The nobel peace prize announcement
<div class="IPBDescription">X-us president (no. 39 if not mistaken)</div>The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee announced who will get this years peace prize, and it seems like Jimmy Carter will be the one recieving it. (about time some say)
Carter's work for peace between Egypt and Israel alone would be enough to qualify for the peace prize, although the Carter Center, a peace center celebrating it's 20th year anniversary this year, has been working with peace negotiating on several continents.
The committee leader has said openly that it's a kick in the leg towards Bush Iraq policy, since Carter doesn't support Bush's rally to support an anti-Iraq war.
Carter's work for peace between Egypt and Israel alone would be enough to qualify for the peace prize, although the Carter Center, a peace center celebrating it's 20th year anniversary this year, has been working with peace negotiating on several continents.
The committee leader has said openly that it's a kick in the leg towards Bush Iraq policy, since Carter doesn't support Bush's rally to support an anti-Iraq war.
Comments
Mr. Carter deserves the prize, Mr. Bush deserves the ruffle.
<a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/I/Iranhost.asp" target="_blank">Brief Synopsis of the events</a>
90 hostages, not a hundred. I was only 7 when this was going on. Interestingly, I read in a book once about the Israeli army how they had offered to send in commandos to take the Ayatolah Khomeini hostage, and offer him as a ransom to the American hostages. The Carter administration turned them down, and instead had their aborted and mismanged rescue attempt which only succeeded in killing some American troops in a helicopter crash.
I also read once in a book (you get them at the library, you silly internet kids) that the Iranians also took a large number of Soviet embassy staff hostage. The KGB sent in agents within 48 hours that figured out a bunch of the terrorists families, and took them hostage and said that if the Russians weren't released, they would start executing the terrorists parents. The Russian hostages were handed over a fw hours later. Shows that the fanatical terrorist only understands force, not reason.
Thats about all I agree with carter, Iraq suposedly having weapons of mass destruction is only an exscuse for little bush to clean up his daddy's mess and gain control or Iraq's sweat sweat oil, dirty #######
Carter is a moron
You'll surely get me in this discussion, simply since I haven't got the knowledge a person living through the time of the event tends to accumulate, but I guess Mr. Carter was sweating blood and water there.
In retrospective, I agree; a fast, hard strike could (would?) have been the best alternative, but let's don't forget that it would have been an operation in the Middle East, at a time when that region was even less stable than today.
The Israelis proposal, for example, would inevitably have ended in a massive confrontation between the <i>whole</i> of the Islamic world, Shiits and Sunits alike, who would've all *critzised* the kidnapping of a statesman of their believe.
This could've resulted in another escalation, maybe leading to a large scale war between Israel and its neighbours, and possibly even more (remember that both sides were actively supported by one of the two contrahents in the Cold Wars).
A large scale war or the possible death of a hundred of your own citicens. Ouch, I hope I will never have to decide upon something like that.
Don't they teach anything in schools these days? This was only 20 years ago, and almost caused nuclear war in the mideast. I mean, the Israelis had their Jericho's ready and F16's on the tarmac. Man, WTH...
ANd it would not have resulted in all muslims meeting us in confrontation - Sunni's hated Khomeini as much as we did, as he oppressed them in region endlessly. That was part of the reasoning behind the Iran-Iraq war. There is a great myth of Arab Unity (still being taught?) which was discredited in 1973, 1991, and now in 2002. It simply does not exist. That was just another copout from Carter and the State Department, as they didn't have the cojones to go in, rescue the hostages, and kill as many terrorists as possible in the process - getting back to that 'terrorists only understand force, not reasoning' issue again.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Oct. 11 2002,15:59-->
Anyway, in response to your reply, I think there were two things that kept him from doing so:
a) He was the President of America - considering himself the good guy. If you would have to threaten someone with killing their <i>mother</i>, would you do it?
b) I think both the logistics and preparations were completely different for the US: First, the SU had way better connections with the islamic world in that time, meaning that they surely had better intelligence and could get their agents in much easier.
Second, remember that the US was only starting to gather informations and psychological profiles about terrorism in that time, while the Russians had a lot more experience (some first-hand) in that matter. While the KGB knew pretty well how the terrorists would react, Mr. Carter had to fear with every step he took that the kidnappers would snap.
Makes forceful proceeding a little more problematic, doesn't it?
[edit] And don't be too sure that Shiites and Sunnites wouldn't have stopped their rivalities if an Ayatholla would've been kidnapped.
Would Protestants and Catholics have sided if the Assassimes would've got a pope during the 17hundereds?
In any case, even an uprising of 'only' the Shiites, which would've been inevitable, could've easily thrown the whole region into utter chaos. [/edit]
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 11 2002,16:08-->
a) He was the President of America - considering himself the good guy. If you would have to threaten someone with killing their <i>mother</i>, would you do it?
b) I think both the logistics and preparations were completely different for the US: First, the SU had way better connections with the islamic world in that time, meaning that they surely had better intelligence and could get their agents in much easier.
Second, remember that the US was only starting to gather informations and psychological profiles about terrorism in that time, while the Russians had a lot more experience (some first-hand) in that matter. While the KGB knew pretty well how the terrorists would react, Mr. Carter had to fear with every step he took that the kidnappers would snap.
Makes forceful proceeding a little more problematic, doesn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bleh. Damn your EU education!
A) I can see that. But his job is to save those hostages lives.
B) Nonsense. Iran had been the United States greatest ally in the middle east for twice as long as the Israelis (since the 1920's). We had far more experience, on ground intelligence, and resources in Iran up until that point than anyone else in the world except (as usual) the Mossad. The soviets had very little real dealing with the Iranians - they were propping up Iraq in preparation for Iraq to invade, get lots of oil, and then perhaps do a little 'Polish Split-em-up' like back in '39. Unfortunately for them, they got tied into Afghanistan and the Iraq's were in a dead stalemate with the Shiites shortly thereafter.
Carter was a wimp, and that's the only reason for it taking too long. It's never problematic to confront violent zealots with your own violence. It's the only language they understand.
Would Protestants and Catholics have sided if the Assassimes would've got a pope during the 17hundereds?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Na, protestants and catholics have been at each others throats over here (UK) for centuries.
If the pope got assassinated a lot of protestants would've had a big party ...
It still goes on today, mainly Republic of I/ NI and West Scotland, but it's there, make no mistake..
That's what I'm doing all the time!
b) I was more referring to general advantages in the region - the KGB should, for example, not have had much problems sneaking some agents in the country by land (which, considering the relative chaos they still had in the inner, equaled with 'being free to go wherever they wanted' ), while the US had to get in airborne - with the results we all know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's never problematic to confront violent zealots with your own violence. It's the only language they understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, we know this today, but up to that time, <i>the western world didn't</i>. That's why Carter hesistated there, that's why Schmidt had so big problems with the RAF. Our todays knowledge of terrorism is based on the good willing mistakes that were made in that time.
[edit] Hamster: You're right. I was using a bad example. [/edit]
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 11 2002,16:19-->
And I think the same could be said for Hitler and the western world dealing with him. <b>How much experience does it take trying to appease fanatical zealots with candy until you <i>learn that it does not work?</b></i>
As for putting agents on the ground, I should not even bother responding to that. Iran has several hundred miles of open coastline. A frigging rubber dingy would be enough to put someone on the ground after being dropped off by a Navy ship. It's irrelevant, you can always get people in easily with some basic thought and planning. I spent 8 years in the USMC learning about how to quietly get from water to shore.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Oct. 11 2002,16:41-->
Anyway, there's a little difference between the large - scale <i>wars</i> Israel got through mostly since its people were <i>willing</i> to die for the promised land. Most governments indeed got the hint by now - if someone points a gun at your collective chin, blow his sorry collective ### up, but the small scaled confrontations like they were adopted by most 'newer' terrorists are an entirely different issue.
There, it's your objective <i>not</i> to let <i>anyone</i> die.
Yes, hard strikes can work there, too, but they need, as you'll know more than me, entirely different processing.
I give you the argument about Sowjet intelligence advantage - there's no way I could score there.
In the eighties Jimmy Carter founded the Carter Center, which purpose is to work for peace. He engaged himself in peacework and civil rights globally, especially in several areas of conflict, including Latin-America, the middle east and Africa.
The Carter Center has also been working for better mental health around the world. (What ever that means)
This year he also visited Cuba, being the first person who has been/is president in the US ever visiting Cuba since 1928, he even plays baseball with Fidel Castro. :p
As for Kassinger's argument... you were doing really well there until you had him grinning and hanging out with a dictator who has killed uncounted numbers of his own people, maintains his own secret gestapo, and represses every basic freedom there is. Carter's visit has changed none of that. When I was stationed in Cuba from 1994-1995, I did a few things. Guarded the Gitmo perimeter, occasionally being shot at by his borderguards. Performed anti-riot operations on a camp full of murderers, rapists, and scum that he had released from his jails and put on boats to head to Florida. And listened to stories in refugee camps from the thousands of families trying to escape their incredibly horrendous existence on his 'worker's paradise'. That's who Carter was cozying up to.
Anyone else?
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Oct. 11 2002,16:54-->
The only thing I will say is that while I wouldn't nominate him for the Nobel, I do consider him an OK guy. The work he's done with <a href="http://www.habitat.org/" target="_blank">Habitat For Humanity</a> is worth a pretty big high five.
Could we please try to make a difference between terroristic organizations (Hamas, Al-Quaida etc.) and governments (Iraq, Lybia, etc.)?
While their deeds may sometimes be alike, there still are differences.
The main reason Israel can't go around sweeping through all terrorists threatening their country is that Israels own citicens wouldn't approve the hundreds of innocents who would be falling prey to this action.
Plus, they can count on such an action resulting in a massive wave of hate against their state, effectively resulting in even more terrorists.
Hard strikes may be a good idea in immediate situations, which is why agreed with you on the issue of the hostage situation, but it's <i>not</i> the right long term policy - unless you like the idea of a total war.
For the issue of Cuba:
I can only agree that Fidel Castro is a dictator, and a very draconic at that. This does however not mean that Carters visit was wrong - the embargos against Cuba, which were the reason for his vistit, are (much like those against the Iraq) only harming the innocent population and not the elite, which can even use those sanctions as propaganda against the US.
It's therefore only adviseable to start getting out of that situation, even if it will mean shaking hands with the devil.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 11 2002,17:16-->
As for separating the governments - it can;t be done. I know you want to believe that Iraq or Lybia or Afghanistan doesn't support terrorists, because deep down in your little semi-liberal western civilized hearts, you can;t imagine a government being so bad too it's own people and neighbors. After all, the reason we have these debates is becuase of the freedom to do so you've enjoyed your whole life. But if Iraq hands over a $25,000 prize every time a suicide bomber runs into a crowded shop, that is still supporting terrorism.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Oct. 11 2002,17:20-->
I can only agree that Fidel Castro is a dictator, and a very draconic at that. This does however not mean that Carters visit was wrong - the embargos against Cuba, which were the reason for his vistit, are (much like those against the Iraq) only harming the innocent population and not the elite, which can even use those sanctions as propaganda against the US.
It's therefore only adviseable to start getting out of that situation, even if it will mean shaking hands with the devil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correction:
The embargos don't directly harm the innocent citizens. The dictators control where the money flows and where it doesn't. They are the cause not the embargos. Though, the result isn't very arguable.
I guess I'll have to continue tomorrow, haven't slept for too long :/
[edit] Ah, what the hell.
MonsE: I'm not doubting that many countries support terrorism with their best effort ('bitter', remember?), I wanted to say that a countrys government has indeed to fear much more of Israel than a terroristic splinter cell: It's 'easy' to attack an enemy assaulting your country with tanks; it's damn hard to find an enemy assaulting your country <i>alone</i>.
No doubt there are many 'evil' governments on the planet, but just cause Israel can handle them, it doesn't mean it can handle suicide bombers.
Spooge: You said it yourself. I'm not advocating to start subventioning Baghdad, but the means currently raised simply don't hurt who they should hurt.[/edit]
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 11 2002,17:37-->
I think our President is an utter joke in many ways, but when it came to this, his success is undeniable so far...
It means nothing that they've been quite for a year.
Anyway, there's a huge difference between the caves the Taliban were hiding in, and the sprawling cities the Hamas has their terrorists living for the most of the time.
It's damn easy to make sure whether the guy you're aiming at is a Muahedjin - it's almost impossible to find two future martyrs in a city with some million inhabitants.
Mistakes are bound to occur. And believe me, the son of the man the Israelis mistakenly shot for being a terrorist while he really was a busdriver won't have any doubts about what he'll do when he's grown up enough to hold an AK.
...Good point. Sort of when Neville Chamberlain said "Peace in our time" and let Hitler take, which country was it? The Tzech republic or something. Nobody can really deny that it was a good thing that Winston Churchill took over.
I'm not disagreeing with that the world (US?) has to take action against terrorism [in general], though I'm afraid it will end up with the US doing to much by itself, which will cause the US go grow even more unpopular in Europe.
Running out of things that I can come up with and comment, I'll leave it at that.
Ed: Once again people manage to post while I'm writing my reply.
Ed:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mistakes are bound to occur. And believe me, the son of the man the Israelis mistakenly shot for being a terrorist while he really was a busdriver won't have any doubts about what he'll do when he's grown up enough to hold an AK.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I for one gave up for a long time ago hoping for a solution that will actually solve the conflict(s) in the middle-east for good. Everything either part of the fight does, ends up with revenge from the other. Oslo-treaties don't keep suicide bombers from wanting to get 72 virgins in heaven for dying in a Jihaad, and doesn't make jews want to move from their new homes on the occupied westbank.
your were right about a lot of things monse, GB is a joke- a big joke but if the only thing these people understand is force, wtf is going on right now?
Gun them down and spot shoot the bodies 95 times.
Actually, the president set in motion "or approved" a plan by Delta Force to recover the hostages, however, do to the difficulty of the mission, it took Delta a few months to prepare. Once delta made it inside Iran 3 out of the 6 choppers broke, one crashing into a C-10 killing 7 soldiers i think. Some think it was sabotauged by our own government. P
Huh? This topic is on page 2? Let's change that!
Jops:
From what I can make out in between those '###'s, I gather you've got some good points hidden in there. Could you please start writing things down a little more structured?
C0nan, everyone else going on about the Sniper:
Right now we know three things about this person(s):
a) It(they) shoot(s) people. b) It(they) use(s) a pretty expensive rifle. c) It(they) like(s) tarot.
Too little to make any qualified judgements about the motives behind all this. Jops is however right in so far that the Sniper <i>is</i> poducing terror - you don't need to be member of an Islamic organization for this, just ask Mr. McVeigh.
|Spook|:
MonsE knows this, he mentioned it several times. What our friendly neighbourhud admin was criticising was that this action was badly prepared, not swift and hard enough, and that it came too late.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Boy, Hitler sure does want the Sudentland, we better hand it over to keep him happy. Oh wait, he wants the Rheinland back too... better hand it over to keep him happy. Hmm, Alsace-Loraine too? Well, if it will keep him happy. Dang Austria too? And Chechoslovakia? Oh well, if it means shaking hands with the devil to keep him happy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should start filling my arguments with lines about General Custer and Wounded Knee.
Anyway, the nullifying of the sanctions would in no way be compareable to the appeasement politic, as nobody is suggesting a complete rehabilitation of the regimes in Cuba and Iraq - it's only that the actions taken are obviously misguided, which means that we've got to come up with other ways of putting pressure on the regimes - making yourself guilty of the death of 5000 innocent children a day that could've been saved if the medical embargo didn't exist is surely not the right way.
Noone wants to make Fidel Castro the Times' man of the year.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 12 2002,04:24-->
On the subject of Iraq, there must be an alternative to full scale war, although if it falls to that level we must be able to carry out our intentions without slacking. (I am not aming this at americans) George Bush IMO is acting like a warmonger at the moment, I won't be surprised if he will go to war no matter what, I just hope for his sake it doesn't turn out to be another Vietnam
On the subject of the sniper, He/She/They/It are producing terror, and like He/She/They/It said, He/She/They/It is god, the police seem to have no leads whatsoever, I know this should stop and I really hope they catch the sucker, We've had this in the UK in Northern Ireland although that is far away from me we still hear about.
On the subject of Hitler, Brought up by MonsE, Hitler was a very clever man, he got Germany back onto its feet after the great depression, came up with the Volkswagen (Peoples Car) and was so clever he managed to turn the fear in the league of nations for war to his own ends! Although He was also a prat!
(Now completely OT We need a seperate forum for these discussions! they are great!)