Former president Jimmy Carter voices his disproval of the Obama Administration

Former president Jimmy Carter has come out and comment on the current governments human rights violations, killing innocent people in drone strikes and committing war crimes.

So what is your opinion on the drone strikes and the foreign activity under the current administration? It seems that our activities overseas are the cause of our negative global image.

--------------

Here is the article.
Here is another article that covers the subject.

I wish there was a point to it. A clear objective or goal that we're working toward. It seems we're just kind of..there...playing a trillion dollar game of whack-a-mole.

I see Jimmy Carter is doing his best to tout President Obama's national security credentials... I think most Americans who care to have an opinion on the issue believe that if you aren't violating the UNDHR, you aren't trying hard enough.

I agree with Carter in principle. The problem is that anyone running opposed to Obama with a credible chance of winning is going to be worse when it comes to these issues.

While I can expect a lot of people to pounce on this with false equivalence cries of, "See! Obama's just as bad!" or "All politicians are evil!" I see this more as "Yes, Obama, while a fairly good president and vastly better than anyone opposing him, still has significant flaws- and this is news how?"

I don't like Obama either, but Carter's disproval isn't particularly worth a lot...

It might even be a bonus, all things considered. >_>

Wasn't Carter the one who was hated so much by Iran that people got taken hostage? And he's from Georgia, too... Disappointing... Anyway, I don't like it, but oh well. If it gets too bad, we have plenty of guns... Just not explosive devices.

Carter was a one term peanut farmer! Or something like that! Frankly, it's obvious Obama has flaws, but his enemies attack stupid shit like where he was born(the USA) instead.

Pfheonix:
Wasn't Carter the one who was hated so much by Iran that people got taken hostage? And he's from Georgia, too... Disappointing... Anyway, I don't like it, but oh well. If it gets too bad, we have plenty of guns... Just not explosive devices.

Yeah, that's why Iran took hostages. Because they hated Jimmy Carter. Nothing to with the propping up of the Shah, or the CIA attempting to subvert his overthrow. Yeah, the fucking Ayatollah just hated the peanut farmer.

senordesol:
I wish there was a point to it. A clear objective or goal that we're working toward. It seems we're just kind of..there...playing a trillion dollar game of whack-a-mole.

Heh, nicely put.

Mind you, any point to this won't be revealed to the public for a few decades, if ever.

Katatori-kun:
While I can expect a lot of people to pounce on this with false equivalence cries of, "See! Obama's just as bad!" or "All politicians are evil!" I see this more as "Yes, Obama, while a fairly good president and vastly better than anyone opposing him, still has significant flaws- and this is news how?"

I'd tend to agree with that...well, maybe not the "fairly good" part (though I couldn't say for sure), but he's at least more or less acceptable.

Progressives have complained about those violations for years, but remember that the base is "fucking retarded", so who cares?

Carter started the mess with the mujahideen and was not concerned about some "stirred up muslims" then complains about Obamas involvement due to the events he started? Ironic to say the least. I think Carter's disapproval will actually be more beneficial than detrimental to Obama.
Hell they even rely on the same people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaiJtLrEwVU
Thanks Carter.
"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"~Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1093

Now that said... Yes, Obama is a warmonger, just like his cousin Bush. I see them as the same no better or worse than the other in their regard for human life. It is disgusting to say the least.

Bullshit. Continuing to hurl human lives into the meat grinder of these wars...that's a human rights violation. Drones (ideally) mean fewer of our own soldiers are put at risk. Now, whether that's true or not is a different discussion. But I don't think there's anything inherently inhuman about killing an enemy with a robot as opposed to a grenade or shooting him in the face.

Helmholtz Watson:

It seems that our activities overseas are the cause of our negative global image.

gee, you think?
Would you like it if a foreign nation used drones on your people? Send your people to torture facilities? Build military bases on your soil?
Do you think people like that kind of shit?

Shiiit.

After Carter referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as apartheid, he kind of got ranked us 'must've suffered a serious blow to the head' in my book. And much like then, Carter is being simplistic again and offering no solutions.

There should be some accountability around drone strikes, but realise: There's no real other way to strike at the same people. If you send a conventional military unit in to try and arrest such a person, or kill them, only one in ten is going to walk away afterwards.

And for a place like Yemen, the Yemeni government is actually quite glad such strikes are taking place, as they're targeting Yemen's enemies. You're talking about a country where forces that, for a change, openly profile themselves as parts of Al Qaida, have taken over sizeable chunks of that country. Probably the same for Somalia for as far as you can call the people who control Mogadishu a government.

As for international impact, I don't have the idea too many people are bothered by it. As long as there's not a massacre of innocent people. It may sound harsh, but as long as the target was a sufficiently different 'other' and looked like he may have been guilty, people don't care.

Invading random Muslim countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people is fine but drone strikes is crossing the line? I'm glad Obama opted for the sensible approach of low cost and few casulties.

This doesn't seem like disapproval of the Obama administration as it is disapproval of both the Bush and Obama administrations, and for the most part I agree with the sentiment that killing or torturing hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners is unacceptable. Especially since it's not saving anywhere near that many lives.

Bassik:

gee, you think?
Would you like it if a foreign nation used drones on your people? Send your people to torture facilities? Build military bases on your soil?
Do you think people like that kind of shit?

Shiiit.

Judging from World War II I'd say as a whole the US would put up with it until the exact point it started happening to them.

Istvan:
Invading random Muslim countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people is fine but drone strikes is crossing the line? I'm glad Obama opted for the sensible approach of low cost and few casulties.

Same here. We will have a hard time explaining to our future generations about those wars. To begin with, we can't really answer "why". So we've lost already.

Now the drones are a terrible weapon, in my opinion. A very sophisticated version of the V2 rockets, thank the gods it's sophisticated enough to minimize civilian casualties, but it is still a weapon of war used against nations the US is not at war with.
They strike anywhere they want, right now it's Muslim extremists, and only a few people in the west will have problems with that.
But what if the drones start attacking other people? Will we still accept these drone attacks if they occurred on European soil? All in the name of destroying America's enemies, off course.

And what if other nations develop their own drones and commit the same acts? What if Muslim extremists get a hold of it and use them to attack high ranking US military personnel? We can't condemn them for that, they do the exact same thing the US did.

The United States always tried to claim the moral high ground, and while this position has often been shaky, it has become impossible in the 21th century. They are no longer "the good guys", and that is a shame.

He's right. Sadly, there's no "let's not drop explosives on random militia assholes and their families in the pursuit of a war with unclear goals and opponents" party.

I don't see the issue with drone strikes, personally.

I mean, the US has been bombing people with conventional warplanes for decades, somehow it seems that remote controlled stuff is worse?

Now, if the objection is just to bombing people, fair enough, but people tend to specify drones when discussing this.

thaluikhain:
I don't see the issue with drone strikes, personally.

I mean, the US has been bombing people with conventional warplanes for decades, somehow it seems that remote controlled stuff is worse?

Now, if the objection is just to bombing people, fair enough, but people tend to specify drones when discussing this.

You don't seem to be the only one. Drones are actually very problematic (well, air strikes in general) but Drones are the issue because they are the things that are actually involved. Most people here don't seem to realise how counter productive they can be. First of all, in places like Yemen, Drone strikes are a violation of national sovereignty and are hated by locals. Second of all it is actually very hard to pick actual terrorists from air. More often than not civilians, militia, or even well... hicks get killed. This can then be used as propaganda by actual terrorist, who can legitimately use such attacks as propaganda. In the end it will only create more terrorists, and kill more people. It is a short sighted and poor response.

Now a group of Commandos/Special Forces would do better in the long run. In the short term they might be exposed to more enemy fire, but they could make friends with locals and moderates while discreetly eliminating hard-line radicals. It would be better in the long run.

At the heart of this is the USA's poor understanding of it's enemy. It has reduced the Muslim to a caricature without learning anything about him. The average Islamic fighter is probably moderate, and his grievances legitimate. He probably only wants the USA to stop interfering with his life. He may not even like the radicals, but sides with them out of desperation. This means he could be convinced not to fight, if some effort was made to reach out to him. Drones cannot do that.

R Man:
You don't seem to be the only one. Drones are actually very problematic (well, air strikes in general) but Drones are the issue because they are the things that are actually involved.

People seem to complain about drone strikes as somehow worse than the same old airstrikes the US has been using on foreign soil for ages. People talk about drone strikes as if they are a new and scary thing, the only thing new about them is the lack of onboard pilot.

Possibly this is a media thing, they are only making such a fuss about them nowdays, though.

That doesn't mean that the criticisms of these attacks are invalid.

R Man:
That doesn't mean that the criticisms of these attacks are invalid.

No argument there, it just seems that the method gets too much attention, rather than the results or the intention.

R Man:

At the heart of this is the USA's poor understanding of it's enemy. It has reduced the Muslim to a caricature without learning anything about him. The average Islamic fighter is probably moderate, and his grievances legitimate. He probably only wants the USA to stop interfering with his life. He may not even like the radicals, but sides with them out of desperation. This means he could be convinced not to fight, if some effort was made to reach out to him. Drones cannot do that.

+1

He also might be part of a village that is siding with the Taliban for purely pragmatic reasons. People in the West tend to seriously over-estimate the extent to which Taliban membership is a religious thing and under-estimate the extent to which Taliban membership is a local politics thing. Possibly because "some far-right religious extremists attacked us a decade ago, and they are a member of a poorly-organized right-wing tribal coalition, many of which didn't give two shits about our country until we started bombing them, and many of which would likely be willing to leave aforementioned poorly-organized right-wing tribal coalition if leaving is more in their interests than staying" sells fewer newspapers than "AAAAA fnordYOU AND YOUR FAMILY fnordARE IN DANGER FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST fnordMUSLIM CONSPIRACY!!! AND ONLY A REALLY EXPENSIVE LAND WAR IN ASIA CAN SAVE YOU!!!"

Kahunaburger:
He also might be part of a village that is siding with the Taliban for purely pragmatic reasons. People in the West tend to seriously over-estimate the extent to which Taliban membership is a religious thing and under-estimate the extent to which Taliban membership is a local politics thing. Possibly because "some far-right religious extremists attacked us a decade ago, and they are a member of a poorly-organized right-wing tribal coalition, many of which didn't give two shits about our country until we started bombing them, and many of which would likely be willing to leave aforementioned poorly-organized right-wing tribal coalition if leaving is more in their interests than staying" sells fewer newspapers than "AAAAA fnordYOU AND YOUR FAMILY fnordARE IN DANGER FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST fnordMUSLIM CONSPIRACY!!! AND ONLY A REALLY EXPENSIVE LAND WAR IN ASIA CAN SAVE YOU!!!"

Replace "the Taliban" with "one of any number of armed groups which is involved in fighting the local police or military or foreign soldiers et al" and I'll agree with that.

thaluikhain:

Kahunaburger:
He also might be part of a village that is siding with the Taliban for purely pragmatic reasons. People in the West tend to seriously over-estimate the extent to which Taliban membership is a religious thing and under-estimate the extent to which Taliban membership is a local politics thing. Possibly because "some far-right religious extremists attacked us a decade ago, and they are a member of a poorly-organized right-wing tribal coalition, many of which didn't give two shits about our country until we started bombing them, and many of which would likely be willing to leave aforementioned poorly-organized right-wing tribal coalition if leaving is more in their interests than staying" sells fewer newspapers than "AAAAA fnordYOU AND YOUR FAMILY fnordARE IN DANGER FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST fnordMUSLIM CONSPIRACY!!! AND ONLY A REALLY EXPENSIVE LAND WAR IN ASIA CAN SAVE YOU!!!"

Replace "the Taliban" with "one of any number of armed groups which is involved in fighting the local police or military or foreign soldiers et al" and I'll agree with that.

That's also true. We tend to consider "allied with the Taliban in this particular situation" to be equivalent to Taliban membership, for some reason.

Kahunaburger:
That's also true. We tend to consider "allied with the Taliban in this particular situation" to be equivalent to Taliban membership, for some reason.

Even "allied with the Taliban in this particular situation" might be stretching in it many cases. Hating the Taliban and hating the local government/foreign troops are not mutually exclusive.

R Man:
First of all, in places like Yemen, Drone strikes are a violation of national sovereignty and are hated by locals.

Uhm, you're aware that Yemen is quite thrilled to have US drones helping eliminate the islamist fighters the Yemenite army is trying to destroy as well?

R Man:
Now a group of Commandos/Special Forces would do better in the long run. In the short term they might be exposed to more enemy fire, but they could make friends with locals and moderates while discreetly eliminating hard-line radicals. It would be better in the long run.

Uh... how do you propose a group like that survives in a hostile territory facing overwhelming odds, while the locals know the foreigners will be going away, and the extremists will remain (and kill them if they help the foreigners)? Let's hear your tactical analysis of such an operation.

Actually, what sort of military service have you done which brings you to such a conclusion, because my training may have been limited, but I can't even begin fathom such an operation succeeding. You pretty much don't succeed in such a thing unless you plan to fight a dirty guerilla war with very small units, many of whom you'd lose, just like other guerilla wars have gone.

R Man:
The average Islamic fighter is probably moderate, and his grievances legitimate. He probably only wants the USA to stop interfering with his life. He may not even like the radicals, but sides with them out of desperation.

One problem with that: The vast majority of them haven't been hit by anything the US is done, and take up arms for other reasons.

For example many Taliban fighters are indoctrinated kids, purchased from madrassa quranic schools who know no better. Not to mention other places like for instance the Chechen islamists. Their agression against neighbouring states and later Russia was unprovoked. Their sole motivation was to destroy as many countries as they could, and turn them into an extremist islamic kaliphate.

everythingbeeps:
Bullshit. Continuing to hurl human lives into the meat grinder of these wars...that's a human rights violation. Drones (ideally) mean fewer of our own soldiers are put at risk. Now, whether that's true or not is a different discussion. But I don't think there's anything inherently inhuman about killing an enemy with a robot as opposed to a grenade or shooting him in the face.

the problem with drones is that they are high up and the air and its pretty damn hard to discern a farmer or random group of civilians from the Taliban. that and attacking countries we are not at war with is bad mkay.

I may not like Obama, but Carter royally messed up our economy, interest rates were sky high when he was president do he can shut the fuck up.

Uhm, you're aware that Yemen is quite thrilled to have US drones helping eliminate the islamist fighters the Yemenite army is trying to destroy as well?

Do you mean the Yemen Government or the Yemen citizens? Just because a government approves of something doesn't mean the citizens do also.

Uh... how do you propose a group like that survives in a hostile territory facing overwhelming odds, while the locals know the foreigners will be going away, and the extremists will remain (and kill them if they help the foreigners)? Let's hear your tactical analysis of such an operation.

Actually, what sort of military service have you done which brings you to such a conclusion, because my training may have been limited, but I can't even begin fathom such an operation succeeding. You pretty much don't succeed in such a thing unless you plan to fight a dirty guerilla war with very small units, many of whom you'd lose, just like other guerilla wars have gone.

It's not a military issue so much as a political one. Trying to fight the conflict as a purely military one is exactly why the US has had such trouble in Iraq. Now, I admit, I don't know the details of such military operations would entail, because that would depend on local conditions, but the basic idea is to seek allies and build relationships. Look for moderates, friendly clerics, or those who are disenfranchised with extremists. Make friends with them slowly and steadily, over time. The USA does have allies in the region, such as Pakistan, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who could be brought to help with intelligence work. Yes, there will be casualties in the short term, but it would be better for everyone in the long term.

One problem with that: The vast majority of them haven't been hit by anything the US is done, and take up arms for other reasons.

For example many Taliban fighters are indoctrinated kids, purchased from madrassa quranic schools who know no better. Not to mention other places like for instance the Chechen islamists. Their agression against neighbouring states and later Russia was unprovoked. Their sole motivation was to destroy as many countries as they could, and turn them into an extremist islamic kaliphate.

And you think haphazardly spreading death from above does anything to dissuade them from such indoctrination? It only confirms what the extremists have been telling them. You are also overestimating groups like the Taliban. They have only loose control over their tribal federations and their ability to compel people is limited. While such indoctrination does exits, it is not unified and is fragmented and under-resourced. Do not tar the entire Middle East with the brush of a handful of extremists.

R Man:
At the heart of this is the USA's poor understanding of it's enemy. It has reduced the Muslim to a caricature without learning anything about him. The average Islamic fighter is probably moderate, and his grievances legitimate. He probably only wants the USA to stop interfering with his life. He may not even like the radicals, but sides with them out of desperation. This means he could be convinced not to fight, if some effort was made to reach out to him. Drones cannot do that.

I wonder what Afghanistan would be like if the US had dropped half a trillion dollars worth of roads, schools, hospitals, etc there over the last decade (rather than bombs and bullets).

TechNoFear:

R Man:
At the heart of this is the USA's poor understanding of it's enemy. It has reduced the Muslim to a caricature without learning anything about him. The average Islamic fighter is probably moderate, and his grievances legitimate. He probably only wants the USA to stop interfering with his life. He may not even like the radicals, but sides with them out of desperation. This means he could be convinced not to fight, if some effort was made to reach out to him. Drones cannot do that.

I wonder what Afghanistan would be like if the US had dropped half a trillion dollars worth of roads, schools, hospitals, etc there over the last decade (rather than bombs and bullets).

I'd expect it to still be a shithole, personally. Money hasn't helped Africa any, why would it help the Middle-East?

PrinceOfShapeir:

TechNoFear:

R Man:
At the heart of this is the USA's poor understanding of it's enemy. It has reduced the Muslim to a caricature without learning anything about him. The average Islamic fighter is probably moderate, and his grievances legitimate. He probably only wants the USA to stop interfering with his life. He may not even like the radicals, but sides with them out of desperation. This means he could be convinced not to fight, if some effort was made to reach out to him. Drones cannot do that.

I wonder what Afghanistan would be like if the US had dropped half a trillion dollars worth of roads, schools, hospitals, etc there over the last decade (rather than bombs and bullets).

I'd expect it to still be a shithole, personally. Money hasn't helped Africa any, why would it help the Middle-East?

Mostly Goverments has not made much in terms of building operations in Africa. Mostly just Wells, and water purification. And truth be told, if you actually went to 'look it up' water purification has helped Africa a lot over theese past few years. Hasnt made it into paradise, but a whole lot of more people can get water that wont kill them than say, a couple of decades ago. The food being send there via charity however *ungh..* Its a win/win for the damn warlords. If Red Cross doesnt bring guards, they can rob them blind. If Red Cross brings guards, they arent humanitarian anymory and they can be shot to pieces then robbed blind.

The money we send down to Africa for infrastructure has helped a whole lot, the money we have spent on sending food and other supplies down there only to have it stolen by the local thieves and other idiotic fuckin bastards. Has not. Out of the 20 sacks of grain and other foodstuff send down there, we are lucky if 5 arrives. And even so, the charity (some of the charities) choices to use locals instead has not exactly helped either, food is in high demand down there and some of those are just as bad as the warlords and sell some of it off on the side to the highest bidder instead of giving it all for the price they were supposed to take.

Africa is a shithole, China's investments in some of the eastern coastal regions has helped the wealth a little, Except sometimes when a country finally gets a goverment to control it properly, that goverments a dictator.

Honestly, I think money spent on peacekeeping and restoring Afghanistan would not have been better spent than the war-operation going on down there. Afghanistan was fine (In my opinion). Iraq however...... What a confusing (expensive) mess that was.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked