VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:33:20 12/10/02 Tue
Author: Liberty
Subject: Re: I like Jimmy Carter
In reply to: Tim 's message, "I like Jimmy Carter" on 05:30:11 12/10/02 Tue

>What you say in your rant may be true but Jimmy Carter does promote peace and is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not given to him because of his presidency but what he did after his preseidency.

There is a difference between promoting peace and fighting for it. Look, the best explanation I saw for this appeared in Neal Boort's column this morning (12/10). I will post it here but to avoid charges of plagerism, I wnow announce that what you see below was written by Neal Boortz and posted on his "Neal Nuze" page:

"Sorry --- I just can’t sit by and watch this Nobel Peace Prize stuff go on all day long without getting my two cents worth in.

As I said yesterday, Jimmy Carter should have rejected the prize. When Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge said that the award was meant as a denunciation of American policy toward Iraq Carter should have said, “Hey, thanks Gunnar, old pal, but you can keep the award. You have demeaned your own award by casting it as a symbol of your disagreement with American foreign policy rather than an award for individual actions taken to promote peace.” In short, Carter should have shown the dignity and statesmanship that Rudy Giuliani did in turning down that $10,000 from that Saudi prince who tied the gift to a condemnation of US policy toward the Palestinians.

Now that’s not to say that Carter hasn’t done anything to deserve the prize. He should have received the recognition back in 1978 .. but someone didn’t get the application in the mail on time.

One of the problems with a “peace prize” is that you have to define “peace” in order to figure out just what you’re celebrating. A home without children may be peaceful, but it can also be cold and empty. A home full of children and grandchildren can be anything but peaceful, while at the same time being filled with joy and love. The Soviets were fond of defining peace as “an absence of opposition to communism.” A maximum security wing at a federal prison is certainly a more peaceful place than a stadium hosting a college football game. Where would you rather spend your Saturday afternoon?

So .. just what is Jimmy Carter’s definition of peace? For that matter, how does the Nobel Committee define peace? Any American attack on Saddam Hussein would certainly alter the landscape of Iraq to from one of peace to one of war and chaos, at least for a few weeks. Does this mean that an action against Iraq is necessarily bad? Or do the ends justify the violation of the short-term peace?

The most alarming element of Carter’s recent pronouncements has been his demonstrated fealty to the United Nations. Carter is among those who seem to think that the United States is a political subsidiary of the UN, and that UN permission is required before the United States acts in what it believes to be its own interests. Carter says, “If there is compliance as judged by the Security Council then I see no reason for conflict.” So, that’s the way it works? The United States is the target for Islamic terrorists, and we let the UN Security Council dictate how, when and where we can react to this threat? Not only does Jimmy Carter believe this, but he acts on it. Most Americans don’t realize that in 1991 Carter actively lobbied member nations of the UN Security Council to vote against any approval of President Bush’s (41) attempts to liberate Kuwait. He wrote to the head of state of every member nation of the Security Council asking for a no vote. A former president lobbying heads of state to work against a policy of a sitting president. Nice stuff.

Now don’t get me wrong. I honestly believe that Jimmy Carter is a good, decent and honest man. You can disagree with the policies while liking the policy maker. I just wish he had shown a little more dignity and refused this tainted Peace Prize."


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.