• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit[W:33]

Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Events and Accomplishments of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency:


On Carter's first day in office, he issued a pardon for all those who dodged the draft in the Vietnam War era. He did not pardon deserters, however.
Energy was a huge issue during Carter's administration. With the Three Mile Island incident, stricter regulations on Nuclear Energy plants were required. Further, the Department of Energy was created.
In 1978, President Carter invited Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to Camp David for peace talks. This led to a formal peace treaty in 1979.
In 1979, diplomatic relations were formally established between China and the U.S.
On November 4, 1979, the U.S. embassy in Teheran, Iran was seized and 60 Americans were taken hostage. 52 of the hostages were held for more than a year. Carter suspended oil imports from Iran and the UN Security Council called for the release of the hostages. He imposed economic sanctions. He also attempted in 1980 to rescue the hostages. However, three helicopters malfunctioned and they were unable to follow through with the rescue. Eventually, the Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to release the hostages in exchange for unfreezing Iranian assets in the U.S. They were not released, however, until Reagan was president. The hostage crisis was part of the reason that Carter did not win reelection.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

His only saving grace is Obama will be considered even more inept.

Jimmy Carter can now rest secure, his legacy established, in knowing that he will be judged as being just the second worst US President in the last 100 years.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Actually it was pretty obvious to me that, even though he was an incompetent president, he was a man of character.

That might have had some credibility had he remained silent instead of sniping at his successors and now even suggesting what the current President should do. His day is past but he refuses to recognize it. He should have grown old gracefully.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Obama's role for the UN.
zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67152875-role-un.jpg

This is one of the most racist drawings I have ever seen. Obama given monkey ears and monkey feet, and squatting like a monkey does when it goes to the bathroom. This post infers that blacks are not human, but are monkeys. I am going to report this post to the moderators.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

This is one of the most racist drawings I have ever seen. Obama given monkey ears and monkey feet, and squatting like a monkey does when it goes to the bathroom. This post infers that blacks are not human, but are monkeys. I am going to report this post to the moderators.

It's another bad case of the Mohammed Cartoon Syndrome.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

It's another bad case of the Mohammed Cartoon Syndrome.

When posting on a forum, a poster should be mindful of posting rules. The drawing depicts Obama, a Black man, as a monkey that is flinging feces onto walls. This violates to ToS. If you do not agree with the ToS for this site, go to StormFront, where race baiting is acceptable.

Debate Politics Forums - Forum Rules

18. Hate Messages - Hate Messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as a comment using one of the following towards a “protected group” or an individual based on their identity in a “protected group” in an extreme manner:

Protected groups under this rule:
a) Race
b) Ethnicity
c) Religion (also atheists)
d) Sexual orientation
e) National origin
f) Gender (including transgendered)
g) Disability
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Good move by Carter, and of course in character.

NOw that Congress is going to get involved, maybe they will listen to him. :roll:
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Moderator's Warning:
Please stick to the topic. Report violations and refrain from commenting.


When posting on a forum, a poster should be mindful of posting rules. The drawing depicts Obama, a Black man, as a monkey that is flinging feces onto walls. This violates to ToS. If you do not agree with the ToS for this site, go to StormFront, where race baiting is acceptable.

Debate Politics Forums - Forum Rules

18. Hate Messages - Hate Messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as a comment using one of the following towards a “protected group” or an individual based on their identity in a “protected group” in an extreme manner:

Protected groups under this rule:
a) Race
b) Ethnicity
c) Religion (also atheists)
d) Sexual orientation
e) National origin
f) Gender (including transgendered)
g) Disability
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

"Ceremony" because the ninny-poo has already broadcast what he's going to do, so by the time he musters whatever it is he musters to do other than play golf, whatever targets his missiles hit will have been long abandoned. Of course, true to form he'll take credit for "showing them who's boss" while the rest of the world scratches their head in wonder how one man that ignorant and incompetent could ever have been voted into the most powerful office in the worl.

This is not the time to be attacking anything, least of all Syria, and especially with this yahoo in the White House.

There is a limit to how much you can shield and protect as a conventional military force by shunting equipment around and pushing it into urban areas. Aircraft, helicopters, vehicle parks, air strips, fixed military facilities, naval emplacements, munitions depots, etc. If we decide to strike (and I hope we do) there will still be ample targets to hit for it to be punishing. Moreover there is the massive psychological impact. If you are a Syrian soldier fighting for Assad you probably are fighting in part because you hope victory is attainable. The prospect of Western intervention even in limited form opens up the possibility that further strikes can occur and the distinct chance that the West will 'not allow' you to win. That can be crippling for a regime military that has been afraid to use large formations for fear of mass defections.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

There is a limit to how much you can shield and protect as a conventional military force by shunting equipment around and pushing it into urban areas. Aircraft, helicopters, vehicle parks, air strips, fixed military facilities, naval emplacements, munitions depots, etc. If we decide to strike (and I hope we do) there will still be ample targets to hit for it to be punishing. Moreover there is the massive psychological impact. If you are a Syrian soldier fighting for Assad you probably are fighting in part because you hope victory is attainable. The prospect of Western intervention even in limited form opens up the possibility that further strikes can occur and the distinct chance that the West will 'not allow' you to win. That can be crippling for a regime military that has been afraid to use large formations for fear of mass defections.
To what end do you believe we should attack Syria, and why?
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

To what end do you believe we should attack Syria, and why?

At this stage?

1. The protection of US credibility after having come so close to the brink. It is imperative that regional opponents and global ones not believe that the US is retreating in the face of Iraq fatigue. How we handle this crisis is being watched from the Kremlin to Beijing.

2. The importance of demonstrating that the use of chemical weapons which for all the comparisons between conventional weapons are still uniquely dangerous (It took a light bombardment of a Damascus suburb to kill 1,400 people in an hour, the equivalent of 1/100th of the casualties for the whole war thus far)

I'd also like a wider involvement in Syria but that is beyond what is being discussed at this stage since only a limited action is being reviewed.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

At this stage? 1. The protection of US credibility after having come so close to the brink. It is imperative that regional opponents and global ones not believe that the US is retreating in the face of Iraq fatigue. How we handle this crisis is being watched from the Kremlin to Beijing.
While that may be true history tells us that a few bombs will be dropped, the American citizenry will protest, and there will be a retreat of some sort, with no credibility gained at all. There just isn't the will in the American people, or its politicians, for any more wars, no matter how good the cause may appear.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

While that may be true history tells us that a few bombs will be dropped, the American citizenry will protest, and there will be a retreat of some sort, with no credibility gained at all. There just isn't the will in the American people, or its politicians, for any more wars, no matter how good the cause may appear.

What matters are that a few bombs are dropped so that others know we still have the willpower to do so. Perception is more important than practical gain in this instance.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

At this stage?
At any stage. What are U.S. interests in Syria?

1. The protection of US credibility after having come so close to the brink. It is imperative that regional opponents and global ones not believe that the US is retreating in the face of Iraq fatigue. How we handle this crisis is being watched from the Kremlin to Beijing.
I think the only person's "credibility" that's up for question right now is Barack Obama's - and it's only his face we'll be saving (ostensibly) were we to attack Syria.

2. The importance of demonstrating that the use of chemical weapons which for all the comparisons between conventional weapons are still uniquely dangerous (It took a light bombardment of a Damascus suburb to kill 1,400 people in an hour, the equivalent of 1/100th of the casualties for the whole war thus far)
I don't think there is any question the use of chemical weapons is horrific and wholly objectionable. I don't know of any civilized western nation that condones its use, under any circumstances.

What precisely would we be "demonstrating" were we bomb Syria - particularly when we have no support of other western nations for doing so?
Demonstrating our displeasure? We've already done that, and we didn't need bombs to do it.
And why should we have to demonstrate anything anyway? Do you really think Syria doesn't know how we feel about chemical weapons?

I'd also like a wider involvement in Syria but that is beyond what is being discussed at this stage since only a limited action is being reviewed.
Why? To achieve what end? And on what basis?

W/r to the chemical weapons, how do we - how do you know who used them? We still do NOT know that. Do you think it is prudent to bomb Syria not knowing who pulled that particular trigger and why?
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

What matters are that a few bombs are dropped so that others know we still have the willpower to do so. Perception is more important than practical gain in this instance.
So, short of anything practical to gain, we lob a couple bombs their direction so they will perceive we have the willpower do so?
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

I'd rather not get into my opinion as to why we should intervene more broadly in Syria because I think it would be distracting but there are a plethora of other threads where I've elaborated on that I could link you to.

1. I completely disagree. The President's credibility is the credibility of the United States. The question being asked across the region and in foreign halls of power is whether or not the US has the stomach to flex it's muscles after Iraq or whether we are fatigued. Even if we do little it is important that we show that we act.

2. We would be demonstrating that the use of these weapons warrants special punishment. Moreover we do have the support of Western nations, military support from Turkey and France, diplomatic support from the UK, Canada, and Australia, and potentially further military support if we chose to act. The issue is not our displeasure, it is that their usage incurs punishment that they can ill-afford to have repeated.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

So, short of anything practical to gain, we lob a couple bombs their direction so they will perceive we have the willpower do so?

In foreign policy that is gain in and of itself. Nothing is more valuable than credibility and fear.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

In foreign policy that is gain in and of itself. Nothing is more valuable than credibility and fear.
Sadly two things Barack Obama can neither claim nor muster, even if he lobbed a couple bombs their direction.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Sadly two things Barack Obama can neither claim nor muster, even if he lobbed a couple bombs their direction.

Correct. Keeping his mouth shut to begin with and doing nothing would have left us in a better position, credibility wise, than where we find ourselves now.

Keeping his mouth shut or not keeping his mouth shut and lobbing some missiles and a few airstrikes is the worst outcome for us possible.

Ain't but one way to get the best results. And everybody knows it. But who wants to do that when he has not threatened us, not threatened to invade his neighbors, not shot at members of our military, no vital American or world economic interest at stake, no reliable willing partners to help us, and so on and so on? I'm against it.

Having said that, if our congress debates it and decides it's worth it and the President agrees I'll back both 100%. And no matter how tough it gets when the bad days start rolling in, and they always do, I won't turn my back on our militarys efforts nor our Presidents efforts nor our congressional efforts as long as they remain committed to finishing what they decided was worth it to begin with.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

That might have had some credibility had he remained silent instead of sniping at his successors and now even suggesting what the current President should do. His day is past but he refuses to recognize it. He should have grown old gracefully.

No argument at all. Nevertheless he was a man of character.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

The way I see it is that Carter wants Carter Jr. (Obomba) to complete the Middle East destabilization process he started in '79, in the name of peace!
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

The way I see it is that Carter wants Carter Jr. (Obomba) to complete the Middle East destabilization process he started in '79, in the name of peace!
You may be right.

His peace initiative didn't help Anwar Sadat at all, nor the Israelis, nor those who were kidnapped or those who tried to free them.

Nonetheless this history of failure has to repeat itself every generation or so because someone like Obama (as Carter) feel they can solve problems with their smile, charm and the 'let's all be adults about this' approach.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

You may be right.

His peace initiative didn't help Anwar Sadat at all, nor the Israelis, nor those who were kidnapped or those who tried to free them.

Nonetheless this history of failure has to repeat itself every generation or so because someone like Obama (as Carter) feel they can solve problems with their smile, charm and the 'let's all be adults about this' approach.

Anwar Sadat was murdered because he defied the fanatics of his country and actually tried to sign a peace treaty with isreal.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Anwar Sadat was murdered because he defied the fanatics of his country and actually tried to sign a peace treaty with isreal.
He actually did sign a peace treaty with Israel and yes, the anti-Israeli Islamists got to him.
 
Re: Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Really, it's not that bad to be on the side with Carter, on such matters he's always the calm head that wants diplomacy first. And despite Obama's campaign promises, the US has engaged in no diplomacy with Syria.

Carter was a bumbling fool of a president with zero international skills. His incompetence and the idiocy of his meat puppet Z-Big caused Iran to be the dangerous country it is today. On top of being a clueless moron; he additionally is an anti-Semite and I believe any time he has an opinion involving the Middle East it is going to be something that is dangerous to Israel's safety. Had he been a fair and moral person with an intelligent foreign policy platform while POTUS, I would care more about what he thinks.
 
Back
Top Bottom