"The US and Israel Stand Alone"

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Aug 16, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro.



    snip
    AP
    Former US president Jimmy Carter: "I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon."
    SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?

    Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

    SPIEGEL: For example?

    Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

    SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

    Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.:wtf:

    http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html


    I tried to read the whole thing, but I had to go :puke3:
     
  2. Eightball
    Offline

    Eightball Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,359
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +252
    Ex-president Carter, along with the other liberals, like to brandish about "preemptive" as the new jingle to target the current administration's approach to national security.

    Preemptive in their definition means, an attack, aggression, or war is brought upon individuals, terrorist groups, or nations, that allegedly in their(liberal's) minds/observations haven't thrown the first stone.

    Now it comes down to this in my opinion. If a sovereign nation is attacked by entities within another sovereign nation, and the sovereign nation harboring these "attacker entities" isn't doing, or can't do anything to stop this "attacker entity" from attacking another sovereign nation, then whats the nation receiving the attacks supposed to do?(Sorry for the long sentence.).

    I guess there are some choices or alternatives for the nation that can't control or eradicate an enclave or entity thats using their territory to stage attacks on another sovereign nation.

    1. Seek U.N. help to eradicate the uncontrolled entity attacking other nations from within their nation is one possibility.
    2. Try to eradicate this entity from within your country, via your own armed forces.
    3. Ask for the help of another country to supply armed personnel/troops to help you eradicate this harboring entity that won't leave.
    4. Directly negotiate with this attacking entity on the highest, official level of your own government(the government that has this entitiy on their turf) to cease and desist from their attacking sovereign neighbors or face military consequences.

    1........Well, we've all seen what the U.N. can do......Toothless Tiger.........comes to mind......
    2........ They just won't get rid of the Hezbollah......that a fact.......as the Hezbollah are intermingled in the Lebanese government, and as such, are recognized as viable entities.
    3.......Oh, yes, ask Syria to help. We know how that helped. That's like asking the wolf or coyote to guard the chicken house.
    4..........For the Lebanese government to officially negotiate with Hezbollah is akin to negotiating with themselves.
    *
    Now has Lebanon done the above in any way or form with "gusto", or has their attempts been "token" measures at most?

    Yes, Syria did come in some years ago, allegedly to stifle the Muslim/Christian wars that were ocurring, but it was more of a maneuver, to stifle the Christian Lebonese element that was actually succeeding in this inner civil war.

    By the way, there is no evidence or reporting of the Christian Lebanese's opinions on the latest Israeli incursions into their sovereign land. I have the gut feeling that in some ways the Lebanese Christians may have welcomed the eradication or bruising of the Hezzbolah power and presence in Lebanon.

    Interestingly, CNN, Fox(surprisingly), MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, have been "mum" on the reactions of Lebanese Christians concerning the recent conflict. I wonder why? Is it possible that this would conflict with the media's established agenda of making Lebanon's people the victim of heartless Jews? There is an anti-Jewish bias in the mainstream media, I hope you all have noticed. That of course excludes all ostrich-like liberals who refuse to except this by keeping their little intellectual brains buried in insulated holes of denial.

    Another fact is, that Lebanese Christians, though not a majority of the country, are indeed a sizeable minority, yet they are basically ignored by the mainstream press.

    The fact that Syria basically gave themselves permission to enter the sovereign nation of Lebanon years ago to stop a civil war that was being won, by the Christian minority, is in itself, an endictment againts Syria, and also the ruling government of Lebanon. If the Christian minority had won or brought the hostilities to an end as it appeared it would, there would have been relative peace in Lebanon, as the Muslim majority would have had to recognize the large Christian minority with respect to equal rights as Lebanese citizens.

    Syria would have no part in this natural progression within their neighbor, as evidenced by their incursion into Lebanon to allegedly stop a conflict. They had a biased agenda to quell the Lebanese Christian minority in their struggle to be free of discrimination from the Muslims.

    Afterall, Muslims of different sects are allowed to brutally kill each other, but when it comes to Judaism or Christianity, Muslim internal differences between their sects, mysteriously become moot, as they mutually hate the latter mentioned religious groups with deadly determination.
    *
    On another note: Mike Wallace's(60 minutes of fame or shame noteriety) softball attack of questions to the leader of Iran was laughable, sad, and predictable.

    Comments such as referring to the Jews as Zionists, was very revealing, as it showed the angst and hatred that often bubbles-up from Liberals.

    Wallace's boot-licking comments about how nice the Iranian leader's suit looked on him were just a few comments that revealed the rare, but overt, leanings that can be deducted from a true liberal press's approach to Islamo-terrorists, or any detractors of Western democracy, when that democracy is lead by Conservatives.
    *
    Ex-president Carter is and was a disgrace to the office of our country. Not by willfull intention but by weakness. That's my opinion. He may have been an officer in our armed forces, but that doesn't change my opinion. His weakness, in my opinion, precipitated the terrible tragedy of our 300+ marines in Lebanon in the following executive administration. Ex-president Carter's weak appeasement policies set the tone for years to come. His(Carter's) weaknesses spilled over into the next executive leadership, inherited by President Ronald Reagan. Ex-president Reagan inherited a "tall order" to reclaim our national pride, and preeminence as a leader of democratic values throughout the world. I think he succeeded beyond expectations, and has left an admirable legacy, that has been, and may be squandered by those that have followed his presidency. Only time will tell, but the early indications are that we are collectively as a nation falling back into the Carter syndrome of appeasement which will soon be followed by isolationism, and then by diminishing preeminence throughout the world, as a beacon of democracy, and human rights.

    I really believe that Ex-president Carter meant "good" in his intentions, as he was a professed bible Christian, yet, the moniker of Christian doesn't always mean that a person will use good judgement. I think that Carter let subjectivity dominantly rule his decision-making, over firm, objective thinking. A president must exercise both subjective and objective thinking as all human beings, but the weight, and responsibility for nearly 300 million combined civilian and military lives must give precedence or added weight to the objective side, when dealing with the future of a nation.

    Ex-president Carter in recent years seems to be changing ever more towards a more subjective approach to handling international relations, as an "independent" ambassador for our country. It has the overtones of the 1930's and Chamberlin himself who gave away parts of sovereign Europe to Hitler to appease a National-socialist run country, that in reality was an evil, ravenous wolf.

    Even Charles Lindberg who initially was an adamant pacifist during WW2, still didn't hesitate to enlist in the armed forces and do his part.
    *
    The Party of Roosevelt, Truman, and even Wilson, are all but gone, and what remains is a rootless vestige of something emerging as a conglomeration of anti-ethical, goal-less, boiling-pot of divergent, of changing views, all harnessed under the powerful urge to re-emerge as the power-brokers of the by-gone era of the 1970's. Achieving, political power, and influence is holding precedence above the "national good". Undermining military goals, at the expense of military lives, during a time of war, holds precedence over ethical, moral decency towards those that put their lives on the "line" to protect our constitution. Attaining political positions holds precedence over protection, and support of our armed forces during this difficult time.

    The "hell no, we won't go", "Make love not war", "Sh*t Happens", "drop acid, drop out", "question authority", generation is attempting one more "Coupe De Ta". Will it happen? If it does, I think it will be their last, "hurrah", as the American people will finally have had enough of a Quixotic, Utopian, dream that only fits well in fairy tales, but some how makes sense only to the Pseudo-intellectuals that know whats best for the rest of us.
    *
    Mark my words.........this was not a copy/past, but Eightball's own ramblings.:dance:
    *
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    The peanut farmer's big concern is the Arabs. Mine is white Americans.

    Either way, "standing alone with Israel" does us no good whatsoever, costs billions, and subjects us to eternal death and destruction all for the sake of a noxious ethnicity that hates us with a fire burning hotter than any Ku Klux Klansman or neo-Nazi could possibly imagine. Tell me, oh "conservative," why your Jewish shot-callers won't let you have abortion restrictions, prayer in schools, clean media, low taxes, fewer regulations, gun rights, respect for Christianity, cessation of affirmative action, control of the border, English-only, freedom of association, fewer frivolous lawsuits, bans on gay marriage or any other even mild and reasonable conservative reform?

    But they WILL let you suit up to go kill the Arabs?

    Got an answer for that?

    I think the leash you wear is cutting off the supply of blood to your brain, white conservative. Take it off. You look like an idiot with your tongue hanging out like that.
     
  4. Eightball
    Offline

    Eightball Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,359
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +252
    You forgot, " You Yankee, Imperialist Dog........!." as long as your on a roll.
     

Share This Page