| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| President Carter On War In Iraq : War — What is it good for? | |
| 2003-03-09 | |
| Opionion in the New York Times, by Jimmy Carter Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises. Sorry to disturb your nap sir, but we do have international support, Shall we go through the manila folder again? UK, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechlosovalia, I'll keep the list short for brevity sake, but you get my point. (current count is at 40 nations on our side) As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises Again, "uni" means one. please refer to the previous abreviated list. attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology. Oops, thats a dead givaway. "except for people who know "Jews", have visited the holocaust museum, or actually know any "Jews", everyones against the war." I think your white sheet is showing, sir. For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria. Please forward this list back in time to President Lincoln. He'll be sure to stop the Civil War once het gets this list. The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. Translation, wait until there are dead in your streets. Please designate which American city should be sacrificed and the exact number of dead sufficient for it to be called "an attack". It seems to "brother Jim" that 3000 dead is not just not enough. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. True, but the little bastard Saddam wont sit still long enough for us to shoot him in the head, and besides, since you passed that little law removing the ability for the CIA to assassinate people, its a little harder than it was before. Thanks a bunch pal! These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. He says this as if the President of the United States just woke up one day, cut himself shaving and said " get me Rumsfeld on the phone!, were going after Iraq" — Get it through your head Jimmy, We are at war. We didnt pick the fight, they brought it to us. They started it, but we are sure as hell going to finish it. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population Jim -The US is the first country in history to spend BILLIONS of dollars creating weapons with LESS distructive power. Our purpose is NOT to kill civilians. Will they get killed? Almost certainly, but the current landlord of the people of Iraq thinks its a real knee slapper to put civilians into military targets, just so he can cry to the cameras about how we massacred them. I'm sorry it happens, but to say that its our purpose to kill and maim non combatants, is just slanderous. within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment. Betcha 10 bucks he goes down in the first 10 minutes of the show. Betcha 20 bucks the same people complaining today about "the people of iraq" getting hurt, will be the first to say it was our fault in the first place after its all over. The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Check. Please send me your pamphlet on "water being wet" and "food is good for you" Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." and your point is? are you arguing that unless we can be 100% certain that the ACME bomb corporation produces weapons that will only kill their intended target, we should never take up arms? Tell me Jim, How discriminating was the nuclear sumbarine you served on during the 1960's?
again, and your point is? of course hes concerned you ninny, hes a good and moral man, and hes got one hell of a job to do. If you are a christian as you say you are(every 20 seconds by my count), pray for the man - he could use the help right now, and not your tin whistle backbiting crap. Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. translation: Screw the iraqi people, they are just little brown people of the middle east, what right do we have to liberate them from this horror. Why should white bread Americans from middle america get themselves killed for 3rd world backward savages. Answer: if you want to stop Terrorism, you have to cut out its breeding ground, that breeding ground is not "poverty" dickweed, it's totalitarian governments that crush their people and use Israel as a scapegoat to stay in power. Iraq is just the first one on the list to be "converted". Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing. Only to those who dont want to see a proof in the first place. In the second world war, the first country the United States invaded after being attacked was Morocco. What did they have to do with "pearl harbor"? Nnothing. Why did we attack them? Because they were in the way, because it was essential to our larger strategy for us to have the area occupied by that country at our service in the furtherance of our long term goal. Isn't that enough? The same applies to Iraq: it's in the way, we need it to do other work, and it fits our bigger strategy of wiping out the places where terror lives. If thats not enough reason, how bout this: Who funds Hamas? Who funds Islamic Jihad? how do weapons, funding and supplies get shipped to the west bank? thats right kids, right through Iraq. The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. France announced on Friday that there were absolutely no circumstances that they would ever support war against Iraq, which in my mind is just a step away from saying that they have entered into a mutual protection treaty with Iraq. Do we need to ask permission of the French, who have masssive monetary interests in the country and who have suppling the armys or Iraq, if we can go in and attack Iraq? Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern. I love what the man says here, he makes it sound that the only way that anyone could possibly agree to get rid of saddam is if they are paid off. How very nice. How very condesending. How very European. The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. And do pray tell, how could anything be worse? Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize Its stable? Based on what metric? the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. so, we shouldnt attack people who hate us and kill us, because they might get mad at us and kill us some more? So, if we left them alone, they would all go back to playing shuffleboard? Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace. Jim, the United Nations didnt exactly get our hostages back for you did they? They didnt exactly help you get the Russians out of Afghanistan, did they? The didnt put a stop to Pol Pot did they (and for that matter neither did you) They didnt stop half of Africa from trying to kill the other half in the 1990's, did they? Did it stop the Argentines from invading the Falklands? Stop the English from kicking the snot of the Argentines for doing it? Stop Saddam from invading Kuwait the first time? Stop Iraq and Iran from fighting for 10 YEARS!? They didnt stop India and Pakistan from getting the bomb, did they? They didnt stop the Palestinians and the Syrians from turning the formerly lovely country of Lebanon into a cesspool did they? so whats the score here?, War, Famine and Pestilance have all occured under the watchful protection of the UN. But if the US picks up a big stick to actually possibly maybe give some people a chance to live in peace, THAT has just got to be stopped right away. Jim's approach seems to be that status quo is good, change is bad. What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, a medical condition known as known as 'crocodile tears' even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. Not exactly, Jimbo, I do remember what the world thought of us when you were running the show. it was pretty low then. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. Will it be our stature or the UN's that will fall? But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize Currently known as the 'badge of the incompetant', and held by a dicredited former one term president and Head of a Terrorist organization. Once upon a time, it was considered distasteful and disrespectful for former presidents to speak publically about current affairs and to take sides against the current president. I guess it just goes to show you how low some people will go,and what the true nature of the character in some individuals really is. | |
| Posted by:Frank Martin |
| #11 When Jimmuh got his Nobel, someone in the Blogosphere (can't remember who, it was someone with a MUCH better eye for a nasty turn-of-phrase than myself) said that the Nobel Peace Prize now had all the credibility of a "Father of the Year" award from NAMBLA. P.S.: For the uninitiated, NAMBLA does NOT mean "National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes" ;-) |
| Posted by: the ghost of howard beale 2003-03-09 21:15:12 |
| #10 Hmm, don't all of Mr. Carter's arguments against an attack on Iraq also apply to his failed attack on Iran? There was no UN resolution that I recall that authorized military action. And Carter's fiasco in the desert had far less international support than any action proposed by Mr. Bush. |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-03-09 18:28:12 |
| #9 I have to say I go into sidewinder mode at the mere sound of this former presidents voice. If he was just talking about the presidents stand on bakery subsidies, Im not sure I'd get so exercised, but what really flips me out is that in a time of war, he decides to help discredit the president of HIS OWN COUNTRY. Is he entitled to his opinion? sure he is, but does he have a duty to make sure its not used to further the aims of the enemies of this country, you betcha. I would say that most of the stuff I used is really "condensed cream of denbeste", but some of it is also based on the not-so-fond memories of living through the 1976-1979 years. Believe me, there are days when I'm convinced that his brother Billy Carter was really the smarter of Mrs. Lillians' sons. |
| Posted by: Frank Martin 2003-03-09 18:20:39 |
| #8 Paul, please don't do that, I need you in the Ivory Coast! (see above). Frank, nice Fisking, almost a turkey-shoot but someone's got to do it. Maybe Fred will get an Instalanche for your good work. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-09 15:01:12 |
| #7 Josh Chafetz also has a Fisking of this article on Oxblog at: http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_oxblog_archive.html#90376715 |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-09 14:42:08 |
| #6 Don't let me get going about the hypocracy of Jimmah. I will get all steamed up and lose my FAA flight medical certificate. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-09 14:19:15 |
| #5 Nice Fisking, Frank. Of course when every single sentence and paragraph are nothing but party line boilerplate it's a pretty easy job. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2003-03-09 14:07:23 |
| #4 So being anti-war is also anti-semetic but the right thing to do? Unless France says the war is OK but bombing is not allowed cause we might hurt someone? I need my meds |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-09 12:37:37 |
| #3 Jimmy Carter has lost his way as an American. This little missive proves it. How awful it is for him to refuse to support our troops while they are getting ready to go to war, and refuse to back Bush in this difficult circumstance. Mr. Carter has every right to express his opinion on the war, but it was my understanding, the debate ended in October and the requirement is that now all real Anericans must be quiet and support the actions of the troops and Bush; that anything less could conceivably place them in even greater danger and could damage their morale. I don't know about anyone else, but I am going to be one vocal human being when this war is over for all the remarks, treasonous and overwise made against the war while our people were in forward deployment. Please place this in my 'In' box for processing when Iraq is finally stablized. These irresponsible things said and written cry to be addressed. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-03-09 07:06:06 |
| #2 Once the torture chambers are opened in Iraq, the world should force this terrorism apologist to see for himself what his policies would have perpetuated. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-03-09 06:43:36 |
| #1 Jimmy has long since lost any right to speak about defending America...and you're right Frank, beyond the Sadat-Begin peace deal he's shown a real antipathy for the Jeeewwwws. He's a good carpenter and should stick to building houses for the poor. It's a nice vocation, keeps him off the streets and out of dictator's PR campaigns. Does anybody who remembers the state of America in his presidency have anything but loathing for this poseur? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-09 06:31:19 |