Story Comments
Posted by: lfergie812 1 year, 5 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
anickly and lib
This is getting old. Carter inherited the problems from Nixon and Ford's handling of the oil crisis of the 70's just as the next president will inherit the problems that this administration has created. Inflation is coming. Every time the price of energy goes up everything else is close behind. We're seeing it now with the increase of shipping which will make product you buy more expensive.
To curb the inflation of the '70's the Federal Reserve Bank raised the interest rates. Not Carter because the president doesn't set the interest rates.
People quit buying products in the '70's, just as they are doing today, and that caused people to be laid off, just as it's starting now, so unemployment goes up. It's a matter of economics. Companies cannot keep people on the payroll when they're not selling their product. Just wait.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
ppiittuu1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
oh brother... this is where i came in...
just as i give this forum another try, this nonsense reminds me of the b*llsh*t that inevitably starts.
yo, nospin and djn3 i have a suggestion for you and your ilk, how about a nice hot cup of shut-the-hell-up...
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"oh brother... this is where i came in...
just as i give this forum another try, this nonsense reminds me of the b*llsh*t that inevitably starts.
yo, nospin and djn3 i have a suggestion for you and your ilk, how about a nice hot cup of shut-the-hell-up... "
I couldn't help but notice that you ppiituu couldn't help yourself and joined right into the fray. Thank you pot for calling the kettle black. But I don't really care if you take your own advice.
Reply -
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"just as i give this forum another try, this nonsense reminds me of the b*llsh*t that inevitably starts."
You should feel honored mine is the first comment you read then....and welcome back. See I can be quite nice!
....oh, and what DJN said. Ironic, isn't it? You actually posted something that made me agree with DJN.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've got to be kidding. Carter stripped the military and then couldn't understand why there wasn't a single military unit that could handle a hostage rescue. He's also the "relevant" one who ordered no military response from the Marines when they stormed the embassy and also ordered all heavy weapons out prior. Great move. Marines that can't fire and all but a few round to fight with had he actually given the order. What a joke.
Had Carter acted like the President instead of a socialistic peace-nick, we might not face the dangers we do today from this area. Had we gone into Afghanistan on 15-Feb-1979 and hunted down the group that sponsored the killing of our ambassador, radical Islam wouldn't have had the b-lls to attack our embassy in Iran. To bad he didn't react when our embassy was taken. That is an act of war in the civilized world. Had we taken Sadr and his people out then, Iran wouldn't be the problem they are today.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Carter stripped the military and then couldn't understand why there wasn't a single military unit that could handle a hostage rescue. He's also the "relevant" one who ordered no military response from the Marines when they stormed the embassy and also ordered all heavy weapons out prior."
What are you talking about?
Three things here.
1. Carter did NOT, contrary to popular belief "strip the military, just as Clinton did not strip the military. That is a baldfaced LIE. In fact, Carter, in his 1979 budget request, requested that military spending be increased substantially.
2. I can find no reputable source that suggests that when the attack took place (in a matter of minutes, by the way) that President Carter ordered no military response from the Marines.
3. What "heavy weapons"? 50 cals? Rockets? Tanks? What?
Cont.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> I can find no reputable source that suggests that when the attack took place (in a matter of minutes, by the way) that President Carter ordered no military response from the Marines.
No wonder. You're supposed to look for evidence about the response he DID order.
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What? In that terrible rescue the Navy used helicopters that were 20 years old designed for Vietnam not desert duty. It was all they had. On the cutbacks, perhaps you should talk to or at least research your heroes before they lie to you. His budget request submitted in 1979 was an increase, that's because was for the 1980 fiscal year and he already knew we were short. Most of what we were using was Vietnam left overs, way past their prime. Even the cam wasn't useful. The year before he bragged about cutting over $6 billion from the budget the year before.
On the orders, I know that was something that Kevin Hermening talked about. I've searched everything I have but can't find the reference. I know it was in the old Milwaukee Sentinel not the Journal. I know it was after he left the military but before I left for the military, so that would put it around 1981-2. Sorry that's as close as I can get on short notice.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On heavy weapons, most embassies have extra equipment. Shot Guns anti-tank/anti car bomb weapons, M60's in some cases and even Stingers at times. After the Marines in Beirut, they installed most of them on/in/around the White House grounds. Concrete barriers, M15&M16's for the uniformed Secret Service. Things drastically changed after Carter left office.
Reply -
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And that was Carter's fault? That's like blaming President Bush for the fact that he sent troops to Iraq in Humvees that were not designed or armored for the role in which they found themselves.
And don't give me any of that crap about 20 year old equipment. We still fly the B-52's, right? When did the last one of them come off the assembly line?
He raised the budget request after he realized the Soviets weren't going to abide by the treaties they had signed.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where to begin. There wasn't a treaty signed by Carter with the USSR they didn't break and he never "raised" budgets. He slashed the Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines and Coast Guard by $ 6,000,000,000. In 1970's money, that's a lot. On the Humvees, you don't remember the vehicle they were replacing do you? They were supposed to replace the venerable Jeep. canvas/cloth doors, no roll bar, no protection, armor or other urban assault protection. In fact it didn't even have a roof in combat conditions. The Humvee was a great improvement and has a bullet proof wind screen and other armor additions. It's not the best answer but was much better then the Jeep. BTW, this was another Carter slash, he thought the Jeep was fine.
On the B-52, it's a flying antique. Still capable but in a real war against an enemy with SAM's or other anti-aircraft weapons, would be sorely placed in direct combat rolls. See B2 bombers, http://www.airforce.com
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I never insulted the men lost in Carter's attempts to play hero. He sent men into a battle with old equipment not designed for desert duty. There were to many branches involved with this and they never did have a chance to train together in prep for the assault. If that wasn't bad enough, he tied the hands of the CIA and replaced many key people with political appointees. He also pulled many of the field operatives and restricted working with other nations. His contestant anti-Israel spin prevented the Mossad from sharing information and status of the hostages.
If anyone denigrated our people,the blood is on Carter's hands.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Had we gone into Afghanistan on 15-Feb-1979 and hunted down the group that sponsored the killing of our ambassador, radical Islam wouldn't have had the b-lls to attack our embassy in Iran."
What ARE you talking about? The attack on the US embassy in Iran was all about Iranians. They took the US embassy because of American interference inside of Iran. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan at all.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They took the US embassy because of American interference inside of Iran. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan at all."
Mostly it was the US support of the Shah since 1953 that did it. It was a Bush/CIA President-Carter Conflict that developed in Iran. You see Carter forced Bush to resign as the CIA chief when he became President. Then the CIA reported to Carter that all was well in Iran and they expected the Shah's regime to continue well into the next decade. They lied. Of course they knew he had cancer and wouldn't live to the next decade, much less continue his iron grip on Iran. There are many rumors about how it all played out too. But one thing is certain, after Carter, a Bush has been in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, drawing on Bani-Sadr's open discussions, it was clear the murder of Ambassador Dubs became the catalyst for the "student" lead attack on our embassy. The Shah's return might have been the excuse but they were pretty sure the US military would not attack. They felt that Carter was a weak leader and as hours turn to days, days to weeks, they were sure eventually, their demands would be met. They also knew about the press and played up to them during the election again expecting Carter to cave in. Didn't work exactly right did it? Never got the Shah back did they.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On your claims of the CIA, you're way off, where to begin? First on Bush, to be the director of the CIA, he resigned from the GOP and broke all ties with them. He really followed the non-partisan policy and did a rather good job. Carter, who seems to lie, I mean claim he wants to work with all people promptly fired Bush the same day he took office. Which is his right but it was a little funny how he did it. Typical for a farmer, not a President.
As to informing Carter of problems in Iran and Afghanistan, that actually is credited to Nassiri, Chief of Savak. He personally delivered a message to President Carter from the Shah advising him of the impending revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan late summer early fall, 1978. Carter ignored both thinking it was an attempt to get US troops into Iran. How things would have been different had Carter actually listened. He permitted radical Islam to grow nice job peanut boy.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well skippy that's the difference between you and me. I can read. The first attack by fundamentalist/radical Islam wasn't in Iran, it was in Afghanistan. On February 14, 1979, shortly after eight in the morning, Ambassador Dubs, was kidnapped and murdered by radical Islamic terrorists. Evidence produced over the years points to connections with elements of the KGB and other terrorist supporting nations.
Another Carter error. While other nations increased protections in the embassies, Carter was concerned that it would appear hostile so he left the embassies less protected.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, pal, I never said that it was. So, maybe your reading comprehension isn't as good as you think it is.
Dubs was killed in a shootout when the Soviet supported Afghan military and Soviet advisers stormed the rooms in the Kabul hotel where Dubs was being held.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, from my posting, I believe that's what I said. There was KGB involvement, on both sides. Does it surprise you really? Play both sides, make sure the person you want dead is dead. Carter's reaction was a minor protest. As always, restraint, fear, and hiding in the White House.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I give up - Propeller is acting CRAZY. I've been trying to post a reply to aniokly, NOT to lfergie812!!
ani --
Carter is much less senile than you may ever be.
No one knows for sure how many nukes Israel has because they won't TELL anyone.
EVERYONE knows that Israel has nukes, even though they refuse to acknowledge it.
Israel is NOT a signer of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran IS a signer of that treaty.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So we should declare war and destroy Iran, as an Israeli proxy.
The intersection of evangelicals and zionists and the super rich and their faux news murdock controlled brainwashed brown shirt facists.
The zionist believes that the jews were "chosen" by "god" to form a racially pure jewish religious state.
A christian zionist believes that by securing the "holy land", the jews are preparing the way for the rapture.
Israel does'nt need to or want to talk about its nuclear capacity, since it's completely indefenceable and hypocritical for them to have nukes and Iran not. Besides, the christians just love a holy war against muslims, why should they sacrifice their chosen children when they can have the brown shirt evangelical christians fight their wars?
Reply-
-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Looks like the experts disagree with you.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran's suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remains "a matter of serious concern" and continues to need "substantial explanations."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/africa/2...
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You want to bomb Iran for being "uncooperative".
Bush wanted to invade Iraq because he said Saddam was being "uncooperative". Oh, wait ... Bush DID invade Iraq.
And, the invasion occurred even though there were no WMDs, and even though the inspectors WERE still in Iraq and Iraq WAS still cooperating with them.
No wonder you love Bush and Cheney so much ... you apparently subscribe to there agenda instead of the truth and instead of diplomacy.
Reply-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> Iran is threatening Israel, but Iran has no nuclear weapons, and there is NO proof that they are even trying to build any...
...and I'm still waitning for you to explain how will Iran possibly use those hundreds of medium-range (about 3200 kilometers) missiles it acquired during the last several years. These missiles cost about $3 Million a pop and are completely unuseable without warheads.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> WHAT proof is there that Iran has any of those "$3 Million a pop" missiles?
Here:
A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.
Gen Koussechi added: "We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/15634...
Are you suggesting that General Koussechi, a senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, is A LIAR and that YOU know better? If so can you show your credentials?
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to the URL you provided, the U.S. had said that they had identified 2000 targets in Iran. I expect that Koussechi wanted to counter that threat.
I believe, as the article put it, he engaged in a response in the "war of words" between Iran and the U.S.
I don't know that Koussechi is lying, nor do I know that he is telling the truth - and neither do you.
If you think he is telling the truth, you have to take his word for it, because him SAYING that they have those missiles is not proof that they do have them.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> WHAT proof is there that Iran has any of those "$3 Million a pop" missiles?
Here:
A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.
Gen Koussechi added: "We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/15634...
Are you saying that General Koussechi, a senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, is A LIAR and that YOU know better? If so can you show your credentials?
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"These missiles cost about $3 Million a pop and are completely unuseable without warheads. "
They're completely useable with conventional warheads. Last time I checked the US has plenty of medium-range (not to mention long-range) missiles with conventional warheads.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> They're completely useable with conventional warheads.
Yes, of course. The question is who will be willing to pay $3 million to deliver some conventional explosives over 2000 kilometers hoping to damage a building within a radius of 10 kilometers at best... especially considering the tremendous success of such missiles Saddam used against Israel during the first Guld war.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Per to the URL you provided, the U.S. had said that they had identified 2000 targets in Iran. I expect that Koussechi wanted to counter that threat.
I believe, as the article put it, he engaged in a response in the "war of words" between Iran and the U.S.
I don't know that Koussechi is lying, nor do I know that he is telling the truth - and neither do you.
If you think he is telling the truth, you have to take his word for it, because him SAYING that they have those missiles is not proof that they do have them.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do not have any reasons to think that General Koussechi is lying considering HUNDREDS(!) of reports supporting his claims. You may, of course, pretend to know nothing about anything if you wish giving me a reason to support MY claims... like this one, for example:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename...
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok ... one test of a missile. So they had at least one of those missiles. I suppose they could have more.
But - again - how many and how good they are or what they are, you don't know unless you can find an article where someone conducted an inventory and published it.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I've said there are HUNDREDS of articles about Iranian missiles and their capabilities. It is pretty boring, however, to continue this process of arguing an epitome of denial. In addition, I do not think that YOU believe your own claims about Iran not having missiles.
You know how they call people that do not believe their own claims, don't you?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let us suppose for a moment (LOL...) that General Koussechi DID NOT lie and that those hundreds of reports and TV documentaries about Iranian missiles are NOT fake...
... HOW will Iran possibly use these missiles without nuclear warheads considering that conventional warheads are about as usable with such missiles as concrete blocks? Are Iranian leaders SO DUMB that they're willing to send hundreds of Millions to be able to destroy a couple of random buildings in larger Tel Aviv triggering massive Israeli (and, probably, American) response?
Reply-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> Those missiles are completely useable with conventional warheads.
Yes, they are. As I've explained on multiple occassions one has to be pretty dumb to use them this way considering Saddam's experience with SCUD missiles during the first Gulf war. You see, such missile is capable of delivering up to one ton of conventional explosives over a pretty long distance. The best one can hope to achieve with such action is to damage a random building within a 10-kilometer radius, possibly killing one or even several people. Is it worth paying $3 million for it?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Daylight1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DropkickaLib
Isreal has had nuclear weapons since before the 1973 Yom Kippur War and has never used or threatened to use them. Iran is already threatening Isreal and hasn't even finished weapons development.
Any Muslim country has the right to threaten Israel or even go to war with Israel because Israel doesn't belong here and Israel is an illegal entity supported by Zionists of the US and Europe. They are sitting on the land of the Jews, Christians and Muslims and over 7 million Palestinians are refugees and they have no been allowed to return home.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
aniokly, Seems to me that even though Israel's nuclear secret is among the worst kept secrets on earth, having Jimmy Carter validate it serves to curb Israel's enemies, not embolden them.
I take it you just hate Democrats in general and Jimmy Carter in particular. You can't be bothered to think through what the impact of ether's actions might actually be.
Reply -
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Should have been a neg.
What does it matter if Hamas has that knowledge. What does it matter who has that knowledge. The fact of the matter is they have it and will use it. So the world better be prepared. Everyone in the world knew they had the weapons anyway.
You are such a hater of people better than you.
How have you helped the world? What have you done to make it better for the less fortunate?
You are the goof. You and those like you who fail to see what is in front of your eyes.
Carter took the hit for the Republican faulures of Nixon and Ford. Reagan stepped in when things were already starting to turn around and took credit just like the actor he was.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Carter took the hit for Nixon and Ford????
Nixon had inflation. Ford by vetoing a lot of spending bills that the Democrats threw at him had the inflation flattening out. The rate of increase was dropping. Then we had Carter. He signed everything in sight except no military increases. Inflation went into double digits and we had stagflation. I had some of my best raises then just to hold even with inflation. That didn't slow down until Reagan took office and started holding the Democrats feet to the fire and got the runaway spending under control.
Why do Democrats like to change history?
Reply-
-
-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Is Carter sending Hamas a message? I am sure they would like to know how many nukes Isreal has, and what better way to find them then to hire out a senile old Democrat. He is such a goof."
Are you retarded? As if telling someone that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons will give that other person a tactical advantage in any way.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Admitting Israel has weapons violates our own agreements with other nations in the non-proliferation treaties. That plus if this is classified as top secret, Carter just violated the National Security Act of 1947 concerning former presidents and what they know and can release.
Reply-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user12 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ifergie,
Carter is getting free transportation and mouthpieces. He was president of the United States, and is now embarrassing all of us by his undiplomatic ego-driven talking with bad people, instead of visiting our friends and cementing our good relationships.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
Neutral
hdthehn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ani-
To follow the republican train of wisdom shouldn't we invade, conquer and occupy Israel for possessing WMD. I mean if it's a fair application for religious zealots in Iraq shouldn't it apply to the religious zealots in Israel, or as is typical of the hypocrisy of the current administration ruled by the GOP should we apply a double standard?
Apply the double standard, you will sleep better tonight wrapped in your blanket of hypocrisy.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
hdthehn1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> "they haven't nuked anyone yet"
> Neither has Iraq or Iran, so what is your point?
The point, probably, is that both Iraq and Iran threatened to to destroy Israel, a sovereign state and a UN member. Israel, on the other hand, did not threaten and did not try to destroy any other state.
And don't try using another double standard.
Reply-
Neutral
hdthehn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tinker-
Q Where did Israel get the land the nation currently resides on. A. They stole it from the Palistinians, and continue the theft every chance they have.
And of course Israel never threatens any other country and neither does the US. Vietnam, Iraq, Iran,.....
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> Q Where did Israel get the land the nation currently resides on. A. They stole it from the Palistinians, and continue the theft every chance they have.
I'll gladly agree with you right after you'll SHOW ME THE DEED proving that the land the nation of Israel currently resides on belongs to the 'Palistinians' (sic).
While you're looking for this deed please consider that in 1948 when Israel declared its independence 'PALESTINIANS' were unknown to the world. They were invented 20 years later, in 1968, when the Palestinian Charter containing the first and only official definition of 'Palestinians' was written and accepted.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
rightfromwrong1 year, 5 months ago
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"An honest man would not publish a blatant lie calling Israel an "apatrheid"."
You mean Apartheid, right?
He took an honest look at Israel and Palestine. Just because you don't like his assessment doesn't mean it's dishonest. It just means he has a lot more experience, education and knowledge than you do.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dion, do you have any clue where Carter's foundation gets it's funding from? Saudi and other oil interests. His foundation was already being funded prior to his leaving office. But again, tell me what an honest guy Carter is. He's such a humanitarian. I've been to both sides. Israel is made of of a number of nationalities and religions. They all have the right to vote. That isn't the case where in Palestine. I can't picture someone Jewish being alive trying to live in that region. They would kill them off with car bombs, terrorist attacks and the like. All in the name of allah. Carter's an Anti-Semite, who favors dictatorships to democracies.
Look at Carter's support of Marcos or Castro. Who knew that not only was he the worst president in history but is actually the worst former president too?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see only fair play, the rest of you see something sinister here, what I see is Carter saying to us you can't hold one set of peoples feet to the fire and let another set do as they please! We are on the verge of going to war with Iran because they are said to have Nuclear technology or is seeking the same, while all along Israel has been building up their stockpile! And violating the international laws. Israel must be made to follow the laws, how else are you to be taken seriouslly when on one hand you say it's ok for them to walk all over the rule of law and on the other you say this guy can't. Might make sense to you but it doesn't to me.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> We are on the verge of going to war with Iran because they are said to have Nuclear technology or is seeking the same, while all along Israel has been building up their stockpile!
The problem is not having a weapon but WHO has it. To understand this principle better you can consider the following example: Most people do not have a problem with a policeman carrying a gun but they DO HAVE a problem with a violen murderer carryingthe very same gun.
> And violating the international laws.
I'm very curious to know which international laws Israel is violating and how come India, Pakistan, China, Britain, France, Russia and the United States do not violate these laws. Care to explain?
Reply-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your analogy is foolish the consequences to Iran for using their weapon is far grater than that of a criminal for using his. They are fully aware that they would be annihilated if the use it. Israel on the other hands doesn't face that threat.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> They are fully aware that they would be annihilated if the use it. Israel on the other hands doesn't face that threat.
Did you hear about 9/11? On that day, 20 Arab Muslims murdered 3000 Americans. Incredibly, they were fully aware that they would be annihilated, by the way... Maybe, my analogy is not that "foolish" considering the willingness of some Muslim leaders to sacrifice thousands or even Millions of their citizens in order to destroy Israel. One of Iranian leaders said that in case of a nuclear war Israel would be annihilated but half of Iran would survive and therefore it made sense for him to attack Israel.
> Israel on the other hands doesn't face that threat.
I'm not sure how you arrived to this conclusion but please consider that the population of Iran is TEN TIMES higher and its territory is EIGHT HUNDRED(!) times larger than Israel. The smaller a place is the easier it is to destroy it, you know...
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Black, how can you say he's holding Hammas or the PLO to the fire? Can you actually say that if they had nukes Israel wouldn't be a waste land already? I've never seen a member of the IDF strap bombs onto his or her chest, walk into an Islamic market and blow themselves up claiming it's in the name of or glory of "God". I've never once heard Jews claim that if they kill a bunch of PLO or Hammas there's a bunch of virgins waiting for them on the other side. I've never seen Jews launch missiles into areas in the hope of finding someone to kill. If any nation earned that right, showing restraint, Israel has.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For the very same reason France and Britain needed US aid during WWII. You see, if these countries said NO to Hirler in 1938 there would be no WWII. Instead Britain, France, Soviet Union and the US preferred to let Hitler swallow one country after another hoping that he would somehow become peaceful. He did not and it took five years and 50 Million lives to stop him by force.
Similarly, the world can confront militant Islam now or let the Islamist fanatics swallow one country after another first. As someone correctly said Israel is the "canary in a coal mine".
Reply
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hold on, before you attack or blame Nixon for the oil crisis, please note he's the last president that actually have a comprehensive energy policy. His people covered the whole spectrum. Fossil, nuke, and alternative for electricity. For gasoline, they were working or at least planning to look at a number of solutions including coal & shale conversions along with other ideas. I didn't like Mr. Nixon, but in this case he was on the right track when it came to energy.
Reply -
-
Neutral
pc251 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OPEC ended its embargo in 1974. Despite that, government-imposed price controls on output and prices remained in place. They weren't fully removed until 1981. And that is Carter's fault.
When Carter came into office in January 1977, the price of a barrel of oil was about $14. When he left a mere four years later, oil â;; the lifeblood of the U.S. and world economy â;; stood at more than $35 a barrel, a 154% rise.
Pressure on oil prices built early in Carter's term in office as OPEC jacked up prices. But oil really took off in 1979, after the Shah of Iran was toppled by fundamentalist Islamic revolutionaries led by Ayatollah Khomeini. President Carter's weak and vacillating support for the Shah of Iran encouraged the rebellion.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what? you mean a prior administrations actions or inactions can make a difference?
But you see you only talk one way, that the Dems inherit problems from the Reps, but when the Reps say they have inherited some bad things due to the Dems you say it's not so.
Interesting how that works isn't it?
Reply-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It doesn't matter what I think. Carter did inherit some bad juju. Carter also appointed Volker, who moreso than Reagan brought infation under control.
But that's not how the dynamics play out. Carter's own words and that ******-poor Malaise speech caused HIM to be tagged with the nation's mood, Democrats included. Hence the term "Reagan Democrat."
Reply
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (31)
-
Ciera-Marie
-
berkeley
-
Eagle_Eye
-
tehranchik
-
joey-evans
-
cushi
-
2sidestoeverything
-
Neophile
-
ETproductions
-
Pupi
-
greenmac
-
bubba2
-
djn3nunez3
-
Colaba
-
fsev41
-
Will1313
-
Dionys
-
JohnQPublic
-
Grrr
-
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin
-
bruhaha
-
AntiNeoCon
-
GWHayduke
-
ML2007
-
transient
-
augustine974
-
cowboygrandpa
-
TheRealizer
-
MereMortal
-
bluetexasvalley
-
bamababy
vidman04
normallysilent
tanglang
automan909
DropkickaLib
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.