|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Carter's moral arguments about minority rights in the Soviet Union changed the rules of the Cold War. He put the Soviets on the defensive in their own territory for the first time: he authorized the Agency to infiltrate miniaturized versions of Solzhenitsyn and other materials designed to throw them off balance, and it did. Between Eisenhower's U-2 missions and Carter, no president had directed covert action programs directly against the Soviets. Reagan did not direct any covert action programs against the Soviets. Reagan upped the ante with the so-called Star Wars system -- it terrified Moscow into spending more than it had available on defense. Reagan later hijacked and tailored Carter's human rights agenda to suit his own purposes -- "tear down this wall!," etc. -- but this was Carter's innovation, not Reagan's. |
He was free from the Vietnam war so he could do more.
Were those covert actions effective?
| Quote: |
| Carter authorized covert action against El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, I believe Grenada, and several other places after 1979. The Argentines had been supporting the contras on the Hondruran border. They were mostly ex-Guardia Nacional, Somoza's thugs. Eden Pastora, or sub-commandante cero, did not begin resisting the Sandinistas from the Costa Rican border until some time later. The Reagan team was able to pick up these preexisting pieces and create a pressure mechanism against the Sandinistas, but others, like Carter, had put the pieces in place. |
Are you sure about Nicaragua? The US was even given them aid while Carter was in power.
As for El Salvador it was just supporting pro US thugs against anti US thugs - I think the civil war started while Carter was in office. Ford didn't do it cause it wasn't going on while he was in power.
All you are saying is that Carter fought the cold war.
| Quote: |
| Carter signed the findings that got Washington's foot into that door, interdicting Cuban weapons en route El Salvador via Nicaragua, not Reagan. If you recall, Reagan is mostly known for zealously supporting the contras against the rules laid down by Congress, illegally soliciting and managing third-party support for the contras (like the Saudis, who contibuted many millions of dollars to the contra war), thus provoking a serious constitutional crisis in the mid-1980s. |
Ok you are saying what you said above that Carter fought the cold war, any US president would have tried to stop those arms.
| Quote: |
| Reagan's team weren't all mindless overzealous ideologues. Jean Kirkpatrick is recognized for her brilliance, for example. So it's hard to dismiss offhand their criticisms of Carter. But when people say that Carter was a wimp, etc., etc., they are either repeating the Regan campaign's election-year charges (not good for historical evidence, by the way) or are indicating that they are ideologically in line with people like Kirkpatrick, who blame Carter for Iran and Nicaragua, which, in my opinion, is unreasonable. |
For Iran yes, - Nicaragua so - so.
Ayatollah said what he was going to do and there were lots of easy shots at him. there was no one worse for the US than him. probably no one worse for Iran.
the US could have perhaps gotten the Shah out like Marcos was out but Carter really screwed up on Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I call on the world to shut down Carter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| the Shah was keeping information on his regime's stability from Washington. His fall came as a suprise to the United States. CIA had no idea it was coming. Allies providing overly optimistic information is not a new phenomenon. |
fair enough but the Khomneni was a well known figure, and he said what he was going to do.
After the Shah had left there were still good chances to get hin.
| Quote: |
| the aid Carter was giving to Nicaragua was intended to serve as leverage to force the Sandinastas into a moderate position and to stop supplying the Salvadoran guerrillas. It was achieving mixed results before Reagan cancelled the aid, against the advice of the U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua. |
Ok , I was just curious if Carter ever took action against the Sandanistas.
| Quote: |
my point about Carter is not that he fought the Cold War like any president would have, but rather Carter was not weak-kneed or inept. |
He did somethings liike other presidents yes but he missed taking out Khomeni and many feel he put too many restrictions on the CIA. Which made it harder for the US to engage in covert actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Khomeni was so bad and such a threat that the US ought to have gone after him no matter what was on the books. The
Carter I believe was the one who said the CIA could not use those who engaged in human rights violations as agents or something like that. Sometimes bad people are the only way to find out about other bad people.
He did some other things that were very bad for the CIA in addition to that.
Was Carter a hawk on the Soviets? it depends on what you think is a hawk at that time. He was a lot less hawkish than any of the republican candidates in 1980 , or even Scoop Jackson one of his opponents in 1976. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Sometimes bad people are the only way to find out about other bad people. |
In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or ally.
You're a "realist," realpolitik. Carter was not. Jeane Kirkpatrick, one Reagan advisor, was. See her "Dictatorships and Double Standards" essay. Must be available on the web somewhere.
Both positions have merit. Both positions have pitfalls.
For espionage operations, that is, passive intelligence-gathering, use 'em, exploit them for their information. No prob.
I'm not sure which way I would go if I were president and confronted with foreign policy crises with respect to covert action, though.
The dictators Carter eschewed and Reagan embraced were not always good for U.S. foreign policy. Consider the Falklands War, where the Argentine military dictatorship attacked the British and asked Washington to back them up. The enemy of my enemy is sometimes a dangerous moron, and should be avoided. |
I see your points , but the thing that bugs me the most about Carter is that in an effort to hold the US to a high standard he weakened the CIA and in the process hurt the US. He position was idealistic but naive and dangerous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Time report fuels Guantanamo criticism
Logbook traces treatment of detainee possibly part of 9/11 plot
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Posted: 6:50 PM EDT (2250 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay drew fresh criticism Sunday following a Time magazine report on a logbook tracing the treatment of a detainee who officials believe was intended to take part in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Time's report on the treatment received by Mohammed al-Qahtani prompted a quick defense from the Pentagon along with outrage from several members of Congress.
Al-Qahtani was denied entry to the United States by an immigration officer in August 2001 and later captured in Afghanistan and sent to the detention camp at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The 84-page logbook obtained by Time and authenticated by Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita is the " ... kind of document that was never meant to leave Gitmo," a senior Pentagon official told the magazine.
According to the logbook, which covers al-Qahtani's interrogations from November 2002 to January 2003, the Time article reports that daily interviews began at 4 a.m. and sometimes continued until midnight.
The interrogation techniques included refusing al-Qahtani a bathroom break and forcing him to urinate in his pants.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/12/gitmo.time/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
