Jimmy Carter Bashes Bush

Oooo oooo, this just in, TheFreak resorts to an ad hominem attack. *yawn*

hmmm... things to do today...
spend money? hmmm.. no
learnin' stuff? maybe
beat people up? doubt it.
visit tommy's bookmarks? HELL YEAH!

But first... make a personal note on the post modern critique; then look at the p*rn.

 

What are you doing? You have come in and obfuscated the issues in this thread. I never said that there aren't fringe extremists in the US. I never said that it wasn't a problem.

In France there are members of the government that have referred to Israel as "a s**tty little country" and asked why we "even worry about them." All of this while there are synagogues being firebombed and defacing graffiti on the homes of Paris Jews. Sure does sound like the politicians are saying what they think will be popular with the constituents. There are articles about this everywhere from the Jewish News to the Anti-Defamation League.

I brought this up to point out that I am very skeptical to base any of our action in the Middle East on the opinions of anti-Semites. That is extremely relevant to informing us of why a country holds the position it does on these issues. Slavery, Indian wars and border skirmishes with Mexico have ZERO to do with the topic at hand.

 

Not slavery, Indian Wars, war with Mexico/Spain.

But as Refman mentioned, what do any of these have to do with this thread?

 

Originally posted by TheFreak
...I've already said too much. ...

Yes, you apparently did.



Achebe,

You mention 'masturbation' and 'p*rn' in a political thread? 'Jimmy Carter Bashes Bush' thread? Uh...

 

Oh I'm a wall and so ideological. All the conservatives agree. Therefore they must be right.

Also good to see how many traditonally conservative posters have all of a sudden become moderate or liberal due to arguments on this board and their study of current affairs.



As Achebe said, just admit you are conservatives or Republicans and defend your position. Alternatively, if you can claim liberal bias and mindless ideology makes liberal posters impervious to facts and research, don't get bent out of shape if in turn you are accused of not being neutral fact finders with no particular party or ideological affiliatation.

 

Achebe --

hmmmmm....so ultimately we're arguing about tastes?? i would argue that we're arguing about values here. you value x over y...i value y over x...and here's why....some call that discussion. And in an internet hangout where politics are discussed quite regularly, I'm wondering why you bother showing up at all here if that's your view of it. I mean, if it is that arbitrary, why contribute at all???

 

Madmax, glad to see we can agree on something 100%.

These issues we are arguing on are important. It isn't a silly blue versus green or some literary sematic game played only in academia.

That being said, I don't believe this was the central thrust of Achebe's messages.

 

You’re right. Only torture, harassment and murder due to color of skin or religious practices are still re-occurring.

Well, I didn't see French anti-Semitism in the original post of this thread either. Threads often go on tangents—that is their nature in a board that allows a little freedom, but my points are relatively simple ones not meant to distract: 1) it is easier to point out the faults and misdeeds of others than see them in yourself. 2) if we lose sight of out own messy backyards it kind of rings hollow to point to others to clean up theirs first. I thought they were important point to express particularly as my impression was that the tone seem to imply we have some higher moral ground on such issues (racism, prejudices based on religion, practices, ethnicity, etc.). If ya’ll think these so points so obfuscate the issues in this thread that was not my intent, but that comes with the territory with deciding to make points in a open board sometimes.

Certainly these are terrible events by despicable politicians. But it is not like we don’t and haven’t had anti-Semitism here. Further, in the past year we have had Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Jews harassed and/or killed in our country. As far as the French hate mongers in office , if I am not mistaken the party of those politicians got routed in the national elections, they are a minority, if vocal and despicable one. I would also hazard to guess those politicians would not be in office if an American type system was in France, and if we had a French one we would have a few hate mongers in office saying we should stamp out all Muslims in our country (probably some saying this about Jews too) as they threaten our national security or “American character” or some BS like that. Fringe hate mongering politicians can make it in office in France because of the system, but it is awfully hard here (though even in our system we occasionally get some hate mongers who win elections--e.g., David Duke; also that hate mongering nut US Rep from around Friendswood that was not re-elected after people realized more about the guy). Instead here the hate mongering fringe wannabe politicians usually form fringe groups that try to exert influence a different way (lobbying, harassment). It doesn’t necessarily mean the base level of popular support for hate mongers in France is any higher or lower than here.

Again, I am not saying to ignore French anti-Semites, but I did want to point out we should not ignore our own internal hate mongers. Tangential to the thread, surely, worth pointing out, obviously not to ya’ll, but perhaps some others can appreciate it or take something from it.

 

Desert Scar--

Certainly we still have problems in this country. Nobody is arguing that point. This thread started out by saying that we should get UN support prior to an attack on Iraq. The UN is heavily influenced by France. Therefore French anti-Semitism is very germane to the issue of UN support in regards to the Middle East. The issues you raise make a good discussion...but are not particularly germane to the issue of UN support for an action in the Middle East.

Are the French politicians who have expressed anti-Semitism on the fringe? Maybe...I admittedly don't know. Are they helping in calling the shots in France and helping to dictate French foreign policy? Yep. That is why their comments are so troubling to me in regards to the UN. The quotes I gave came from a member of France's diplomatic service. You know...the department of the French government that espouses their foreign policy.

I mean no disrespect to you Scar...but I need to point out where French anti-Semitism are germane to the topic...and our problems in the US are disgusting...but not germane to the current topic.

 

Yes, they are.

Are they helping in calling the shots in France and helping to dictate French foreign policy? Yep.

Helping? Sure, in a way. Having much weight in policy making? No, not really...since they are fringe and have limited political control.

The difference between US and France in these matters boils down to the system in place. France has a much more broad-reaching political spectrum in regards to parties and representation. There are a high number of parties in the parliament, their weight (seats) being dictated by the popular vote. The US extremists are not really allowed into the game, even at a lower value - on a national level. However, peole such as Falwell and Robertson (two quick "fringe" guys I came up with) can still influence policy making in a more subtle, under the covers way.

Which is better? Who knows?

I still don't understand wanting to bring history into this when the "revival" of anti-semitism in France and much of Europe has nothing to do with the historical - in repect to foundation, popularity, mindset, etc...

Like many other things, anti-semitism seems to be cyclical.

 

One could argue anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment impacts our foreign policy as well. What you say about France anti-Semitism is troubling--the degree it influences the more empowered decision makers in that country and in turn its influence on the UN I am not familiar enough with to comment on. It does sound like a big concern and should be talked about openly however (like in this thread).

That's cool, I meant no disrespect to you Ref by talking about America’s history and prejudices that need working on, and I am listening to what you say on French anti-Semitism because it is important and worth discussion. My intention was not to hijack the thread, just interject a few points to chew on that I think we Americans do too little chewing on. Whether our own history and prejudices impact our own domestic (as well as foreign) policy I won’t bring up any more in this thread.

 

Refman:

Your logic is: France is a country in the UN. I'll claim they have great influence. (More then the US, Russia and China?) There is anti-semiticism in France, therefore I could care less about what the UN says.

Your comments on France are only very marginally relevant to my point, which you were trying to answer, which was that 98% of the countries in the world are against our near unilateral attack on Iraq.

While anti-semiticism in the US or France or anti-arab discrimination in Israel and other countries, including France, is an interesting topic, it doesn't change the fact that we are proposing a virtually unilateral attack

I assume that you aren't saying that only anti-semites are against the planned attack on Iraq.

 

I don't see what's wrong with unilateral action. Who needs a bunch of useless "allies" mucking everything up?

All we need is a detente accord with Russia and China. The rest have zero value. We hardly need Zimbabwe and Bahrain to tell us what to do and how far to go. What army will we miss from France or Germany? Should we worry if the Saudis huff and puff and deny their bases?

Y'all should read the Milean debate in Thucidides.

 

If you don't think that the French are VERY influential in the UN, then you have some homework to do. Obviously the US is influential, but over the last decade it is devolved into a US vs. EU kind of situation. Russia? Nah...they are nowhere near as influential as their Western European counterparts. China? HA!!! They are constantly bashed for human rights violations and are considered to be on the fringe. Yeah...the UN is going to have their policy dictated by a country that is periodically the subject of embargos and sanctions.

Your logic is: My main point is that the UN is important in deciding what to do. I'll claim that France has less influence than nations considered to be on the fringe so that I won't have to admit that Ref has a point.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me...but to deny that I raise a serious issue with the UN is to ignore reality. This is a complex problem...one in which BOTH sides will raise valid points. You have shown a willingness to completely ignore them.

Can't get much more irrelevant than this. NOBODY has suggested that governement officials in UN countries has allowed anti-arab sentiments to influence their policy. I have pointed out PUBLIC statements from French government officials regarding anti-Semitism and their feelings toward the state of Israel. I have never been the biggest fan of the Israeli governement, but to assert that we shouldn't worry about their people is insane. That is what the French have done. Given their place in the UN, I am skeptical of their stance.

Wrong. President Bush is discussing the situation with the UN today in order to garner support.

 

For one thing there is the enormous cost to think of. If you don't care about the U.S. funding the entire operation, possibly higher taxes to pay for it, etc. then maybe there is less of a reason to include other countries. Just after the first gulf war which was funded for the most part by countries other than the U.S. there was a recession in this country.

Militarily having allies in the mideast makes strategy much easier and could reduce casualties if we have relatively safe-havens nearby to go to in case of trouble, mechanical failure with aircraft etc.

The U.S. doesn't really function well without exports and imports, which are vital to our economy. If we have bad relations with other countries it can hurt us.

Again Iraq has broken ZERO agreements with the U.S. The only agreements that Iraq has broken were with the U.N. It's a matter of right and wrong.

 

Sorry, but I do deny it. You say one UN member has a history of anti-semitism. You consider other types of similar discrimination to be irrlevant or unimportant. Even if your claim that there have been unusual amounts of anti-semiticism in France is true, how does this does make the UN unimportant. Are you now saying the UN is anti-semitic!!!!

Perhaps you think that there is a problem with the UN because it doesn't always do what the US wants. Well that is the way it is supposed to be. The US does contribute the largest share of the budget and has enormous but not total control of the UN.

I believe that there are issues when the whole world through the UN should have a veto on what the US as one country wants to do. This causes great consternation to those who believe that the US should never be subordinate to the UN.

As I stated before when Israel with the help of the US goes against the whole world and UN rsolutions by refusing to create a Palestinian State by giving back Gaza and the West Bank this creates hostility toward the state of Israel. This does not make the whole world or the UN anti-semitic.

Similarly when the US goes it alone against almost all of the UN and the whole world it does make them like us less.

 

How did this thread spin into Art and French history??

 

This is why I distrust the UN.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/000/524dplvk.asp

Saddam Hussein's American Apologist
From the November 19, 2001 issue: The strange career of former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/19/2001, Volume 007, Issue 10


"IRAQ TODAY represents a threat to no one."

It's hard to imagine that argument coming these days from anyone other than Tariq Aziz, or another of Saddam Hussein's propagandists. But those are in fact the words of Scott Ritter, former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. This represents an astonishing conversion. Ritter, after all, abruptly quit that job in frustration three years ago, complaining of Iraqi obstructionism and U.S. acquiescence. At the time, he had quite a different view of Baghdad: "Iraq presents a clear and present danger to international peace and security."

But Ritter has lately been hawking his Iraq-as-a-lamb theory to everyone who will listen--from his perch as a Fox News analyst, in regular appearances on NPR, to reporters at newspapers across the country. When his former U.N. supervisor, Ambassador Richard Butler, suggested that Iraq might be responsible for the spate of anthrax attacks in the United States, Ritter told a Boston Globe reporter that such speculation is "irresponsible." Asked on Chris Matthews's Hardball whether Saddam Hussein has anthrax, he equivocated: "Well, there's--you know, we, as weapons inspectors for United Nations, destroyed Iraq's biological weapons program. There's a lot of things that are unaccounted for such as growth media, which allows them to--to grow these germs. But the basic factories, the fermentation units, etc., had been destroyed. So, you know, the--the chance of Iraq having something like this is--is slim to none. We won't ever know until we get weapons inspectors back in. But Iraq's not on the top of my list in terms of, you know, places we should be worried about."

Obviously, Ritter's views on Iraq have changed over the past three years. Indeed, they've basically flipped. Then, Iraqi leaders were inveterate liars; today, they are victims of American "propaganda mills." Then, Saddam Hussein was hell-bent on building his deadly arsenal; today, he wants to feed Iraqi children. Then, the key to Iraq's future was overthrowing Saddam Hussein; today, Hussein is a "viable dictator."

The Scott Ritter of 1998 would have some fierce debates with the Scott Ritter of 2001. But the Scott Ritter of 2001 doesn't even admit to having changed his mind. "That's a common criticism," he says, but "I just ask people to take the time to review the record. When I first resigned, which was in August of 1998, I spoke out--and I said this to the Senate--that I'm speaking out as an inspector, even though I'm not an inspector. And what that means is, I'm speaking out in defense of the resolution, 687, that the Security Council passed that the United States endorsed. And this called for 100 percent disarmament, and we have less than that."

So does Ritter believe, as he wrote October 12 in the Los Angeles Times, that Iraq really "represents a threat to no one"?

"From a conventional standpoint, I'd say that Iraq represents virtually a zero-sum threat," he insists. On weapons of mass destruction, Ritter hedges a bit. "I'll always maintain that we never got 100 percent of the weapons, but I will maintain--and the facts speak for themselves--that we got 90-95 percent of it," he says. "In the past three years, we just don't know what's been going on. And that should be put on the table right off the bat. But what we do know is that using 1998 as a benchmark, Iraq, frankly speaking, hasn't had the time or the resources to effectively reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction program."

Among the former arms inspectors, Ritter is unique in his benign views of the Iraqi threat. Butler has referred to this as "Ritter's crap." Iraqi leaders, needless to say, are thrilled with what the Washington Post's Colum Lynch called Ritter's "bizarre turnaround." They now "seem to view their erstwhile enemy as an asset in the propaganda war against the United States." But don't take the Post's word for it. On Iraq's official website--www.uruklink.net--after a few words of token criticism of the former weapons inspector, there is a tribute to Ritter, in a rather fractured translation from the original Arabic.

"The admittance of Scott Ritter and his enthusiastic in calling for the lifting of the unfair embargo and to halt the continuous bleeding of Iraqi people is a conscience scream." Then there is an appeal to other former U.N. inspectors to follow in his footsteps. "The truth veiled by the American poisoned propaganda . . . sooner or later the truth will shine. . . . He who will not participate in revealing the truth and support Iraq will regret in the future. He who says the truth, as Scott Ritter did, will be happy, conscientious, and proud to be one of the honest people who participated in revealing the truth. Those who will be so, we will admire and greet."

The part about admiring and greeting is literal. Ritter was welcomed back to Baghdad in July 2000, with the blessing of Saddam Hussein. The reason for his trip? To produce a documentary film, "In Shifting Sands," that would chronicle the weapons-inspection process and, he says, "de-demonize" Iraq. The 90-minute film, which he says he is close to selling to a broadcast outlet, was produced with the approval of the Iraqi government and features interviews with numerous high-level Iraqi officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

U.S. intelligence officials and arms control advocates say Ritter has been played--perhaps unwittingly--by Saddam Hussein. "If you're Scott Ritter," says one arms expert, "the former 'cowboy' weapons inspector, kicked out by Saddam Hussein, you're not going to get back into Iraq unless Saddam Hussein invites you and wants you there."

Ritter doesn't entirely disagree. Though he claims the film is an attempt to be "objective" about the situation in Iraq, he predicted before its completion, "the U.S. will definitely not like this film."

He acknowledges, as well, that the U.S. government doesn't like how the film was financed. Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real estate developer living in Michigan, kicked in $400,000. By Ritter's own admission, al-Khafaji is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." Al-Khafaji, who accompanied Ritter as he filmed the documentary and facilitated many of the meetings, travels to and from Iraq regularly in his capacity as chairman of "Iraqi expatriate conferences." Those conferences, held in Baghdad every two years, are sponsored and subsidized by Saddam Hussein.

The conferences are little more than propaganda shows, designed to bash the United States and demonstrate to the world that Hussein has support even among Iraq's expatriate community. The official conference website posts several articles condemning U.S. "terrorism and genocide" against Iraq.

Ritter says al-Khafaji had no editorial input on the film project but that without his help, the movie would not have been made. "I tried to get independent sources to fund the movie," he says. "People can talk about the funding all they want. If I'd been able to be bought--from '95 to '98 the CIA paid me. Did I do their bidding?"

Ritter says the FBI investigated the relationship between him and al-Khafaji and found nothing. "They surrounded my house, they stopped me on the street," he says. "Nothing."
_________
The article goes on for a while...but I think the point is clear. If you have time, please read the rest...it's enlightening.

 

When a raid on Spain is considered I will find racism against Hispanics to be VERY relevant...but not in the current instance.

It IS true and I gave you a half dozen links to support my claim. It does not make the UN unimportant, but does raise a caution flag as to their motives.

No...just one of the more powerful member states. Try to avoid putting words in my mouth.

That is just base and meaningless. I have raised with you SPECIFIC concerns regarding the motives behind any UN position on Middle East issues...and all you come back with is 1) it's not true, and then when I provide links to back it up...2) you just don't like them because they don't agree with you. So in summation...you assert that what I say isn't true. When I prove it to be valid you completely reverse course and basically accuse me of beliefs which not only do I not hold...there aren't any facts in evidence from anything that I said to back up your claim.

Wow...I distinctly remember Bush calling for the formation of a Palestinian state. Go ahead and insert your spin here.

Again...you are accusing me of saying things I never said. I said there is an anti-Semitic sentiment in part of the government of FRANCE. Not the WORLD...but FRANCE. France holds a leadership position in the UN. This makes me skeptical regarding motives in the case at hand.

Being misquoted and having your words twisted into something they OBVIOUSLY do not mean has grown tiresome. I now understand why some on this BBS don't read what you say anymore, let alone respond.