mean he's now deaf and blind. And besides, he was just ineffectual and weak. You don't want to put that on a resume, but it's a lot better than deceitful and disastrous.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

No, what I'm saying is to look a little deeper into the causes of what's happening in Africa and the interference we're doing there for our own profit at the expense of Africans. Often problems aren't solved with the barrel of a gun.

What's that old Bible saying " you reap what you sow".

I'm pretty sure being diplomatic with militants wouldn't exactly solve anything.

You're avoiding the issue though, again. Was it just, or unjust to get involved in Somalia. Ignore all the past imperialistic en devours by other countries...300,000 people have been killed...just or unjust to get involved?

[Flash Walken]

I'm curious as to what this has to do with Jimmy Carter and what he said about bush's administration.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Carter was negotiating LONG before the election was even held.

Reagans guys got a crack at things AFTER the election in November, (some 60 days or so to get it done) so even then that left Carter and his administration over a year to solve the crisis.

Yes, Reagans guys were responsible for it happening, and no it didnt happen in 12 hours. I think that's obvious, yet here we have a poster claiming that it was all Carters doings that led to their release....that simply did not happen.

Reagan's guys were negotiating before Reagan was sworn in and had a chance to appoint his cabinet? Care to point out how that happened? Reagan would have no legal say in ANYTHING until his inauguration. Heck, he was not even CONFIRMED president until the electoral college did their job in December, so it would be next to impossible for what you suggest to take place.

Re-writing history isn't that easy.

Seems you've done a pretty good job at it so far, and I doubt you even worked up a sweat.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm pretty sure being diplomatic with militants wouldn't exactly solve anything.

You're avoiding the issue though, again. Was it just, or unjust to get involved in Somalia. Ignore all the past imperialistic en devours by other countries...300,000 people have been killed...just or unjust to get involved?

Forgetting the fact that you won't come clean on Viet Nam, the yanks got spanked and left Somalia, so I guess their interference was unjust. If they really felt just, they would have stayed and righted the problem. To add though, I said usually and sometimes the situation is so volatile [Somalia] or one military force is so overwhelming [China versus Tibet] that the supposed just guys don't have a chance. There are no hard and fast rules as to who is the good guy and who isn't, every situation is unique and must be decided on it's own merits, but I'd say there has to be damn good reasons to interfere with another countries sovereignity.

[Azure]

So now the situations is volatile...Somalia...Rwanda too I guess, because nobody even got involved, that no country wants to go there because they feel it is unjust?

There are no facts or fast rules? You said that any war that is unjust will 'usually' turn out bad. Just like Iraq.

There was a 'damn' good reason to get involved in Somalia...a genocide is a 'damn' good reason to send 20,000 Marines there to force through the aid and block out the militia. 300,000 people dead is a 'damn' good reason to send in a special task force to take out designated targets.

And the Yanks didn't get spanked and then 'left' Vietnam. Do I need to remind you how long that conflict continued?

But I guess according to you...getting 'spanked' makes the interference 'unjust'...like Somalia...which in turn makes it unjust to stop a genocide. Nice theory you have going there.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You "don't like how things have unfolded in Iraq" but I'd say that's what usually happens in an unjust war, things go wrong, just as happened in Viet Nam and what happened to the Axis powers in WWII and what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan.

As for your idea that Reagan solved the problem in Iran and than saved the free world, well it'd make a great comic book, maybe even a B movie.

There you go again....making stuff up.

Saved the free world?? Where did I say that.

Your so full of yourself you cant even stay on point.

Laughable.

[Vulcan]

For some reason Azure you come unhinged everytime someone brings up the Americans losing in Viet Nam. I brought up four of the six major conflicts in the last 100 years to back my idea as well as a quote from the Bible, which should work for you. WWI, I'd put down as a war caused by the elite which the ordinary citizen paid for with their lives. Unjust on all sides. The Korean war is a standoff with no winner. You brought up a skirmish in Somalia which the Americans had no stomach for or they would have stayed, so it was unjustified.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

So now the situations is volatile...Somalia...Rwanda too I guess, because nobody even got involved, that no country wants to go there because they feel it is unjust?

There are no facts or fast rules? You said that any war that is unjust will 'usually' turn out bad. Just like Iraq.

There was a 'damn' good reason to get involved in Somalia...a genocide is a 'damn' good reason to send 20,000 Marines there to force through the aid and block out the militia. 300,000 people dead is a 'damn' good reason to send in a special task force to take out designated targets.

And the Yanks didn't get spanked and then 'left' Vietnam. Do I need to remind you how long that conflict continued?

But I guess according to you...getting 'spanked' makes the interference 'unjust'...like Somalia...which in turn makes it unjust to stop a genocide. Nice theory you have going there.

The term genocide gets thrown around too much IMO. In Somalia, the government collapsed and subsequently gangs and and warlords took over the country. As such, little aid was getting through to the people and it started to attract militant Islamic fundamentalists.

It was tragic and had horrible human consequences, but it wasn't a structured genocide by definition.

[transplant99]

Reagan's guys were negotiating before Reagan was sworn in and had a chance to appoint his cabinet? Care to point out how that happened? Reagan would have no legal say in ANYTHING until his inauguration. Heck, he was not even CONFIRMED president until the electoral college did their job in December, so it would be next to impossible for what you suggest to take place.

Are you freakin kiddin me?

Lanny...you are suggesting that incoming elected Presidents have no status whatsoever in the White House until the inauguration takes place...that simply is false.

There is a transition team dispatched into the WH once an election has been decided, in this case it was a freaking landslide for Reagan and no need for the rubber stamp of the electoral college to wait and see any possible recounts changing the outcome.

In this case, and because it was front and center the issue of that particular election, there most assuredly was statesmen brought up to speed IMMEDIATELY upon Carter conceding defeat. You really trying to tell us all that when there is a major issue going on at election time, that the winner isnt made a part of the info and negotiations that have been on going?

Carter was still trying to negotiate a deal right up until inaugaration day (as evidenced by apparently having a phone by his side until the ceremony) and still was unable to secure the release of the hostages....thats not re-writing history its a simple and indisputable fact.

Or is PBS re-writing history as well??

Despite rumors that Carter might pull out an "October Surprise" and get the hostages home before the election, negotiations dragged on for months, even after Republican Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in November. Carter's all-night effort to bring the 52 hostages home before the end of his term, documented by an ABC television crew in the Oval Office, fell short; the Iranians released them minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.

WHo is trying to alter what happened again?

Here is a CBS recount of things....

Jimmy Carter spent his last minutes in office trying to end the 444-day Iran hostage crisis that many say cost him the presidency. He even took a telephone with him to Ronald Reagan's swearing in and was engaged in last-minute talks as the two drove up to the Capitol.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in265244.shtml