Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
That's it, I'm callin the cops on you Ramsey!
Carter negotiating with terrorists
- Thread starter Darky
- Start date
Ray H
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Falling Waters, WV
BlackSport96 said:
Im not argueing or disagreeing with you but Im not sure why he would be getting any retirement for being a former president, although its true that he probably does have a SS detail.
I do agree that him being a former pres. that he PERCEIVIBLY has credibility for knowing about the U.S. but I see it as no more than being a military veteran. and yes, transactions with terrorists are illegal no matter who you are or were but Im not sure a verbal conversation should be viewed as a "transaction".
I dont think talking with them is a good idea, but I dont think the government needs to be involved in it. Matter of fact, I think its in the governments best interest to treat the meeting and treat Carter as a non-thing or non-person, just as they do terrorists, give them no credibility.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
I honestly don't care too much about who he talks to. My only real concern is that as an ex-president he does tend to hold some sort "sway" (for lack of a better word) and as such if a former US president comes and talks to you and recognizes you as being legitimate, it tends to confer some of his former legitimacy onto you. Thus making them think, "Hey, we're pretty important, Jimmy Carter came and talked to us." Mind you, I do think he ought to be punished according to the law, but I won't lose any sleep over it. 
I think he holds a bit more credibility than me.
I think he holds a bit more credibility than me. 
- Location
- Southern Maryland
He used up what was left of his credibility and picked up some of Hamas' clownhood.
I don't know what is with these people. Just a few months ago, Pelosi went to Syria to engage Assad despite the administration's policy of isolation. Now of course we know that Syria was in the process of building a nuke weapons plant with the help of North Korea at the exact same time. So basically she was offering herself up as a tool to tie up the Israelis and the US while Syria went ahead with their nuke plant.
These people all think they are soo much smarter than the current President yet every time they demonstrate that they are the true dumbasses.
I don't know what is with these people. Just a few months ago, Pelosi went to Syria to engage Assad despite the administration's policy of isolation. Now of course we know that Syria was in the process of building a nuke weapons plant with the help of North Korea at the exact same time. So basically she was offering herself up as a tool to tie up the Israelis and the US while Syria went ahead with their nuke plant.
These people all think they are soo much smarter than the current President yet every time they demonstrate that they are the true dumbasses.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Ramsey said:
I agree.
Ramsey
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Shreveport, LA
Give in to your hatred, come to the dark side!TRNDRVR said:Biting my tongue! :gag:
Carry on!
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
Settling things peacefully is nice, but Hamas has it in their charter that the only peaceful solution is one in which Israel gives up all its rights as a state, gives up all its land and ceases to exist. That ain't gonna happen. Sometimes diplomacy and words don't work and you're left to use other means.
- Location
- REDLANDS, CA. (SoCal)
The Palistinians are right, though; it is their land.BlackSport96 said:
- Location
- Southern Maryland
The previous owners were the Ottoman Turks, not "the Palestinians." The Jews were a majority of the population in Jerusalem and the other city-state territories when the Ottomans were defeated, which is why England partitioned the land they way they did, and why the League of Nations and the United Nations essentially endorsed that partitioning.
The land that was set aside for the Palestinian arabs was stolen alright, but it was stolen by Jordan, not by the Israelies.
The land that was set aside for the Palestinian arabs was stolen alright, but it was stolen by Jordan, not by the Israelies.
- Location
- REDLANDS, CA. (SoCal)
My bad.ehall said:
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
And it was Israel's land long before the Ottoman's...
Ramsey
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Shreveport, LA
So hard...I'll have to take a page from Dan's playbook.
Matthew Currie
NAXJA Member #760
- Location
- Vermont, land of big clay
I think part of the problem is that, as always, it's not simple. The moral position might be simple, and the description of what you want to happen may be simple, but the way to get from A to B is not. Both sides believe right down to the core that they are right, and both sides have a conception of what is just. But because they do not agree, the solution cannot ever encompass what either side considers to be just or right. At some point, someone has to decide that the pragmatic result (peace, end to bombing, etc.) is more important than the principle. You can say that it would be right and proper to obliterate Hamas and never speak to them or of them again, and perhaps you'd be right, but that will not make Hamas go away. They're there to stay.
I sometimes think Mr. Carter bends over too far to be nonpartisan, but he's not a government, and he's not negotiating for us. Talking with Hamas is not negotiating with Hamas at this point.
As for the Hamas charter, of course this is a nearly insurmountable obstacle, but bombing them is not going to make them change that charter. If talking doesn't make them change it either, then it's too bad, but if that's the only thing left to try, why not let Carter try it? No government is guaranteeing anything on his behalf. What do we lose by Carter's actions?
I sometimes think Mr. Carter bends over too far to be nonpartisan, but he's not a government, and he's not negotiating for us. Talking with Hamas is not negotiating with Hamas at this point.
As for the Hamas charter, of course this is a nearly insurmountable obstacle, but bombing them is not going to make them change that charter. If talking doesn't make them change it either, then it's too bad, but if that's the only thing left to try, why not let Carter try it? No government is guaranteeing anything on his behalf. What do we lose by Carter's actions?
- Location
- Southern Maryland
The risk is that the opposite party will try to use the talks as a tie-up while they continue pursuing their undesirable policies. This is basically what was so foolish about Pelosi and Syria--they expressed a willingness to dialog for peace at the same time as they were putting the finishing touches on their NoKo nuke plant.
Having said that, talk is fine, as long as it is not the only course, and as long as it is not elevated to such a high preference that it might as well be the only course (IE, talking to Syria did not preclude us from spying on their nuke plant, or subsequently taking action against it, nor should it).
And at some point you have to realize that talking will not get you anything except grief, so you take a position that basically says "when you change your policies we'll change our position to you". That tactic was used against Libya, S. Africa under apartheid, and others, and it may yet prove fruitful with Cuba as well. That was also our official position to Arafat, and we changed our position after Abbas changed their official policy--here is somebody we can expect real progress from, so we engaged him.
On the other hand Hamas is a terrorist organization who seized control of Gaza in a military coup. They are not a legitimate partner for dialog, their demands are wholly unreasonable, and they are not representative of the people who are forced to live under them. The only possible outcome from engaging them is providing them with a channel to tie up the US and Israel while they pursue their official agenda.
If Jimmy Carter was seen as powerless, would Hamas' senior leadership have met with him?
Having said that, talk is fine, as long as it is not the only course, and as long as it is not elevated to such a high preference that it might as well be the only course (IE, talking to Syria did not preclude us from spying on their nuke plant, or subsequently taking action against it, nor should it).
And at some point you have to realize that talking will not get you anything except grief, so you take a position that basically says "when you change your policies we'll change our position to you". That tactic was used against Libya, S. Africa under apartheid, and others, and it may yet prove fruitful with Cuba as well. That was also our official position to Arafat, and we changed our position after Abbas changed their official policy--here is somebody we can expect real progress from, so we engaged him.
On the other hand Hamas is a terrorist organization who seized control of Gaza in a military coup. They are not a legitimate partner for dialog, their demands are wholly unreasonable, and they are not representative of the people who are forced to live under them. The only possible outcome from engaging them is providing them with a channel to tie up the US and Israel while they pursue their official agenda.
If Jimmy Carter was seen as powerless, would Hamas' senior leadership have met with him?
8Mud
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Central Germany
Just an opinion, but the independent (?) non government sponsored negotiator ploy has been used on many occasions.
I doubt anybody could seriously question whether Carter is a Patriot.
Whether you want to accept it or not, he is one of the few people around who actually have some credibility left in much of the worlds eyes.
For instance. In another thread this ( BlackSport96 And it was Israel's land long before the Ottoman's...) was irrelevant when it was discussed pertaining to the illegal immigrant problems in the South West U.S. The Israelis illegally immigrated into Palestine.
Apartheid has been mentioned. The Israelis are the minority and control their government, almost exclusively. The only real difference is the White South Africans outnumbered the Blacks (predominantly from the Zimbabwe region) in South Africa for almost a century. Which really sounds like B.S. and illogical. But seriously look it up. A relatively few black (Zimbabwe) Africans may have been there first, but were largely nowhere in sight when the Europeans started moving in. The Native South Africans aren't actually black (native) Africans, the Black (Zimbabwe for lack of a better name) Africans immigrated from the north after the Europeans showed up. The original native South Africans (few in number) came from the sea as far as anybody has been able to figure out.
Hamas hasn't done anything the Israelis haven't done themselves, with some very minor differences, for almost exactly the same reasons.
The Serbians made almost exactly the same arguments about the Albanians in Kosovo as the majority of Americans are making about the Mexican illegal immigration problem in the South West. Heck Kosovo is about the same size as San Diego county (actually some smaller). What would you think if the Chinese bombed the heck out of L.A. county, because L.A. was trying to push the Mexicans in San Diego County back into Mexico. Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and others were, until recently, a United States of Yugoslavia. The Chinese bombed L.A. County, so they could curry favor with another South American country for oil and have partial control of the mining in the San Gabriel mountains (just change the names and give it the mirror test). China was also supported by a majority of the other 14 western US states, because they were afraid Mexico would close it's borders and the immigrant Mexicans would end up in their states. All you have to do is change the names.
I guess a three hundred pound Gorilla can do anything darned thing it wants to at a party, in most cases and change it's rhetoric daily.
But sooner or later the Gorilla has a serious credibility problem and others at the party stop believing anything the Gorilla has to say.
Like I said, America is running out of credible negotiators, maybe they had to look hard to find somebody with some credibility left and then distance themselves from him, so he wasn't tainted by there duplicities.
Before you start picking my statements to pieces, remember, you don't have to be a hundred percent right to be right. Actually just 51% to be more right.
I doubt anybody could seriously question whether Carter is a Patriot.
Whether you want to accept it or not, he is one of the few people around who actually have some credibility left in much of the worlds eyes.
For instance. In another thread this ( BlackSport96 And it was Israel's land long before the Ottoman's...) was irrelevant when it was discussed pertaining to the illegal immigrant problems in the South West U.S. The Israelis illegally immigrated into Palestine.
Apartheid has been mentioned. The Israelis are the minority and control their government, almost exclusively. The only real difference is the White South Africans outnumbered the Blacks (predominantly from the Zimbabwe region) in South Africa for almost a century. Which really sounds like B.S. and illogical. But seriously look it up. A relatively few black (Zimbabwe) Africans may have been there first, but were largely nowhere in sight when the Europeans started moving in. The Native South Africans aren't actually black (native) Africans, the Black (Zimbabwe for lack of a better name) Africans immigrated from the north after the Europeans showed up. The original native South Africans (few in number) came from the sea as far as anybody has been able to figure out.
Hamas hasn't done anything the Israelis haven't done themselves, with some very minor differences, for almost exactly the same reasons.
The Serbians made almost exactly the same arguments about the Albanians in Kosovo as the majority of Americans are making about the Mexican illegal immigration problem in the South West. Heck Kosovo is about the same size as San Diego county (actually some smaller). What would you think if the Chinese bombed the heck out of L.A. county, because L.A. was trying to push the Mexicans in San Diego County back into Mexico. Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and others were, until recently, a United States of Yugoslavia. The Chinese bombed L.A. County, so they could curry favor with another South American country for oil and have partial control of the mining in the San Gabriel mountains (just change the names and give it the mirror test). China was also supported by a majority of the other 14 western US states, because they were afraid Mexico would close it's borders and the immigrant Mexicans would end up in their states. All you have to do is change the names.
I guess a three hundred pound Gorilla can do anything darned thing it wants to at a party, in most cases and change it's rhetoric daily.
But sooner or later the Gorilla has a serious credibility problem and others at the party stop believing anything the Gorilla has to say.
Like I said, America is running out of credible negotiators, maybe they had to look hard to find somebody with some credibility left and then distance themselves from him, so he wasn't tainted by there duplicities.
Before you start picking my statements to pieces, remember, you don't have to be a hundred percent right to be right. Actually just 51% to be more right.
Last edited:
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
Hey 8Mud, how bout we keep that argument to the thread it belongs in, eh?
scottmcneal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- not here
BlackSport96 said:
Hey sport, you tell him... I hear you need tires, do we need to adjust some more on your front end? :repair:
8Mud
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Central Germany
BlackSport96 said:
Israelis good illegal immigrants, Mexicans bad illegal immigrants, Israelis there first, Mexicans there first, the parallels and inconsistencies of US foreign policy, the hypocrisy of many of our positions, all seem relevant to me.
Maybe a negotiator with some credibility, no matter where they come from, may be the answer.
- Location
- Southern Maryland
Hey 8Mud, here's a question--do you think Carter's relations with Iran during the hostage crisis suffered from insufficient dialog or too much of it?
It's sad to me that he probably thinks the former, while everybody I know thinks the latter.
It's sad to me that he probably thinks the former, while everybody I know thinks the latter.
Similar threads
