Printable View
IMO, he's still doing a lot better than Tony B-liar. He's making an effort, although unilateral effort, to connect the two sides in an amicable talks. Ain't he doing what we want? And he doing what Bush, the child killer ape, and Tony the clown failed to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinthee
Yeah! Right on!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
It could have been much worse like none of the choppers made it back to base, eh???:rofl:
and this is carter's fault how? specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
and before you run off to a blog to get your answer, remember that of course bush would be held to the same standard-- and the blood of those four thousand dead soldiers will be on his hands. heh. :rolleyes:
but let's get back on topic....carter meeting with hamas.
why shouldn't he? or a better question why isn't the bush administration.....after 7 years of acting like an 11 year old girl, isn't it time to try something else....like actually talking to the people you disagree with to see if you can find a solution....similar to what the reagan administration did with the soviets in the 80s.
cue boon mee disappearing from the thread before his head explodes.
For the hundredth fuckin' time, we won't 'negotiate' with these assholes so long as they advocate wiping Israel off the map. When & if they give up their unrealistic goal of eliminateing Israel, we will, most likely sit down with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
When you have a plane-load of hostages - does any "sensible" government 'negotiate'?
I don't think so...:bunny3:
Most do, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
temper, temper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
if it's 'unrealistic', wouldn't the bush administration have the upper hand in any negotiations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
so not only are you advocating pre-existing conditions to a negotiation, you won't even commit to the negotiation if the other side meets those conditions. wtf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
you've been watching those '24' DVDs again, eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Only value Carter would have would be delivering a bomb to Hamas and detonating it!! ;)
I agree that Carter is a good man but a weak President.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
As for Clinton's term, remember that Clinton played a role in the Oslo Peace Accords which caused some of the Hamas rejection. Many think Arafat sold out to Israel in this deal. Hence, Hamas. Hence, the suicide bombings.
Carter believes in dialogue, and not just refusing to talk with people.
Dunno if it's true, but I heard that Israel had a hand in creating Hamas in the early days, so that Palestinian resistance would be split and the PLO discredited.
This is just talk, and we've heard this before, and we know the pre-1967 borders have always been an issue. My point: why was the US government and Jewish Zionists and Xtians Zionists so against Carter talking with Hamas?
One reason IMO, is that many right-wing Zionists want to keep the land. Remember Amir, a 20 year old who shot and killed Yitschak Rabin.
Link: Carter: Hamas is willing to accept Israel as its neighbor - Yahoo! NewsQuote:
Carter: Hamas is willing to accept Israel as its neighbor
By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago
JERUSALEM - Former President Carter said Monday that Hamas — the Islamic militant group that has called for the destruction of Israel — is prepared to accept the right of the Jewish state to "live as a neighbor next door in peace."
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
But Carter warned that there would not be peace if Israel and the U.S. continue to shut out Hamas and its main backer, Syria.
The Democratic former president relayed the message in a speech in Jerusalem after meeting last week with top Hamas leaders in Syria. It capped a nine-day visit to the Mideast aimed at breaking the deadlock between Israel and Hamas militants who rule the Gaza Strip.
"They (Hamas) said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, if approved by Palestinians and that they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace," Carter said.
The borders he referred to were the frontiers that existed before Israel captured large swaths of Arab lands in the 1967 Mideast war — including the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza.
Can't you employ someone else to implement your terrorist plots?Quote:
Originally Posted by britmaveric
Oliver North might be a willing accomplice to consider...
Btw, I am surprised about the outright anti-Americanism expressed here targeted at a former president, including death wishes.
what's ironic, is that they imagine carter as some sort of liberal and they hate him for it...when he was actually a centrist. he turned his back on the mcgovernites and sought out the middle road....which doomed him politically.Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
Stroll - never advocated he had to stay around when he detonates it. :bunny3:
Carters dialogue with Hamas has indeed proved to be valuable, firstly by showing Hamas in a much more realistic light than the position above, which has basically been foisted on you by the Western Press. Some rabid demonstrator waving an AK47 and yelling 'death to Israel' at a funeral is not representative of the whole movement, neither does it speak for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
If the government of Israel and the US is truly interested in peace under a 'land for peace' deal, then if you read the following article, you will see such a peace can be achieved. From the Sydney Morning Herald:-
Hamas 'would conditionally accept peace'
Former US President Jimmy Carter says Hamas leaders told him they would accept a peace agreement negotiated by their rival, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, if Palestinians approved the deal in a vote.
"They said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians ... even though Hamas might disagree with some terms of the agreement," Carter said in a speech, after talks in Syria and Egypt with Hamas leaders.
"It means that Hamas will not undermine Abbas's efforts to negotiate an agreement and Hamas will accept an agreement if the Palestinians support it in a free vote," he said....
Carter said that excluding Hamas "is just not working", citing on-going violence along Israel's border with the Gaza Strip...
"We believe that the problem is not that I met Hamas in Syria," Carter said in his address.
"The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with these people, who must be involved."
He said "there's no doubt that both the Arab world and the Palestinians, including Hamas, will accept Israel's right to live in peace within the 1967 borders".
Israel captured the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war.
Abbas wants to establish a Palestinian state in both areas under a peace deal the United States hopes can be reached by the end of this year.
Full article- Hamas 'would conditionally accept peace' - Breaking News - World - Breaking News
Frankly, I think the Israeli government knows this already. It is just that large factions of it do not want you, the public to know. I am utterly sceptical of the true motive of many Israelis- it is easy enough to say you want peace (the people certainly do) but their actions over the last forty years of occupation, especially the predictable escalation of violence during peace processes, count more than hollow words. [If you want a perfect example of this, just look at their duplicity and blatant lies when they illegally developed nukes. They were taking the piss.] They however want, and need, the massive amount of funding they receive from the US on an annual basis- which is presumably why they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. The US has a lot of leverage here- much more than the rest of the world combined. It should use it more. ;)
Perhaps, putting a more benign slant on things, Israeli politics is notoriously faction ridden, and the hard line right wingers basically carry a sway beyond their electoral base (which is a distinct minority). These factions are not slow to use their balance of power to bring down a coalition, or threaten to do so- and above all, Politicians love to stay in power. Do not forget that the last Israeli PM to truly go down the road of getting a peace operational with the Pali's was assassinated by an Israeli citizen. A sad end for one of Israels greatest generals, and a man who saw the inevitability of the Palestinian cause.
It will be interesting to see the Israeli response. Not that I don't already know- it will be yet more stonewalling. Use your money, power, and influence in a positive way America- it would be a diplomatic coup for you, and all you represent. :1st:
MSNBC is reporting that has offered israel a 10 year cease fire.
nice work president carter. :1st:
surprising how a ten year cease fire wasn't offered when the US wasn't speaking to hamas. :rolleyes:
Heh...mighta expected you'd be the sort to take to the MSNBC extreme liberal garbage. Olbermann your hero, eh?:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
The 10 year cease-fire is on condition that Israel gives up all land gained during the last few wars with them A-rabs...which we know they will not do.:p
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
Quote:
September 17, 1978
Camp David Accords signed
At the White House in Washington, D.C., Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin sign the Camp David Accords, laying the groundwork for a permanent peace agreement between Egypt and Israel after three decades of hostilities. The accords were negotiated during 12 days of intensive talks at President Jimmy Carter's Camp David retreat in the Catoctin Mountains of Maryland. The final peace agreement--the first between Israel and one of its Arab neighbors--was signed in March 1979. Sadat and Begin were jointly awarded the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.
This Day in History 1978: Camp David Accords signed
You mean like GWB's pathetic and failed "Annapolis" initiative? Possibly the most insincere and feeble attempt "road-map" to "peace" ever attempted?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
GWB is good at ordering bombing when told to. He will be remembered for this. Carter, on his own, has accomplished more in two weeks than GWB/Rice could do in an entire term.
Do you? Then why does the majority of the Israeli population say otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
And why do you wish for a continuation of this conflict? Whats in it for you??
well the Bush administration is too busy dealing with domestic surveillance, illegal wiretapping and the destruction of the Constitution, so no time to deal with peace when you are at war at homeQuote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
OK, let's do this point by point, so you don't hurt yourself trying to keep up..Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
1. the story was reported everywhere....OK, perhaps not at zombieblog, but it was/is a major news story. i'm confident you'll find it even on foxnews.
2. olbermann is my hero? :rolleyes:
first of all, i just did a search, and i turns out i've linked to his analysis twice in nearly 4000 posts. not exactly hero worshiping statistics. furthermore, i made that post at midday EST and his program airs during primetime....so how would he have influenced my post?
3. answer sabang's questions in post #43.
Like it or not Hamas was democratically elected. Americans support democracy, don't they?
actually they don't, Bush wasn't elected either and yet nobody on the world stage complained about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by pickel
They will not recognize a govt that does not recognize a sovereign nations rights to exist, and I for 1 do not blame them and should never recognize a terrorist govt. no mater how it was formed or elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by pickel
Well, the US recognizes Israel and Israel didn't recognize Palestines right to exist, so the hypocracy shines through again.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
Yes and, er, no. They support democracies which toe the West's line. Democracies which choose another path tend to get overthrown in military coups. For example, in Iran in 1953, the British persuaded Eisenhower to topple the elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh because he'd nationalized the Iranian oil industry. The Shah (ie the King) was reinstalled as leader and set about crushing all political opposition. That eventually led to the Islamic Revolution in 1979... and the rest we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by pickel
Another inconvenient truth: the seeds of modern Iran's problems today were sown by us when we decided to stamp on a democracy that wouldn't do our bidding.
Source: BBC - Radio 4 - Document