News, Carter blasts Bush on his global impact. (military, percentage, President)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by happyappy

Who knows but that Bush is a nice guy, and if he could have been used by a less-radical ideology, say the real Republicans, that many of the policies we're saddled with now might not be altogether horrible.

And if wishes were horses beggars would ride.......................

[happyappy]

Burdell,

You wrote: "And if wishes were horses beggars would ride......................."

Yes, wishful thinking can bring about pleasant emotional states, but then reality JUST HAS TO MAKE IT ALL GO AWAY—DOESN’T IT!!! Uh-hmm; sorry about that.

[Roma]

Yeah, and Carter should talk?

[crashcop]

[quote=happyappy;749288]Gvcop32,

I see you’re not a fan of Carter!

I supported Carter in '76, and would gladly have voted for anybody else in '80.

Quite obviously he isn’t meaningless, otherwise you wouldn’t be so vehemently opposed to various and sundry things you have adopted from the writings of others regarding their view of his actions. And, of course, if those opinions are true, then he would be the opposite of meaningless.

As he is not meaningless, then as synonyms, these also would also not describe him: empty, inane, pointless, senseless.

I apply that to his current comments.

And most of these would have gotten him removed from office:

And did so in a landslide victory for his opponent.

Let’s say that I used all of the writings in your post and applied them to Bush The Second; would you then respond to me in similar fashion?

I do not believe Bush is much higher on the ladder than Carter if any.

[crashcop]

[quote=happyappy;749441]Gvcop32,

Your response to my post about your statement that “It is better to make the wrong decision than no decision at all,” is interesting reading. I’ve never studied Carter, although I voted for him, but because of this thread I may take some time and do so as I want to be able to respond properly.

But your response doesn’t address that bizarre statement you made about which I posted a reply.

The statement is not bizarre it is an old tactical philosophy. Carter's lack of action in Iran (the Shah and the hostages) still efferct the US today.

Do you think Israel or the old USSR would have left there citizens captive for over a year?

It takes much less effort to blame a single person. If only one person is to blame, why bother electing representatives or questioning appointments in this system of ours?

As Harry S Truman said "The buck stops here". His predecessors should be so enlightened.

Again, I'll take some time to study Carter and maybe resurrect this thread if it's required, but I have to be honest and admit that I already doubt I'll find he alone is responsible for all the dastardly deeds specified in your post.

I do not, nor did I say, Carter did anything "dastardly". I strongly feel all of our Presidents are/or have been good hearted. Carter was the right man at the wrong time in history. His high intellect and hands on approach, which lead to delayed decisions, just did not work during this time period.

[happyappy]

Gvcop32,

Thanks for the civil reply and qualifications; I believe I have a better understanding of your position. Although you didn’t apply the points of my previous replies exactly as I’d intended them, your responses are thought provoking and interesting.

Becoming entangled in making clarifications in discussions will likely be frequent for many of us, and I find that, in my case, it’s more or less a constant thing—at least in my own mind! And I find it necessary again: By my words you may have thought I inferred you called Carter’s deed dastardly; however, I meant that they were alluded to in your post although not by you.

I believe there are NEVER occasions when making the wrong decisions are better than making no decisions at all—but it’s a matter of phrasing. What kind of person who knew that a decision was wrong ahead of time would do it anyway? A criminal comes to mind.

One must estimate consequences in making the determination as to whether a decision MIGHT be right or wrong, and, knowing those possible consequences, one would be at the least irresponsible for proceeding if those consequences had been estimated to produce other than positive effects.

So, maybe you were referring to that saw of frustration: Do SOMETHING even if it’s wrong! But its use is always contentious, at least in my experiences. And it certainly isn’t something that Presidents should be using for motivation.

[crashcop]

[quote=happyappy;754814]Gvcop32,

Thanks for the civil reply

You are welcome, it is the only way in a debate.

I believe there are NEVER occasions when making the wrong decisions are better than making no decisions at all—but it’s a matter of phrasing. What kind of person who knew that a decision was wrong ahead of time would do it anyway? A criminal comes to mind.

The saying does not imply you know the decision is wrong ahead of time. It goes with "action v inaction" or "a good offense is better than a good defence". I believe Carter's lack of action/decision was the direct cause of his administration's later troubles.

The best example I can think of, and hindsight is always 20/20, is Columbine.
The first officers on the scene secured the perimeter, then waited for the tact team to arrive. No decision making. You had bad people doing bad things to innocent kids. The first 3 officers should have mounted a "hall boss" attack with overwhelming downfield firepower, and went after the bad guys. This may not be the best decision, but at least it is a decision...

This is of course just my 2 cents worth, and I may need change.

[happyappy]

Gvcop32,

I was being a little bit facetious, for which I apologize. I’m confident that you wouldn’t recommend taking action with negative consequences known in advance. It was more of a demonstration of how using certain words can lead to some misunderstandings. I try to choose wording carefully, but find myself having to clarify too often. Maybe because of my proclivity to verbosity?

Without a doubt in my mind I will agree there are situations in which activity of some kind must be taken, and you described a perfect example of such a scenario.

You wrote: “I believe Carter's lack of action/decision was the direct cause of his administration's later troubles.”

You might be correct. After I read the books you recommended (that I spent over $50 bucks buying—thanks a lot!), I may gain enough knowledge to form an opinion in which I have confidence. As you said, though, hindsight is 20/20. We’re an entire country of people to consider, and a President can’t act alone—or isn’t supposed to—when it comes to foreign policy. It will be interesting reading.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by spunky1

But Carter seems to be lacking discretion in his golden years. Last year when his book came out and basically justified Palistian terrorist activity against Israel. He has lost credibility.

You either misread the book, or (more likely) didn't read it at all. The vast majority of Americans is simply unaware that there even is a Palestinian side to the mid-East story. Right-wingers will deny that there is one at all. Carter knows very differently from having been directly involved there for more than 30 years. Do you know what the kill-ratios are in this conflict? Do you know how many Palestinians are killed by Israelis for every Israeli killed by a Palestinian? Do you know the relative numbers of buildings that have been destroyed in Israel by Palestinans as opposed to the other way around? Do you know the average number of words that appear in the western MSM over the death of an Israeli as against that for the death of a Palestinian? Do you actually know anything about this conflict that goes significantly beyond the premise of Israelis = Good and Palestinians = Bad? Until proved wrong on the point, I would frankly tend to doubt it.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by gvcop32

Carter's lack of action in Iran (the Shah and the hostages) still efferct the US today. Do you think Israel or the old USSR would have left there citizens captive for over a year?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but how many of the Iranian hostages came home alive? What percentage of the total was that? What did you think of Carter's okay for the long-shot military option for freeing the hostages? And what is President Bush's policy today toward dealing with hostage-takers?