Former US President Jimmy Carter Turns 100
- Reference: 0175172361
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/01/1617232/former-us-president-jimmy-carter-turns-100
- Source link:
> Living the last 19 months in home hospice care in Plains, the Georgia Democrat and 39th president has [1]continued to defy expectations , just as he did through a remarkable rise from his family peanut farming and warehouse business to the world stage. He served one presidential term from 1977 to 1981 and then worked more than four decades leading The Carter Center, which he and his wife Rosalynn co-founded in 1982 to "wage peace, fight disease, and build hope."
>
> "Not everybody gets 100 years on this earth, and when somebody does, and when they use that time to do so much good for so many people, it's worth celebrating," Jason Carter, the former president's grandson and chair of The Carter Center governing board, said in an interview. "These last few months, 19 months, now that he's been in hospice, it's been a chance for our family to reflect," he continued, "and then for the rest of the country and the world to really reflect on him. That's been a really gratifying time."
>
> James Earl Carter Jr. was born Oct. 1, 1924 in Plains, where he has lived more than 80 of his 100 years. He is expected to mark his birthday in the same one-story home he and Rosalynn built in the early 1960s -- before his first election to the Georgia state Senate. The former first lady, who was also born in Plains, died last November at 96. President Joe Biden, who was the first sitting senator to endorse Carter's 1976 campaign, praised his longtime friend for an "unwavering belief in the power of human goodness." "You've always been a moral force for our nation and the world (and) a beloved friend to Jill and me and our family," the 81-year-old president tells Carter in a tribute video filmed in front of Carter's presidential portrait at the White House.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-carter-100th-birthday-1e540c277dea07bd84242d290b4ebcdc
Where would we be? (Score:1)
Where would we be if he won a second term?
Re: (Score:2)
Is, not was.
Re: (Score:2)
Billy was evil?
Re: (Score:1)
> Speaking Russian. It took a Carter to get a Reagan.
Going from a peanut farmer to an actor, isn’t exactly a brag. Thanks to Reaganomics, another moron came along and tried to re-define economics, failing even worse with Bidenomics. Only reason we’re not shit-piling more on Ronnie’s brain farts is because we managed to elect worse since then that managed to overshadow those fuck-ups. Again, not a brag.
Re: (Score:3)
Roughly the same place. Presidents fortunately don't have that much effect on the country (despite both parties claiming that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes" every election). It's the citizens that make or break the country.
Re: Where would we be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump had a massive and persistent effect through his judiciary appointments, including those defrauding supremes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> Trump had a massive and persistent effect through his judiciary appointments, including those defrauding supremes.
I've not seen any fraud or defrauding....BUT, I am happy to see that the SCOTUS is much more of a strict constitutionalist body now...as it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Trump had a massive and persistent effect through his judiciary appointments, including those defrauding supremes.
> I've not seen any fraud or defrauding....BUT, I am happy to see that the SCOTUS is much more of a strict constitutionalist body now...as it should be.
They were frauding right on the national mall last week, I heard it from my friend's neighbor's niece. The biggest most violent fraud you've ever seen. If I have to make things up to bring your attention to the massive fraud that's happening I will because the media doesn't want you to know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
> I've not seen any fraud or defrauding [in the judiciary]
Then I have to wonder where you are learning about current events.
[1]Here, let me help. [politico.com]
Oh, that's not enough? [2]Here you go. [forbes.com]
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/30/alito-scotus-flag-00160450
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/04/clarence-thomas-here-are-all-the-ethics-scandals-involving-the-supreme-court-justice-amid-new-ginni-thomas-report/
Re: (Score:2)
I've not seen any fraud or defrauding
Exactly! After all the court ruled it's tipping, not bribery.
Re: (Score:3)
But those judges would have been appointed so long as any republican had been president. He very much won the 2016 election by motivating a lot of labor voters who felt disenfranchised by the democrats to come out and vote, but as a sitting president he wasn't very good at actually getting his policies enacted. Policy-making-by-tweet is hardly effective. Biden has honestly been more effective at getting Trump's trade policies enacted than Trump was (in an effort to stop bleeding labor votes).
Re: (Score:2)
> But those judges would have been appointed so long as any republican had been president. He very much won the 2016 election by motivating a lot of labor voters who felt disenfranchised by the democrats to come out and vote, but as a sitting president he wasn't very good at actually getting his policies enacted. Policy-making-by-tweet is hardly effective. Biden has honestly been more effective at getting Trump's trade policies enacted than Trump was (in an effort to stop bleeding labor votes).
I'm a little skeptical that another Republican President would have done the Amy Coney Barrett nomination, sure, the GOP senators were all for it but Presidents usually feel a bit more restrained about violating norms.
As for other judges, to the extent they were a rubber stamp for the Federalist Society sure, but Trump also really had a penchant for nominating unqualified judges.
As for policies, part of Trump's issue is that he didn't have the grasp of policy (or attention plan) to really enact his policies
Re: Where would we be? (Score:2)
Going by ABA ratings, President Trumpâ(TM)s judicial appointments are among the most qualified in history.
Re: (Score:2)
The former alleged president was elected because Hilary was such a piss-poor candidate and Bernie was a sore loser and wouldn't campaign for her. And the former alleged president lost the popular vote.
The whole idea that the former alleged president had policies is laughable. You mean the cast of losers he brought into his administration had agendas and proceeded to tear down what they could. They never supported any actual policies or built anything.
Re: (Score:1)
They had control of the Senate. They also altered some of the senate rules to allow them to be approved faster. When the Democrat's got "a shellacking" (Obama's words) in the mid-terms the Democrats got behind on appointing judges (they were blocked, mostly) as the Republicans also did whatever they could to stifle the appointments. Once they got a Republican president, they were able to jam them all through quickly and made sure they were as young as possible. They also focused on appellate courts so they
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> It was a combination of good strategy and good luck and it's absolutely great that we have them now in the system forever, because those judges are a lot more likely to make freedom-adjacent and liberty-minded decisions than far left progressives
Well, those were certainly all words, but they were almost all bullshit.
It was good strategy, in that it was successful. But those judges have already been trampling freedom with every possible decision, so your entire premise is broken. And there are no far left progressives among the Democrats, as none of them are trying to break the hold of fascism. They all work for corporations.
Re: (Score:1)
> Well, those were certainly all words, but they were almost all bullshit.
I like how you say that but you can't back it up and don't even attempt it. How about some examples to rub it in a bit? Several Trump-appointed judges have ruled in favor of expanding Second Amendment protections. For example, in Duncan v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit struck down California's ban on large-capacity magazines, with a Trump-appointed judge supporting the decision based on the argument that the law infringed on the constitutional right to bear arms. Then there was the Bruen case. The ruling struck
Re: (Score:3)
I still want to know what is wrong with this solution approach:
"A nonpartisan Justice may compel up to two junior partisan Justices to recuse themselves."
When Carter was in the White House, every Justice had been confirmed by a majority of the Senators from BOTH parties. Now exactly NONE of the sitting Justices satisfy that simple criterion for "nonpartisan".
Yeah, I know there have always been politics, even involving SCOTUS nominations. Remember what Ike said about his mistakes? (And his motivation for the
Re: (Score:2)
> I still want to know what is wrong with this solution approach:
> "A nonpartisan Justice may compel up to two junior partisan Justices to recuse themselves."
As I told you last time, there are NO nonpartisan Justices.
Re: Where would we be? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope with Biden's proposals we may see the concept of term limits for Supreme Court Justice's stick around and pick up some more support.
It's one of those ideas I have just not heard a compelling argument against.
- The presumably long (18 years is what's usually proposed) single term limit still maintains a non-political leaning.
- Justices are free to go back or work in Circuit or Federal Appeals courts after their term (or rightly retire)
- Eliminate the tiresome and ultimately damaging political game that has become "random" retirements (Kennedy), pressure to retire(RBG), gamesmanship over norms (McConnell with Garland) and simply put; "Each Presidential term gets 2 picks". Done and done, no muss no fuss. Random deaths or retirements have a number of solutions.
I would also agree with Thomas in this case that pay should go up. These are people making decisions that affects can have huge economic effects. Yes we should pick people less craven about wealth than Thomas himself is but that doesn't mean he's wrong. I have no problem giving a million-plus salary to what is the most important judicial group on the planet. A big salary means more cause to implement stricter financial ethics rules as well.
All this leads to an easier path to court-expansion which I think most people would and could agree with if it can be a done in a non-partisan manner which is the sticky bit. They have a big workload so more judges means more cases can be heard, less shadow docket, a broader swatch of opinions and I think Justices should have to ride circuit sometimes like the olden days, make sure they're not too insulated.
Re: Where would we be? (Score:1)
pay increase Why pay? Barrier to entry for good candidates is media roasting of their families.
>> expand court And split it into 3 or 4 groups for parallel case loads and more throughput?
>> term limits Would encourage detrimental revolving door into industry.
There are structural issues which generally stem from laws can only be challenged after a person is harmed and then has standing to challenge it. This could be solved by requiring every new law, before being implemented,
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's incapable of even understanding what those judge appointments mean. He's simply doing as he's told. Apparently, the Machiavellian who's plotting behind the scenes is Leonard Leo: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] He's the one trying to replace judges, from top to bottom, with Christian, neoliberal extremists. So far he's been doing pretty well. The USA may be beyond saving by now... unless there's some serious reform of the US legal system... which I doubt... so... the USA's well & truly screwed
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Leo
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Trump is a spectacular dumbshit like Reagan, the candidate to which he is most aptly compared — remember how that presidency fucked us. Neither of them knew shit about how to run a country. The difference was that even when suffering from Alzheimer's, Reagan was still capable of a small amount of shame. And I quote: "Oh, dear."
Re: (Score:3)
Reagan was a fairly radical departure from Carter's policies.
While there is a lot of overlap and yes, Congress makes policy and president enforces policy, how that's done does make a difference. Would the Cold War have ended if Reagan wasn't president? Would unions have fallen under their own weight if Carter was in charge?
I used to have the same attitude you demonstrate, but looking back on various presidential approaches and the outcomes, I don't hold your same views any longer. Presidents do make a dif
Re: (Score:2)
The popularity of Reagan enabled a pretty drastic shift to the political right for the US. Sure, some degree of this was likely inevitable given the wax and wane of political movements but it likely wouldnt have been so significant without such a massively popular president like Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the USA is running a global empire there's not much they can really say about international law, human rights, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., without sounding like a total hypocrites. Yeah, keep defending & protecting Israel while they drop US bombs on schools, hospitals, & refugee camps, & openly declaring genocide against the population they're occupying. Then there's the USA's support & tactical involvement in the Saudi's war crimes in Yemen.
Re: Where would we be? (Score:2)
More Billy Beer?
Jimmy Carter: Energy and the National Goals (1979) (Score:2)
[1]https://www.americanrhetoric.c... [americanrhetoric.com]
" ... We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
All the traditions of our past,
[1] https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycartercrisisofconfidence.htm
Happy Birthday (Score:5, Insightful)
While I didn't care for his politics or many of the things during his presidency....I do admire his humanity endeavors.....he seemed to be a good person. He acted to help his fellow man.
I actually had a brush with fame...meeting him and Rosalyn on Bourbon Street in New Orleans...I guess some time maybe around 1986 or so?
I was walking down the street, it was slightly crowded on a weeknight...I saw these guys coming towards me with the shades and earphones...and then I saw Jimmy and his wife...I reached forward to shake his hand and he smiled and shook it...said a few words and they were off again....
Happy Birthday Jimmy.
It's not easy to make it a 100yrs...congrats on a life well spent so far....
Re: (Score:3)
I came here to say pretty much what you said, although I never encountered him in person. I didn't like most of his policies, I would have expected more backbone from an Annapolis graduate, but I respect his sincerity and his insistence in doing what's right, not what's expedient. Happy Birthday, Mr. President, and may there be many more!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> towards socialism and economic destruction
ahh, tacit admission that conservatives have been plugging this stupid line for almost 50 fucking years and it hasn't happened. Didn't happen under Carter nor Clinton nor Obama nor Biden and I will bet $10k that Harris doesn not implement "socialism" in the US either.
no more coddling conservative bullshit unless that eat some fat fucking humble pie about every lie they've been selling since reagan (where are the mass vaccination deaths and nationwide mandated you lying fucking liars)
Re: (Score:2)
> and I will bet $10k that Harris doesn not implement "socialism" in the US either.
I hope she doesn't get the chance to do so either....
;)
Re:Legacy of weakness (Score:4, Insightful)
The term "socialism" as used by the American right is not what anybody else in the world thinks of as "socialism" - it came from Reconstruction era (and later Civil Rights era) requirements for public education to include the freed slaves and their children. Since doing ANYTHING for the public good was going to include the Blacks, the racist right (Democrats originally, shifted to Republicans later) immediately labels any such act as "socialism" and demonizes it.
Re: (Score:2)
> The term "socialism" as used by the American right is not what anybody else in the world thinks of as "socialism" - it came from Reconstruction era (and later Civil Rights era) requirements for public education to include the freed slaves and their children. Since doing ANYTHING for the public good was going to include the Blacks, the racist right (Democrats originally, shifted to Republicans later) immediately labels any such act as "socialism" and demonizes it.
The “racist” right? Please. Drop the partisan bullshit already. If Republicans were THAT fucking bent over socialism, none of them would dare even take a taxpayer-funded salary. They do. Every one of them. They don’t just tolerate Social Security. They contribute to it, and take those checks when qualified.
Now, if you want to address the REAL problem with American “socialism”, let’s talk about how much that border wall is gonna cost both Democrat and Republican taxp
A great human being but a poor President.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have lots of respect for Carter as a humanitarian.... but lately, I've read a lot of revisionist history about his presidency on Reddit and other sites.
Inflation was TERRIBLE during his term of office, for starters. He's responsible for giving away the Panama Canal, as well as totally fumbling the Iranian hostage crisis (fixed by Ronald Reagan shortly after he took office).
It's borderline insane people are making claims, now, that he was responsible for giving America a "strong economy" and other nonsense....
Reagan Fixed the Hostage Crisis? (Score:2)
I mean, yeah, in as much as he's the one that broke it I guess that counts.
It's a well established historic fact that Ronald Reagan arranged for the hostages to be held until after the election so he could win.
The fact that didn't end the Republican party for the next 50 years is one of my Country's greatest failures. It's why we're on the brink of a dictator ship.
As for Carter's inflation response, yeah, he fucked up. It was caused by OPEC (our entire economy was built on cheap gas). He should'
Re: (Score:1)
> It's a well established historic fact that Ronald Reagan arranged for the hostages to be held until after the election so he could win.
>
[citation needed]
Lefties have been making that claim forever, and have yet to produce one whit of evidence backing it up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> I have lots of respect for Carter as a humanitarian.... but lately, I've read a lot of revisionist history about his presidency on Reddit and other sites.
> Inflation was TERRIBLE during his term of office, for starters. He's responsible for giving away the Panama Canal, as well as totally fumbling the Iranian hostage crisis (fixed by Ronald Reagan shortly after he took office).
> It's borderline insane people are making claims, now, that he was responsible for giving America a "strong economy" and other nonsense....
I'm old enough to say I was there at the time, and pretty much disagree with you. Maybe I agree on the Panama canal, but that's kind of a minor item.
With respect to inflation, and the economy, these things operate on a lag to presidential (and congressional) terms. Carter appointed Volcker, and Reagan enjoyed the credit for the corresponding drop in inflation (Reagan extended the tradition of good heads of the Fed with the Greenspan appointment, and I think they've pretty much all been good since Volcker)
Re: (Score:3)
> The thing I liked least about Carter was how he pronounced "nuclear" as "noo-kyoo-lar". But, given that he had commanded a nuclear sub and become president I have learned to let that one go.
Carter never held a command in the Navy (and was never a "nuclear engineer"). The closest he got was XO. He never even served on a nuclear sub. While he did, by all accounts, an excellent job as a junior officer and rendered honorable service, his naval career has been wildly exaggerated by many, both for political reasons and in some cases simply becoming a kind of folk "fish story" where things grew out of control from one mouth to another. To his credit, he's always been honest about what he did and did
Re:A great human being but a poor President.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too many people give credit to the president who was in office when things are either bad or good. The 1970s were a generally terrible time, you had the mess at the end of Vietnam, high inflation, and that caused a lot of misery. The Fed raised interest rates through the roof, effectively killing the economy to "fight inflation", and it didn't really work. So, Carter being president back then...all the people remember the misery, and that Carter was president. On the flip side, the 1990s, we had the tech sector booming, the Internet surged in popularity and access grew to the point where everyone could get on the Internet, and we had Bill Clinton as president, so Clinton was seen as being wonderful, just because he was president during good times. Reagan came in during good times, but 8 years of Reaganomics and trickle down economics really hurt the economy and put us into a recession, but people remembered the good times before things fell apart.
It normally will take 4-8 years of a policy being in effect to really see what effect that policy would have. A pro-education president that pushed for improved public schools....we wouldn't see the full impact of THAT for over 20 years, because we would then see what would happen if children had properly funded schools from the very beginning.
A great human being but a decent President.... (Score:3)
> I have lots of respect for Carter as a humanitarian.... but lately, I've read a lot of revisionist history about his presidency on Reddit and other sites.Inflation was TERRIBLE during his term of office, for starters.
Not really sure you can blame Carter here. Inflation was terrible before he took office, too. Nobody remembers Gerald Ford's solution to inflation? Giving out pins that said "W.I.N." (for "Whip Inflation Now"). The consensus among economists is that it was Paul Volcker's actions with the Fed in 1979 that finally tamed inflation, and he was appointed by Carter.
> He's responsible for giving away the Panama Canal,
as well as totally fumbling the Iranian hostage crisis (fixed by Ronald Reagan shortly after he took office).
Given that the hostages were released b
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the hostages were released by Iran on January 20, literally the same day Reagan was inaugurated, there's really no way to credit Reagan with "fixing" the hostage crisis.
I don't know if it's true or not, but what I heard at the time is that Reagan had made it clear that if the hostages weren't released before he took office he wouldn't honor any of the agreements with Iran and negotiations would have to start over. That's why the hostages were released when they were because they didn't want t
Re: (Score:2)
There weren't any agreements with Iran for Reagan to not honor.
Would make sense that the Iranians wouldn't want to negotiate with Reagan, but the Iranians were in fact the main reason Reagan became president in the first place. And, for that matter, they showed no signs of sense, then or since.
Re: (Score:3)
Carter's best work was after his presidency, such as Habitat for Humanity.
As a President which I saw first hand he:
- created an economy later called Stagflation which strangled the US economy
- that led to a cycle of staggering inflation and high interest rates
- was defeatist in the competition with the USSR
- generally appeased opponents of any flavor: USSR, OPEC, Panama, communist funded European nuclear freeze groups to mention a few
- his weakness as a leader led to the Iran hostage crisis: they were confi
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there's some kind of inverse relationship there. Great person, poor President, or great President, terrible person.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about revisionist history! Reagan didn't fix shit other than to be someone other than Carter. Iran let the hostages go when Carter left office as a final poke in the eye for letting the Shah go to the hospital in the US. The Iranians would have freed the hostages if a turnip had become president. Carter was blindsided by the Iranians because he was listening too much to Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziski, who was an over the top anti Soviet. And the shitty Shah was also anti-Soviet, kinda. And I've never mis
Re: (Score:2)
> I have lots of respect for Carter as a humanitarian.... but lately, I've read a lot of revisionist history about his presidency on Reddit and other sites.
> Inflation was TERRIBLE during his term of office, for starters.
Inflation happens due to many different factors, the current executive isn't really among them.
> He's responsible for giving away the Panama Canal, as well as totally fumbling the Iranian hostage crisis (fixed by Ronald Reagan shortly after he took office).
> It's borderline insane people are making claims, now, that he was responsible for giving America a "strong economy" and other nonsense....
How did Reagan fix the Iranian hostage crisis? The deal to release them was made by Carter, they hostages probably had to stay in captivity longer just so they were released when Reagan took office.
Note, I don't think it's the case that [1]Reagan scuttled the negotiations to influence the election [wikipedia.org] (way too risky, though Iran might have wanted Carter defeated for their own reasons). But there's no reason to give Reaga
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_October_Surprise_theory#Declassified_1980_CIA_memo
Son of a Depression era farmer? (Score:2)
But he was born before the Great Depression started...
Re:Son of a Depression era farmer? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean... he remained his father's son during any Depression era farming. Parents do have a habit of doing things after one is born but still a child :)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you mean time kept moving forward after Carter was born!?
Wrong headline (Score:1)
"Old fart refuses to die already." TFTFY
Re: (Score:2)
He said he’s staying alive long enough to vote against Trump.
Happy Birthday, Mr. President. (Score:5, Insightful)
He may not have been a good President but at least he was honest.
In my opinion, Jimmy Carter was the last honest and ethical person to hold the office of President of the United States.
It's been a parade of lying amoral corporate whores ever since, with a demented con man who wants to return to office thrown in the mix.
This is what happens after decades of having to choose between the lesser of two evils, I guess. Whatever happens next is yet to be seen but I'm pretty sure we're close to the end of the United States, although I welcome any evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
At least I never had to hear W weepily tell America how he hadn't actually cheated on his wife but had "sinned in his heart." Honest or not, that's really inappropriate for a Presidential address.
He's still President Carter (Score:2)
Presidents get to keep their title. It's not as if "President Carter" is dead-naming him.
Secret To Long Life? (Score:1)
Is living to 100 a miracle or just privileged health care? The guy gets access to drugs and treatment before they even get to market. The average American will never get that kind of health care.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the form of a joke:
Q: When is assassinating the head of state not a provocation intended to trigger a war?
A: When it's a failed state.
Like Lebanon. Am I ROFLMAO yet? Especially considering that Israel probably deserves most of the credit for creating modern Lebanon. Shall we next consider Gaza and the West Bank? Now the messes in Syria and Iraq are different. I think responsibility for those messes are divided among a bunch of players, but we still get to abhor Russia and Iran for abhorring vacuums! (Abh
Re: (Score:2)
Hezbollah isn't a state.
Re: (Score:3)
> Hezbollah isn't a state.
It isnt. Meanwhile in other news Israel is currently invading (or at least engaging in a major military operation against) the nation state of Lebanon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lebanon has had 30+ years to evict them, but they didn't. They should be thanking Israel for finally doing what their impotent government and military couldn't do.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
If Lebanon had asked them for help in dealing with Hezbollah you'd have a point. As it is, all you're doing is peddling a fantasy if you're trying to characterize this as anything good for the people of Lebanon. There's already a million displaced people [1]https://news.un.org/en/story/2... [un.org] in that poor and small country of around 5 million people and things are only going to get worse.
[1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1155141
Carter Center monitored Lebanon? (Score:2)
It's called divide and conquer. First time I heard about it was in relation to Caesar's campaign against the future French, though the strategy is much older than that.
You have to feel sorry for the people of Lebanon. Even if they are descendants of those nasty Phoenicians or Canaanites or whatever. But a lot of people hold it against Jimmy Carter that he was so sincere about feeling sorry for suffering people.
Sadly, I think the main lesson of Jimmy Carter's life seems to be that the American presidency is
Re: (Score:2)
A nice guy, and honest guy, and a nerd who did his homework while in office and studied all the policies. He got stuck with a terrible job, the economic shakeup from Nixon lead to immense inflation that Carter took the blame for. He was the first of the "outsider" presidents who weren't Washington insiders or darlings of party bosses, and so the legislature really didn't trust him. He didn't like doing politics, possibly why he's still admired after this long even by those on the other side of the politi
Re: (Score:2)
Because Lebanon isn't unified, it's a fragile standoff between powerful groups. Now, many of the groups wouldn't mind seeing Hezbollah get a come-uppance, but with a full blown indiscriminate attack it's just serving to cement the distrust of anything Israeli.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Creating a massive humanitarian crisis in Lebanon won't solve Israel's long term security needs. All something like this guarantees is that Hezbollah (when it rebuilds) or whoever replaces them has broad support amongst the Lebanese people.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Lebanon apparently can't control its territory well enough to prevent segments of its population from committing acts of war against Israel.
You shoot rockets at an armed state, you should expect a military response.
Unfortunately, there is no better way to handle it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I dont disagree in the context of immediate events. In the broad context of history though, Israel is responsible for a lot of the modern ill-will the people of the region hold towards them. I mean, the whole thing with establishing the country there to begin with was just pure colonization, according to British census there were only around 10,000 jews living in that region before Britain started the Jewish colonial movement as a way to provide a "homeland" for European Jews. Turns out the locals didn't li
Re:You are pro-Genocide (Score:5, Informative)
Whoops, Jewish population in the region in1918 was 56,000, not 10,000 [1]https://www.un.org/unispal/doc... [un.org] . Still though, there was just a town's worth of Jews living there prior to British efforts.
[1] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-206581/
Re: (Score:1)
> You shoot rockets at an armed state, you should expect a military response.
What a great argument for Iran invading and blowing up Israel. "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knew exactly what he was doing when he ordered the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus two weeks ago, killing Iran’s top soldier Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, among other IRGC commanders.
This attack went well beyond the existing tactics of limiting the arms flow to Hezbollah, the Lebanese movement, or pushing back Iranian-backed groups from its northern border.
Re: (Score:1)
> I think responsibility for those messes are divided among a bunch of players
Yes. We know exactly who they are. Israel was founded by the US through the UN in the British partition of Palestine, after the UK backed away from the plan thanks to lobbying efforts by T.E. Lawrence and others. Records were kept, and are readily available. Their PM is an American citizen, and the funding for maintaining it and its apartheid and colonialism has consistently come from US.
WE are responsible. WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES who are paying for genocide . This was clearly what was intended, a
Re: You are pro-Genocide (Score:1)
Perhaps they should stop rocketing the place then.
Re: You are pro-Genocide (Score:1)
Israel attacked an Iranian consulate recently, which is Iranian soil, so Israel is the aggressor and Iran is defending itself by your own logic.
Re: (Score:2)
which is Iranian soil
You're thinking of embassies, not consulates and even then this is something of a misconception.
Re: (Score:1)
Like always, there's a balance that's being ignored. The retaliation goes way beyond reasonable measures. Children are dying (probably they're not considered real people, or are future terrorists). When the enemy has a human shield, the good guys do not shoot through the shield.
At every turn over my lifetime, Israel has consistently undermined peace efforts, doing what is necessary to aggravate the other side. To be fair, Palestineans do the same thing. Neither side's leadership wants peace even if the p
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Because anyone who criticizes Israel in any capacity is an anti-semite.
Well guess what. Fuck off. Criticism of genocidal policies is not anti-semitic. Considering Israel is using the Nazi playbook, criticisim is wholly justified.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
> Because anyone who criticizes Israel in any capacity is an anti-semite.
Kind of like anyone who criticizes your pet war in Ukraine is a Russian Agent?
> Well guess what. Fuck off.
There's the Smooth Wombat we know. No need for logic when ad hominem will do.
> Criticism of genocidal policies is not anti-semitic.
That depends. If you're out chanting "From the river to the sea" and suggesting Israel's enemies should be allowed to fire rockets, kidnap women and children, or wipe them off the map (as they claim to want to do) then that sounds pretty anti-jewish to me. You can hand wave that you hate the country, not their religion, but what difference does it make wh
Re: (Score:2)
If a person were to say israel could have done more throughout their history with the international community to stabilize their situation..... would that make them an antisemite...? Asking for a friend.
Re: And a raging anti-semite (Score:2)
Tell your friend "yes"
Telling one side to do more while tolerating the other side to do much worse is clear discrimination.
Re: And a raging anti-semite (Score:2)
Since Israel is always paying back anything done against them tenfold. They are ones you classify as much worse right?
Antisemite, how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being against the negative actions Israel has made towards the Palestinians over the years is not antisemitism any more than being against Russian action in Ukraine makes one a russophobe. Even if you disagree with his assessments the nation state of Israel is not above critique just because of the ethnicity of the bulk of its population.
Re: (Score:1)
That depends. How do you react when Hezbollah or Hamas shoot rockets into Israel or send suicide bombers in to blow up innocent people?
Re:Antisemite, how? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate it and denounce the actions as the terror attacks they are.
Now how do you react when Israeli settlers violently attack Palestinians in unprovoked attacks and the Israeli government annexes land Palestinians are living on or dependent on for their income to build homes for their own citizens (which is called colonization)? Or, how do you react to a government keeping a people whose land they chose to occupy in thrall with no real say in how they are governed for well over half a century without even providing for a pathway towards independence or representation?
Re: (Score:2)
From the Torah, an eye for an eye. Israel is ignoring this. One death doesn't deserve a hundred in response. Innocent people are being killed, knowingly. Yes, they want to get rid of Hamas, but are attempted to utterly raze Gaza to the ground to do this. The ends to not justify the means.
Too many people are stuck trying to point to one side as pure and good and the other side as irredeemably evil. Just accept that both the leadership on both sides are guilty of major war crimes.