9
   

Jimmy Carter sent on A Hostage Run

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 11:24 am
@CoastalRat,
You don't have to become a liberal, CR. You just have to apply a wee bit more critical thinking. Consider the crimes of BB&R. Is that what you want to associate yourself with? Is that what should define conservative/Republican?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 12:31 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
You don't have to become a liberal, CR. You just have to apply a wee bit more critical thinking.


Aren't these two sentences contradictory?
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 12:53 pm
@JTT,
I accept that you believe Bush, Bush and Reagan committed crimes. I'm not surprised. I believe Clinton committed crimes. Fact is, I am on firmer ground in this respect than you are base on the legal proceedings against Clinton, but I'm not one to dwell on the past so I'm not planning on getting into any contests with you arguing Clinton's crimes. That is not the point of this thread. And frankly, what he may or may not be guilty of is no longer of any interest to me. Kinda like Nixon's crimes. It is past and of no concern any longer. Anyway, you won't change my belief about Clinton any more than I will change yours about BB&R. Given the political atmosphere, I believe it will be a long time before people stop believing that a president from an opposing party is not a criminal. That distrust between political party adherents is the Clinton/Bush era legacy. And that saddens me because both parties have had great/effective leaders throughout our history.
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 12:59 pm
@maxdancona,
It is asinine comments such as this that make you absolutely irrelevant to me and certainly less likely to take anything you write seriously. (Not that what I think should matter to you, I'm just saying, you know?)
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 12:59 pm
@CoastalRat,
For someone in a clown face, you don't have much of a sense of humor.
CoastalRat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 01:06 pm
@maxdancona,
Well, you see, the first rule of clowning is that you don't insult someone in order to get people to laugh. You always make yourself or fellow performer the object of the laughter. I think it is a pretty good idea to do that in all relationships, even relationships established at an forum such as this.

You will be hard pressed to find any comments of mine on this forum that assault the character or intelligence of anyone else here. I just don't do it (although I think once I did indeed lose my temper and wrote something I regretted.) I realize others here are not so temperate in their writing. But I won't bring myself to that level. This isn't written to make me out a saint at A2K (which I am not) but simply to let you know where I'm coming from. Digs at a person's character, even when in jest, don't always come across well in the written word.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 01:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

It is almost 430 in the afternoon, and so far n0 announcement of a happy ending..

Tick-Tock




I for one have been praying that they will murder both Carter and the hostage Hawkeye, because I want you to be happy and elated by the opportunity to say I told you so. that's what really matters right?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 02:27 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
I believe Clinton committed crimes. Fact is, I am on firmer ground in this respect than you are base on the legal proceedings against Clinton,


I believe Clinton committed crimes too but that doesn't excuse BB&R for the numerous, flagrant war crimes, mass murder, torture, rape, even against children.

Quote:
but I'm not one to dwell on the past so I'm not planning on getting into any contests with you arguing Clinton's crimes. That is not the point of this thread. And frankly, what he may or may not be guilty of is no longer of any interest to me.


A convenient escape for most Americans. The "I don't dwell on the past" nonsense comes right to the fore unless it's to discuss some other country's sordid past.

Quote:
Kinda like Nixon's crimes. It is past and of no concern any longer


That's where you're wrong, CR. The kid glove treatment given Nixon -- he should have done a lengthy jail sentence just for the domestic stuff, the international war crimes, a life sentence or a meeting with a rope -- have simply encouraged other prezes to extend the crimes without fear of punishment.

Rule of law America only becomes concerned where blowjobs are evident.

You didn't answer my question. Do you, a pretty straight moral conservative, from your accounts, want to associate with some of the worst war criminals since WWII?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 02:51 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
jtt wrote: You don't have to become a liberal, CR. You just have to apply a wee bit more critical thinking.


Quote:
Maxdancona replied: Aren't these two sentences contradictory?


Quote:
CoastalRat replied: It is asinine comments such as this


Was Max's comment really so asinine, CR? There is plenty of information out there, much of it from US government sources, I mean you just can't hide the huge volume of info pointing up that Reagan/Bush was a cabal of crooks.

I would have to say that anyone who isn't capable, for whatever reason, of looking at and honestly analyzing these facts is not anywhere near what one would deem a critical thinker.

As it happens here's some now. Let me know what you think.

Of particular note is the manner of coverup. Completely jettisoning what is supposed to be a core conservative principle, personal accountability/responsibility, the lengths that they went to hide their evil deeds is stunning.

That's not you is it CR?

Quote:
War Crimes and Double Standards

(of Ronald Reagan and the press)

by Robert Parry

iF magazine, May/ June 1999





***

... The United States invites the charge of hypocrisy when it accuses "enemy leaders" of war crimes, while it turns a blind eye to equally horrific slaughters committed by allies, sometimes guided and protected by the U.S. government.

With release of truth commission reports in several Central American countries - most recently Guatemala - there can no longer be any doubt about the historical reality.

In the 1980s, U.S.-backed forces committed widespread massacres, political murders and torture. Tens of thousands of civilians died. Many of the dead were children. Soldiers routinely raped women before executing them.

There can be no doubt, too, that President Reagan was an avid supporter of the implicated military forces, that he supplied them with weapons and that he actively sought to discredit human rights investigators and journalists who exposed the crimes.

It is also cleat that the massacres at El Mazote and other villages across El Salvador, the destruction of more than 600 Indian communities in Guatemala, and the torture and "disappearances" of dissidents throughout the region were as horrible as what Slobadan Milosevic's Serb army has done in Kosovo.

But for Milosovic and his henchmen, there is talk of a war crimes tribunal. For Reagan, there are only honors, his name added to National Airport and etched into an international trade center, even a congressional plan to carve his visage into Mount Rushmore.

In the apt phrase of New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner, the 1980s were a time of "weakness and deceit." Yet, the continuing blindness to crimes against humanity in Central America in the 1980s has brought that weakness and deceit into and through the 1990s, now as a permanent trait of Washington's political class.

Without doubt, it is safer for an American journalist or politician to wag a finger at Milosovic or at the killers in Rwanda or at the Khmer Rouge than it is to confront the guilt that pervaded Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Reagan, after all, has a throng of ideological enthusiasts - many with opinion columns and seats on weekend chat shows. Nothing makes them madder than to hear their hero disparaged.

To suggest that Reagan should be held to the same moral standard as Milosovic also invites lectures about "moral equivalence," a clever construct of the 1980s that meant, in effect, that the Cold War justified whatever American policy-makers did. One must not equate "our" crimes with "theirs."

Ironically, many of the conservatives who today advocate rock-hard moral values and who deplore fuzzy moral relativism embraced exactly that sort of situational ethic in the 1980s.

They did so under the banner of the Reagan doctrine, which held that battling the Evil Empire sanctified all actions no matter what other moral laws were violated, like some Medieval crusade, blessed by the pope and then sent off to slaughter infidels.

In this context, murder of unarmed civilians was not wrong. Neither were assassinations, torture, genocide, rape and drug smuggling. indeed, nothing was wrong as long as it was done in the name of winning the Cold War.

It didn't matter that the Soviet Union was in steep decline before the 1980s. It didn't matter that there never was a master plan for conquering the United States through Central America. It didn't matter that most of the victims simply wanted basic rights that North Americans take for granted.

But even more corrupting in its own way was the slippery refusal to debate the rationalizations openly. While the "moral equivalence" debate captivated some intellectual circles, the Reagan administration's basic strategy was simply to lie.

Rather than defending the atrocities, Reagan and his loyalists most often just denied that the crimes had happened and attacked anyone who said otherwise as a communist dupe.

Mostly, this lying strategy worked. By the end of the Reagan-Bush era, the national media no longer put up any fight for these historic truths. By the 1990s, the star reporters were more dedicated to their careers than to the principles of their profession.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the shocking historical disclosures form Guatemala earned only brief notice in the major news outlets.

But in our view, there are two important principles here: first, that truth is fundamental to a healthy democracy, and second, that the rules of common decency must be applied to all human endeavors. There are some acts that are simply wrong no matter who does them and why.

Through much of this century, those principles were held by many in Washington. Under those ideals, the United States led the fight against Nazi Germany and established many of the basic principles of international law.

... The larger question is whether the United States can confront its complicity in shameful war crimes committed against the people of Latin America.

While no one expects the ailing Ronald Reagan to face a war crimes tribunal, it is time for the nation to face the painful truth about him and his presidency - and to stop rewarding him with high honors...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/WarCrimes_Reagan_iF.html
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:40 pm
@JTT,
Thanks so much for completely diverting this thread off topic.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:43 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
I accept that you believe Bush, Bush and Reagan committed crimes. I'm not surprised. I believe Clinton committed crimes. Fact is, I am on firmer ground in this respect than you are base on the legal proceedings against Clinton,


I don't understand what you mean in the underlined part, CR. It seems there might be a typo/typos. Could you explain, please?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Thanks so much for completely diverting this thread off topic.


This is another favorite tactic of that child-like American brain.

You were willing to engage until you reached crunch time, Hawk. Then your brain simply shut down.

How are things going for Jimmy? I've been waiting for your rational, focused and fair updates.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:51 pm
Reports are still sketchy, this is North Korea after all, but indications are that Dear Leader left Pyongyang a few hours after the Peanut Farmer arrived. That is a sweet move because he obviously could have done a meeting, but pointedly did not. Clinton got 3 hours of face time on his hostage run, Carter gets zip.

And then Dear Leader made a super highly unusual field trip to a school in northern China, because he has so much time to burn don't you know...

I love watching the North Koreans, they play their shitty cards with such panache and nerves of steel.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
Could you be anymore predicatable, Hawk.

I said,

"I've been waiting for your rational, focused and fair updates."

and lo and behold, ... .
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Reports are still sketchy, this is North Korea after all,


That's your deep knowledge of history speaking again, ain't it?

Quote:
The United States is not nearly so concerned that its acts be kept secret from its intended victims as it is that the American people not know of them.”

U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:57 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
I've been waiting for your rational, focused and fair updates."

and lo and behold, ...
I believe that you edited that into your post after I made mine, but in any case mine had as its subject both Korea and Carter. You manage to make entire posts in this thread that never mention either.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 04:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I believe that you edited that into your post after I made mine, but in any case mine had as its subject both Korea and Carter. You manage to make entire posts in this thread that never mention either.


Regardless, my edit, while not prophetic, nailed you dead on,

I don't have to mention Carter or Korea. There is much to mention which highlights both your personal hypocrisy and that of the whole US of A. That's the point!

Odd that you should have missed it.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 04:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
So the wannabee doesn't want to meet the has-been.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 05:00 pm
@roger,
Quote:
So the wannabee doesn't want to meet the has-been.



On this, you are so full of ****, Roger the dodger.

Quote:

People & Events: Jimmy Carter's Post-presidency

The Carter Center's Efforts
Since the Carter Center opened its doors in 1982, it has developed dozens of programs to alleviate suffering and improve lives around the world. Its efforts fall broadly under two categories, "Waging Peace" and "Fighting Disease." The Carters' peace work includes conflict resolution, election monitoring, and the promotion of human rights and democracy. Health programs include agricultural initiatives to eliminate hunger in Africa, Rosalynn Carter's mental health task force, and programs to control or eradicate preventable diseases afflicting the world's poorest people. The best example of the latter is the Guinea worm eradication program, which has so far succeeded in reducing this debilitating disease by 98% world-wide, making it potentially just the second disease after smallpox to be wiped out by human effort. In all, Carter Center programs have reached sixty-five countries, with the greatest impact on the developing world.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_post.html


roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 05:20 pm
@JTT,
Has-been refers to the presidency, as I'm sure you are aware.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 01:29:43