Carter blasts Bush over Iraq war

[NellieBly]

I believe the comment originatee when he was asked by the reporter to compare Bush's foreign policy with Nixon's. That's the context. But regardless of the context, he's right on.

[iplaw]

Yeah! Just like he's right on about those damned jews as well.[xx(][xx(]

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

If I remember correctly wasn't it Carter who sold arms to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that eventually turned into Al-Qaeda?

I think that was more Reagan that Carter....

Wrong.  http://www.islandnet.com/~contempo/library/wtc/brzezinski.html

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

If I remember correctly wasn't it Carter who sold arms to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that eventually turned into Al-Qaeda?

I think that was more Reagan that Carter....

Wrong.  http://www.islandnet.com/~contempo/library/wtc/brzezinski.html

All that says is that Carter started it, a fact I didn't dispute. The vast bulk of funding was, however, under Reagan.

[Hometown]

Folks you need some experience and a memory to truly appreciate how absurd our politics were and are.

I can remember Reagan's speeches to the nation about the brave Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan.  We created and armed them.  I learned later that the brave Freedom Fighters were what became Al-Qaeda.

Carter's failures as a president were mostly a matter of public relations blunders and not knowing how little tolerance Americans had for sacrifice.

Reagan told us we could have everything we wanted and it would cost us nothing.  Guess what, Reagan was wrong and the bill is coming due.

Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.

[Conan71]

Presidents support factions and causes that best represent our interests at the time.  Once the Russians got bored with the Afghani's and went home, the rebel Afghani's turned their attention elsewhere.  Much like how we were silently working in the background of the Iran/Iraq war.  We had a common enemy in the USSR at the time.

How many other times throughout history have allies turned into enemies and enemies to allies?

Name one good, substantive part of Carter's foreign policy that anyone can remember aside from the Camp David Accord.

Here's what I remember of Carter:

-High unemployment
-High inflation
-High interest rates
-Bungled policies with Iran
-Ill-fated "windfall profits tax"
-Push to de-regulate oil, which we appear to be paying for now.

He's just trying to polish his own pathetic legacy by lampooning Bush.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Folks you need some experience and a memory to truly appreciate how absurd our politics were and are.

I can remember Reagan's speeches to the nation about the brave Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan.  We created and armed them.  I learned later that the brave Freedom Fighters were what became Al-Qaeda.

Carter's failures as a president were mostly a matter of public relations blunders and not knowing how little tolerance Americans had for sacrifice.

Reagan told us we could have everything we wanted and it would cost us nothing.  Guess what, Reagan was wrong and the bill is coming due.

Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.

Mr. Reagan's habitual usage of the word "freedom" was merely a component of his other empty rhetoric. Once the Afghan rebels ran the Soviets out of Afghanistan, do you really think the country was a freer place to live in? Compared to how the Taliban ran the country, one kind of wonders if perhaps Afghanistan was better off under Soviet influence. As anti-Soviet as I was and still am, I think even the most politically conservative among us, if they had to choose, would probably much rather live under Lenin than live under Islam.

Let's go further. Mr. Reagan's foreign policy benefitted some of the worst butchers in Central and South America, such as the bloody regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, whose leaders were regarded as allies in the Cold War era. And of course, I've yet to find anything politically or socially redeeming about the Contras of Nicaragua, but hey, it's all about "freedom" right?

And Oliver North, give me a break. Here's a guy who circumvented Federal laws to negotiate with Islamic extremists in Iran to finance a group of drug-dealing cutthroats in Central America, lied to the Congressional committee investigating this, and he's regarded by some as an American hero. Now he's got a show on Fox News, but then, that seems kind of fitting.

[MichaelC]

I think the Carter intervention in Afghanistan is fascinating.  He intervened in Afghanistan supporting the rebels after a Communist gov't took power, but before the Soviets entered.  His intervention caused the Soviets to invade.  Part of me thinks that's hilarious, for some reason.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Presidents support factions and causes that best represent our interests at the time.  Once the Russians got bored with the Afghani's and went home, the rebel Afghani's turned their attention elsewhere.  Much like how we were silently working in the background of the Iran/Iraq war.  We had a common enemy in the USSR at the time.

How many other times throughout history have allies turned into enemies and enemies to allies?

Name one good, substantive part of Carter's foreign policy that anyone can remember aside from the Camp David Accord.

Here's what I remember of Carter:

-High unemployment
-High inflation
-High interest rates
-Bungled policies with Iran
-Ill-fated "windfall profits tax"
-Push to de-regulate oil, which we appear to be paying for now.

He's just trying to polish his own pathetic legacy by lampooning Bush.

I've yet to see how our "best interests" were served by supporting the death squads in El Salvador, or by overthrowing popularly-elected governments by the people of various third world nations in the Americas. Guatemala (before the bloodbath) had Arbenz, Chile had Allende, Haiti had Aristide, Nicaragua had Ortega (and guess who's back), all democratically elected, all looking to make reforms and changes in the status quo-much the same in some ways as we did back in 1776. But for some reason, it was not in our "best interests" that these individual states have the governments that their peoples wanted, so we "destabilize" them and install someone more "subservient" to our agenda.

As for foreign policy, I won't yet comment on Carter's track record, but on a visit to Havana in 2002, he did call for an end to the embargo against Cuba, and to that I say right on. What purpose does it serve anyway.

[Conan71]

That is up to admins, the CIA, military, et. al. to decide which ones benefit us strategically and which don't.  There was some dark, shady stuff in Central America during the Reagan years, I don't think anyone disputes it. For some reason, the powers that be decided what we did was in our best interests.

Re: Cuba.  Since the fall of the Soviet Union, I really don't get the point of an embargo.  American investment could do wonders for that place.  

Castro has been pretty much impotent for the last 10-15 years, moreso now.  Perhaps it would improve the human condition there.  I believe our embargo hinges upon human rights issues, yes?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

I think the Carter intervention in Afghanistan is fascinating.  He intervened in Afghanistan supporting the rebels after a Communist gov't took power, but before the Soviets entered.  His intervention caused the Soviets to invade.  Part of me thinks that's hilarious, for some reason.

Reading the article that I linked to, the author, Brzezinski, aledges that we were involved in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviets ever stepped foot in the country we wanted them to get mired in their own Vietnam.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

I think the Carter intervention in Afghanistan is fascinating.  He intervened in Afghanistan supporting the rebels after a Communist gov't took power, but before the Soviets entered.  His intervention caused the Soviets to invade.  Part of me thinks that's hilarious, for some reason.

Reading the article that I linked to, the author, Brzezinski, alleges that we were involved in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviets ever stepped foot in the country.  It was apparently our will that they get mired in their own Vietnam.

And it came back to bite us on September 11, 2001.

[iplaw]

I think we've learned that the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.  That being said, no one could have forseen Al-Qaeda, not Carter or Reagan.  It's too easy to say that it was the wrong decision to make, but where would we be if the Soviet Union was still a major superpower?  Neither alternative is pretty.

As for Carter, it was just one many, many blunders.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I think we've learned that the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.  That being said, no one could have forseen Al-Qaeda, not Carter or Reagan.  It's too easy to say that it was the wrong decision to make, but where would we be if the Soviet Union was still a major superpower?  Neither alternative is pretty.

They did however know about Bin Laden, even then.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I think we've learned that the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.  That being said, no one could have forseen Al-Qaeda, not Carter or Reagan.  It's too easy to say that it was the wrong decision to make, but where would we be if the Soviet Union was still a major superpower?  Neither alternative is pretty.

They did however know about Bin Laden, even then.

They most certainly did not...do you have anything to back this up?   You can half-attribute a pinch of causation to both Carter and Reagan, but they had no idea who Bin Laden was.  OBL didn't even split from MAK until 1988...

His first fatwa was in 1996, smack dab in the middle of BJ's last term.