Jimmy Carter: Iraq war Does Not Meet Just War Criteria

Thanks, I'm admittedly not well-versed in regards to the Haitian situation so I've got a bit of research to do.

 

I won't get into the rest of the Carter nonsense, but I have to raise an objection to this criterion of authority. Carter's opinion is irrelevant because it's biased? Who, pray tell, has an unbiased opinion on this or any subject? He's comes to the question as a pacifist. He also comes as a Christian, as a husband, a father, a business-owner, and a billion other preceding conditions. Everyone does. Why should one of these discount his opinion?

 

You really can't figure out Buck's point?

 

Weren't they a band from the 70's? Where did Iran take them?

Incidentally, please stop using "then" when you mean "than." It has gotten painful and I have kept the pain bottled up for far too long. Do it for the children.

Carter talks funny.

 

rimbaud, what we need is some real input rather then some bad jokes and grammar lessons. Than what's left for a poster like you? I don't know.

By the way, the Hostages rocked. I saw them at the old Coliseum in Houston before Iran took them to Vegas for that infamous show that ended in a tragic riot: "Ayatolldya To Rock N Rollya"!

 

Damn, you kill me B-Bob. My eyes hurt.

Seriously, though...I have been here too long to care about real input...so I treat the hangout as the joke it is...that way I can pretend you people don't really exist.

 

That line would have made more sense if it was addressed to MadMax rather than rimbaud.

 

Mango,

I will defend my post. It made little sense, no matter the reference frame.

And rimbaud, I was, as you probably guessed, completely joking about needing content here. I appear to repeatedly take a stand against content.

 

Content can be overrated

 

I was never very good in grammer.....errr....grammar....and I have slipped into bad habits with typing.

Oh well....Than, Then....tomato, tomatoe....let's call the whole thing off...

DD

PS. I am going to keep doing it because it drives you batty.

 

Dude, glynch, lighten up. ... I mean, up with which you lighten. ...
I mean, upward you should lighten. ...
fool me twice, shame on rimbaud,...

 

Certainly not worse than Reagan's use of Marines in Lebanon. That left more than fifty dead Americans in it's wake and solved nothing.

To Reagan's credit, he knew he made a mistake and withdrew them.

 

I didn't like what he did with North Korea. That agreement is partly responsible for the situation in North Korea now.

It has nothing to do with dissenting opinions, I will listen to them. But we shouldn't act like Jimmy Carter's track record is GOOD in this area. In fact, it's poor.

 

Based on the afore-mentioned theory that people, with or without Nobel Prixes involving the very same issue, who demonstrate a consistent position on a particular issue should be automatically ignored because of it, I hereby submit a list of people in history who showed consistent positions on a particular issue, and who I have unwittingly been giving credit to for years, ignorant as I was of the fact that those positions were irrelevant.


* Mahatma Gandhi...Issue: Independant India through non-violence...

* Martin Luther King...Civil Rights...

* Frederick Douglas...Slavery

* Gloria Steinham...Equal Rights...

etc...etc... I humbly apologize for giving these people credit in their respective areas of interest, ignorant as I was that their consistent positions invalidated those same positions...I was aware that there are people who have consistent positions and don't know what they are talking about, but I was never able to see the clear linear correlation beween having consistency and automatically being unworthy of listening to until wiser minds in here pointed it out to me...I guess I was just blinded by the whole internationally recognized expertise/ Nobel Prizes etc...

 

Bush really sucks. Iraqi are no guilt, why don't they have the rights of survival like the people in most of country(including USA)? Why cann't their children get enough food and medicine and are forced to die? All of the pain Iraqi suffering was rose by the USA government. Especially Bush, he is almost a monster who is planning to take away millions of lives of Iraqi and American.

 

DaDa,

Believe me, I fully understand...and a bbs such as this only makes it worse - I know that my typing has become much more lazy due to this format of faster writing with little concern for accuracy.

I also understand the latter part of your post and I would probably do the same (that attitude also might have something to do with my reasoning for "calling you out" in the first place).

B-Bob,

I would hope my response told you the way in which I read your clarion call for content. You are just a part of the joke so you can never be serious.

Back to Carter - the guy has no idea what he is talking about. In Iraq there are murals of Saddam as an Assyrian king in a lion hunt. We all know what that means - the Assyrians were a war machine and the kings killed lions with their bare hands. They no longer needed to rely on the priest-king (god-king) imagery and status of their ancestors - they now rose above, they subdued the most powerful elements of nature. They were power.

Obviously, Saddam is the exact same (otherwise those murals wouldn't exist) and to let him go around and kill lions is wrong. The more he kills, the more powerful he gets - we must stop him now!

Wait. Maybe attacking him will only provoke his super powers and he will reign terror upon our civilization. Maybe we should just give him whatever he wants. Why don't we all send him a donation via standard mail. We can send it to the Assyrian palace he had built with his name stamped into the bricks (coincidentally, just like the Assyrians - can it really just be coincidence or is it a sign?) so that we may show we understand his real power. Oh yeah, write any kind of love letters in cuneiform.

 

what is it with the american peoples that they want saddam dead so badly? i can understand why people want laden dead becuz he actuall go out n kill american n enjoy it , but with saddam what is it that he really do now most of th ppl here want him dead now !! why is this war necessary now or necessay at all? come on iraq n saddam's army is weak as ****, how is he a friking threat that must be destroy now other than saving dumb bush's face !! the stupid guy put 300,000 of his men n thought the un will approve the attack , now there is no turning back , too much cost to wait any longer, so hes going to war no matter what. i hope the iraqis fight strong n fight for what they really believe ! history will prove this is one of the biggest mistake of the american empire if bush go to war without the united nation approval!
if this war start now this will be the starting point of the downfall of the american empire! do people realize how much this will cost american to go to this war alone without the un approval? russain, germany, france and china are not the countries u can bribe now or later like country that will open their base for american use for a few billion dollars!

 

I don't like W. Bush who looks duller and more aggressive than Clinton. Under Bush's leadership, the Amerian will loss more blood. However, I don't care about who will dominate Iraq, even if Bush would be the king of Iraq. The most concerned thing is to stop the coming war and relieve the pain of Iraq.

 

I have no problem with Carter having a pretty consistent position on matters and having a strong pacifist bent. The thing that irritates me is that some of the people defending Carter early in this thread had skipped over his track record and presented him as an <b>unbiased</b> arbitrator on <b>Just War Criteria</b> with excellent experience credentials in the ME. Once some doucmentation was posted to illustrate his track record & pacifist leanings, the tone of the thread shifted to everybody having a bias of some type.

Now, the people who tried to project Carter as unbiased on the first page of the thread get a <b>walk</b> and those who pointed out his bias get <b>called out</b>? Go back and reread the first page to get the tone of the early debate. Shouldn't they (pro Carter people) have acknowledged Carter's bias upfront? Who amongst the early Pro Carter people (in this thread) makes the announcement that Carter has a bias? <b>I couldn't find a statement even close</b>. That appears to be the root cause of the problem in this thread..........people having to point it out later is a reaction to the initial misdirection. If they (pro Carter people) would have given a nod to his bias at the outset of this thread, then others wouldn't have taken issue and had to point out to other bbs members that Jimmy Carter has pacifist leanings and would have a hard time being viewed as an impartial abritrator on <b>Just War Criteria</b> . I wouldn't have bothered posting an article in this thread if they would have just been upfront about it.

There was an instance in the past that glynch used the foreign policy position of <i>Republican</i> Pat Buchanan to justify his own opposition to something. There was the implication by glynch that Pat Buchanan represented the mainstream of the Republican Party. It took others to point out that Buchanan has strong isolationist tendencies and does not represent mainstream Republican thought. Misdirection is nice if one can get away with it.

<a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2321295.stm">Nobel winner Carter voices Iraq concern</a>

<i>Winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, former US President Jimmy Carter, has said the US Congress was wrong to give President George W Bush power to go to war with Iraq.
<b>
However, speaking hours after being awarded the accolade, Mr Carter declined to comment on remarks by the chairman of the Nobel committee, who said the award was a criticism of President George Bush's policy on Iraq.
</b>
Chairman Gunnar Berge's remarks have sparked controversy within the committee, with some members arguing they are not representative of the group.

Mr Berge was commenting upon a line in the committee's announcement which said: "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation."

'Signs of change'

Mr Carter said the prize served as an inspiration not only to him, but also to suffering people around the world.

"I accept it on their behalf," he said.

Mr Carter said that in the case of Iraq, there was an obligation to work through the United Nations Security Council and that the US should not act unilaterally.

Chairman Berge had not cleared his remarks

But, he acknowledged, international pressure had meant that the Bush administration had toned down its statements about unilateralism.

"Every one of those has now been changed and I listened with care the other night to President Bush's speech and he said in many of those things just the opposite, that we would indeed work through the United Nations and we did not have any intention of acting unilaterally," Mr Carter said.

The former president also called for greater efforts to promote peace and justice.

"People everywhere share the same dream of a caring community that prevents war and oppression," he said.

Mr Carter is the third US president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize - after Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.

Members disagree

The Nobel committee said it had honoured Mr Carter for "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development".

Carter achievements
Brokered and signed the Camp David Accords in 1978 between Israel and Egypt
Persuaded former North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung to open discussions with South Korea
Mediated in Haiti in 1994
Helped broker ceasefire in Bosnia
Made 2002 landmark visit to Cuba, calling for dialogue

It said that during his 1977-1981 presidency, Mr Carter's "mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize".
<b>
Mr Berge said the award to Mr Carter "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken".

"It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States," he said.
</b>
But two of his colleagues disagreed.

"As I see it, that is not the committee's opinion," said Inger Marie Ytterhorn, of the right-wing Party of Progress.
<b>
However, committee member Gunnar Staalsett said he fully supported the chairman's remarks and agreed that the citation was indeed a criticism of Mr Bush.
</b>
The committee is appointed by the Norwegian parliament based on the strengths of the parties represented there, and correspondents say it is not usual for it to comment on current politics.

Mr Carter will receive the award at Oslo's City Hall on 10 December - the anniversary of the death of the prize's creator, Swedish industrialist - and the inventor of dynamite - Alfred Nobel.
</i>

Isn't the Nobel Peace Prize supposed to be decided on accomplishments rather than making a political statement? It appears they also have a bias.