's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Finally, somebody agrees...Carter should have turned down ..(9 posts)

Finally, somebody agrees...Carter should have turned down ..ClydeTri
Dec 10, 2002 6:46 AM
Finally found an articulation that agreeded with my premise..had Jimmy Carter had any brass ones, he would have turned down the Nobel Peace Prize when it was awarded to him as a slap in the face of Bush (43)..from Neil Boortz webpage (he is a libertarian radio guy in Atlanta):

"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. "
<i>This</i> is your vindication?czardonic
Dec 10, 2002 11:51 AM
His objection boils down to the notion that the moral high ground lies in unquestioning support of Bush's indiscriminate foreign policy. I guess the ideas that "peace" can be defined as use of force as a last resort instead of first resort, or as respect for international law, never occured to this guy.

If you simply wanted to say that Carter should have declined the award as a matter of professional courtesy, that's one thing. The rest of this "reasoning" just sounds like sour-grapes from the pro-Bush camp.
And the peanut gallery chimes in...Matno
Dec 10, 2002 9:32 PM
Sorry, under the circumstances, I couldn't resist. (Get it? Peanut gallery?)

I think Jimmy Carter should be proud to get the award BECAUSE it's a slap in the face to Bush. Though they're both on the same side, Bush pretends to be conservative, and apparently has a lot of people fooled. Carter stood/stands for everything Bush doesn't (on the outside). Personally, I think he's a putz. Anybody else ever sing the Oscar Meyer bologna commercial like this: My President has a first name, it's Jimmy...Jimmy Carter has a way of messing up the U.S.A. (you get the point). It was a favorite of mine back in the day.

Oh, and just in case you might get me confused with someone else, I am definitely NOT in the pro-Bush camp. I honestly can't think of a single thing that he has done since he took office that I fully agree with. (In other words, not one of his "conservative" policies has been without huge "hidden" advancement of big gov't. In fact, I can't think of anything he has done since 9/11 that really serves any purpose at all). On top of that, I really question his personal integrity.
yeah but if it was up to you the US would be led by Ghengis KhanMJ
Dec 11, 2002 12:50 AM
but of course Ghengis would say he is a christian...

while it's great to hear someone who claims to be conservative railing on Bush - it makes you wonder what would make you people happy - I can only conclude that you people think fascism has its good points (you should have finished reading the Republic - cliff notes are never a substitue for the real thing) - especially when there's spurious, out of context references to the bible

what it comes down to is you're not in the pro-anyone camp
Ghengis Khan was a Christian?Matno
Dec 11, 2002 12:46 PM
Wow. Now I'm really going to have to reread my history. Facism and conservativism are only on the same end of the spectrum if you accept Marx's definition of politics (which is ludicrous). In the real world, they are just as far apart as conservative and communist. I support personal freedom and protection of individual rights. Anyone who stands by those principles gets my vote. (That's the simplified version). As you can see, there are not many who do. On some of this homeland security stuff, I actually see liberals complaining about Bush's policies being to intrusive of personal liberties. I would applaud them except that I know that they would be pushing the same policies if a Democratic president were behind them. I'm convinced that most politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties are much more interested in getting reelected than they are in doing what is good for the country. There are always some with real convinction on both sides, but not many. (That's just the politicians themselves). Feel free to disagree, but that's what I've seen in my lifetime. The federal gov't has increased in size and power under every administration I know of (even under Reagan...gasp!)
You're right and wrong.eyebob
Dec 10, 2002 3:05 PM
The Nobel committee does cheapen the award by attempting to tie it to some political agenda.

JC should accept it because he is and always has been about Peace in the most noble sense.

You are confusing me with your argument. Do you think that he desrves the "non-politicized" version of the Peace Prize (as it is intended) or not? You agree that he's done something to deserve it (1978 peace accord between Israel and Egypt) but then argue that his actions regarding the Gulf War were wrong. And what exactly is your point regardign the UN dictating US Foreign policy? What does this have to do with JC and the Nobel?

You're right and wrong.Sintesi
Dec 11, 2002 6:24 AM
One could argue that the prize in itself is political and intended as such in the first place.
Dec 11, 2002 7:25 AM
ClydeTri is clearly misinformed on how the Nobel Peace Prize works. When has it NOT had a political element to it? Let's take a look at the last 20 years:

JIMMY CARTER JR., for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development

KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General

KIM DAE JUNG for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.


JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES (ICBL) and JODY WILLIAMS for their work for the banning and clearing of anti-personnel mines.

CARLOS FELIPE XIMENES BELO and JOSE RAMOS-HORTA for their work towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor.

JOSEPH ROTBLAT and to the PUGWASH CONFERENCES ON SCIENCE AND WORLD AFFAIRS for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and in the longer run to eliminate such arms.

YASSER ARAFAT, SHIMON PERES, and YITZHAK RABIN, for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.


RIGOBERTA MENCHU TUM, Guatemala. Campaigner for human rights, especially for indigenous peoples.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI, Burma. Oppositional leader, human rights advocate.

MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH GORBACHEV, helped to bring the Cold War to an end.

THE 14TH DALAI LAMA (TENZIN GYATSO), Religious and political leader of the Tibetan people.


OSCAR ARIAS SANCHEZ, initiator of peace negotiations in Central America.

ELIE WIESEL, Chairman of 'The President's Commission on the Holocaust'. Author, humanitarian.


DESMOND MPILO TUTU, for his work against apartheid.

LECH WALESA, Founder of Solidarity, campaigner for human rights.

ALVA MYRDAL, former Cabinet Minister, diplomat, delegate to United Nations General Assembly on Disarmament, writer.

ALFONSO GARCÍA ROBLES, diplomat, delegate to the United Nations General Assembly on Disarmament, former Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Dec 11, 2002 7:32 AM
Not going to argue your point, but I only wrote the first couple of sentences in my original post..the rest was a quote from the Neil Boortz, he may be wrong, but it wasnt me.