today's GOP & most Dems cowards compared to Jimmy Carter on OIL & WAR link

[yurbud]

Jimmy Carter is roundly derided as a wimpy president to the point of endangering the US by the GOP, and during the Clinton years, he was often treated as an embarrassment to be ignored.

However, in one area, Jimmy Carter was far more brave than most of the members of Congress serving today, or presidential candidates running today: He was honest about oil dominating our policy in the Middle East.

In his State of the Union Address in 1980, in the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis, he said the following:

Three basic developments have helped to shape our challenges: the steady growth and increased projection of Soviet military power beyond its own borders; the overwhelming dependence of the Western democracies on oil supplies from the Middle East; and the press of social and religious and economic and political change in the many nations of the developing world, exemplified by the revolution in Iran.

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil.

Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States.

As you well know, I have been working with the Congress in a concentrated and persistent way over the past 3 years to meet this need. We have made progress together. But Congress must act promptly now to complete final action on this vital energy legislation. Our Nation will then have a major conservation effort, important initiatives to develop solar power, realistic pricing based on the true value of oil, strong incentives for the production of coal and other fossil fuels in the United States, and our Nation's most massive peacetime investment in the development of synthetic fuels.

The American people are making progress in energy conservation. Last year we reduced overall petroleum consumption by 8 percent and gasoline consumption by 5 percent below what it was the year before. Now we must do more.

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml">FULL TEXT

There were limits to Carter's honesty though. He didn't say the problem was the result of a foreign policy that put the interests of oil companies ahead of secure access to oil. If we had not overthrown the secular, elected president of Iran in 1953 to keep him from nationalizing his oil, which only would have hurt oil companies, there would have been no Shah for the Iranians to resent, overthrow, and blame us for, and no hostage crisis. Likewise, if we did not frustrate the will of the people in the region, there would have been little desire or sympathy for Soviet help, and if we had let those secular leaders protect the interests of their people, they would have been glad to sell the oil to us (who would cut off a customer that uses a quarter of the world supply of your product?)and we would not have the hostile religious regimes to deal with today.

This is the case in Iraq today. If our goal was ''access'' to oil to run our economy, there would be less resistance to the occupation, and really no need for it. There would have been no need to overthrow Saddam. All we would have had to do is make deals on terms they like, and our supply would be secure.

Instead, Bush is trying to force a Hydrocarbon Law on the Iraqis that rips off the country of 88% of their oil income from new fields, a deal so abusive that members of the Iraqi parliament won't vote for it even after being offered $5 million bribes EACH by big oil.

Carter was also not blunt about the opposition to switching to alternative fuels: big oil and Wall Street in general like things that can be monopolized, speculated on, and that shortages of can be created. That is difficult to do with the sun and the wind. If GE charged too much for electricity from a large scale solar power plant, it wouldn't take too much imagination for a home owner to decide to slap some solar panels on his roof and make his own electricity. That isn't an option if we only think of energy as coming from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power.

Jimmy Carter took a major hit in popularity for suggesting we need to conserve, but it was the truth.

Politicians avoid following his example because they are like teenagers who know their parents will never give them permission to go to a kegger, so they tell them it's a church social instead. There is a kind of cleverness in that but not courage.

[yurbud]

1. proves it again: Jimmy Carter says Israel had 150 nuclear weapons

Israel has 150 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, former President Jimmy Carter said yesterday, while arguing that the US should talk directly to Iran to persuade it to drop its nuclear ambitions.

His remark, made at the Hay-on-Wye festival which promotes current affairs books and literature, is startling because Israel has never admitted having nuclear weapons, let alone how many, although the world assumes their existence. Nor do US officials deviate in public from that Israeli line. Carter, who has immersed himself since his presidency in Israeli-Palestinian relations, was highly critical of Israeli settlers on the West Bank, and of Israel's refusal to talk to elected officials of the Islamic party Hamas, although he said that Israel's security was his prime concern.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4004300.ece

[Indenturedebtor]

2. Carter has done a lot of good in the past, and his hearts in the right place.

But he really should have shut the hell up about the nukes. Israel will NEVER give up it's nukes. Imagine that the US was the size of CT in the middle of a group of countries the size of Europe who all had sworn to kill you and your children.

I swear, it seems as though many here know nothing about the history of the region except what you're learned on some Palestinian web site.

All this will accomplish is to further isolate Israel in the international community, and this will be used by other countries to justify their nuclear ambitions.

If you think there is no greater threat to world peace in Iran/Syria having nukes than Israel, you're either lying or you need to pay more attention.

If Carter is such a hero, then why isn't he trying to get the US to stop gearing up for war? Why isn't he calling us out on our wars of imperialism? It seems as though he's set his sites on hurting Israel as much as possible, even though Hamas basically told him to go fuck himself.

Personally I think that there are too many ex Presidents running around trying to twist arms. There's a reason why we have term limits. It's not 4 years of service, and then 48 of directing US foreign policy. Surely you can appreciate that, no matter what ax you have to grind with Israel.

[yurbud]

3. Did he ask for Israel to give up its nukes? His statement is just a fact to counterbalance

fear-mongering about Iran's nukes.

Just as before the Iraq War, when Americans forgot we have 10,000 nukes so neither Saddam nor anyone else would ever dare nuke us, Americans are not only forgetting that again, but most never knew that Israel has nukes.

As far as I can remember, Israel has not been invaded by a foreign army since they have had nukes. They are fighting with Palestinians, and, since they invade Lebanon every once in a while, Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon.

[Indenturedebtor]

4. Sorry but he couldn't possibly be hoping to "counterbalance"

Unless he's going senile. He didn't ask them to give up their nukes, but again - they wouldn't, and all this will do is arm Iran with an argument for armament. Unless he's pro-proliferation I can't find any good rationale for this action. :shrug:

[yurbud]

5. so you think the best way for Israelt to deal with neighbors is exterminate them?

and for us to join Israel in lying about what everybody who follows the news already knows?

[Indenturedebtor]

6. Of course not! Where did you get that in my statements?

One of the differences between Israel having nukes and say Iran: is that Israel doesn't try to unite it's populace behind the cause of killing every last man woman and child of Iran.

No need to lie, but why talk about it?

It's like being the best man at a wedding and making a speech about all the girls the groom has slept with. Sure everyone knows he's no virgin, but what purpose does it serve but to possibly throw a wrench in the marriage. The marriage btw is peace and NOT having a nuke go off in haifa.

Carter did something really stupid. It happens. This is part of the reason why many people don't want a 80 year old president. He needs to go campaign against world hunger/poverty/for ecology. He should no longer be involved in foreign relations.

[yurbud]

7. Khatami offered a comprehensive peace deal that Bush snubbed and they offered

another one right after we invaded Iraq.

By treating them like suicidal nuts, we increased the chances that they will behave that way.

[Indenturedebtor]

9. I agree that our actions didn't help.

And that our relations with them and their attitude towards us didn't spring from nowhere.

Be that as it may, at the moment they are a very hostile nation and one of their leaders has expressed a desire to wipe Israel off of the map. They proudly fund and promote terrorism in Israel. I do think that we should work to limit their access to nukes. But of course this works against that goal does it not?

And engaging them in a constructive dialogue is the only way forward of course. But how does this add to that dialogue? Carter needs to shut the hell up and stop meddling. He's not helping anything and he's recently been doing everything he can to earn the distrust and enmity of Israel. On that score he has about as much chance at reducing tensions in the ME as Boosh does. Boosh has royall pissed off pretty much every Muslim country around the world.

[Clark2008]

8. And maybe you need to visit more Palestinians websites

and get a broader understanding regarding the whole of the region and not just from Israel's point of view.

Pssst... my first husband is Palestinian and my current (and last) husband is Jewish and took a sojourn to the homeland a few years back. I think I *have* said broader understanding, so I'm not just blowing out my ass here.

[Indenturedebtor]

10. I have visited more than a few

And though many are full of one-sided hatred and flat out BS (I remember one claiming that Israel was routinely bombing schools), they are useful to gain insight on what people are saying. In fact if you've been to Jerusalem perhaps you got to see the lovely museum by the Dome of the Rock? The hall of martyrs I think it's called. It's the one full of bloody t-shirts from the people who were dropping 50lb boulders on the heads of praying Jews. But of course there's no mention of the boulders only that they were martyred because they were killed while minding their own business :eyes:

After that you get to go into the Dome where you are warned by thugs that if you pray to anyone but Allah bad things will happen to you. Good times.

Personally I prefer to look at what the UN and international community verifies in terms of casualties, actions taken, etc. I have a few relatives in Israel, my Brother made Aliyah a couple years back, and have spent about 2 months there (going back for 1.5 week this December). I know that the Israeli people on the whole want peace. They are less hostile towards muslims and arabs than most Americans are.