|
It's Not Apartheid: Jimmy Carter's moronic new book about Israel. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DevilDogUSMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Is there any reason why you're talking about peaceful protests, when just a few posts back you were downing Carter on his stance on decreasing military funding?
And what the hell.. is that a soldier in your icon? Am I seeing this right?
:conf: :conf: :conf: |
I'm a former Marine. That's me.
Supporting a strong military with adequate funding does
not mean I don't prefer peace over war...
=======================================
And MrSquirrel, yes the B-1 was made as a nuclear weapons
platform. Yes over it life cycle it was used little. Did
it contribute as a deterrant? Yes.
In the war on terror it's been used rather extensively for
precision bombing. It's old yes but it's still needed even
now. There's no bomber like it. Can't use fighter-bombers
for everything or heavy bombers like the B-52 for it's
mission profiles.
Carter thought 30 years ago it wasn't needed and this war
has proved him wrong.
| quote: | | Carter rightfully decided that it was too expensive for the little gain that it would give US forces. |
That's an opinion I don't agree with and I'll tell you why.
It was neccesary to have a high speed high altitude bomber
of it's specs. The B-52 is not it's equal. "The little
gain it would give US Forces", in the event of a nuclear
war (which was likely back then) the missions it was designed
to conduct would be very useful to US Forces.
It's easy to look back at many things and say 'hey there was
no nuclear war and so it was a waste of taxpayers money'.
You must take into account the threat back then and the need
for deterrants. The cold war is a huge topic so let's keep
it at the B-1 was necessary and is still useful.
Every class of fighter or bomber is needed. I don't think
there is a replacement for it's misison profile in the works.
Having only B-52 slow, heavy bombers only would compromise
our security instead of having variety of small and medium
bombers too. It's easy to 'monday-quarterback' but our
military and defense experts don't have that luxury. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Only in the presence of oxygen. :D :D |
I will raise ya on that Shibby +1:D :D |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC
And MrSquirrel, yes the B-1 was made as a nuclear weapons
platform. Yes over it life cycle it was used little. Did
it contribute as a deterrant? Yes.
In the war on terror it's been used rather extensively for
precision bombing. It's old yes but it's still needed even
now. There's no bomber like it. Can't use fighter-bombers
for everything or heavy bombers like the B-52 for it's
mission profiles.
Carter thought 30 years ago it wasn't needed and this war
has proved him wrong.
That's an opinion I don't agree with and I'll tell you why.
It was neccesary to have a high speed high altitude bomber
of it's specs. The B-52 is not it's equal. "The little
gain it would give US Forces", in the event of a nuclear
war (which was likely back then) the missions it was designed
to conduct would be very useful to US Forces.
It's easy to look back at many things and say 'hey there was
no nuclear war and so it was a waste of taxpayers money'.
You must take into account the threat back then and the need
for deterrants. The cold war is a huge topic so let's keep
it at the B-1 was necessary and is still useful.
Every class of fighter or bomber is needed. I don't think
there is a replacement for it's misison profile in the works.
Having only B-52 slow, heavy bombers only would compromise
our security instead of having variety of small and medium
bombers too. It's easy to 'monday-quarterback' but our
military and defense experts don't have that luxury. |
You are putting words into my mouth. Nowhere did I justify the cancellation of the B1 program by saying that "no nuclear war happened".
Read up on the differences between the B1-A and B1-B (which you obviously think there are none of), learn a little more about the concepts behind both first-strike and retaliatory nuclear war, and look into the terms SLBM and ICBM.
Carter's deterrent policy was focused on Naval based systems. As someone who is a former member of that branch of the military one would think you would know more about the capabilities of the sea-going forces.
As much as your lovely circular arguments have been, I think I am done with this discussion.
Ta ta
MrS |
|
|
| DevilDogUSMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
You are putting words into my mouth. Nowhere did I justify the cancellation of the B1 program by saying that "no nuclear war happened".
|
Talking about people in general like to justify cutting
spending based on no use without taking into account
detterance.
| quote: | | Carter's deterrent policy was focused on Naval based systems. As someone who is a former member of that branch of the military one would think you would know more about the capabilities of the sea-going forces. |
Fiscal 1982 Defense Budget he tried to pass had a 75% reduction in
ships, and an 83% reduction in attack submarines. Not a very strong
naval detterrent policy to me...
Yes I know out capabilities somewhat from experience...
Nixon was right in restarting the program because of 'flexibitly'
and having a wider range of options short of nuclear war instead
of soley relying on ICBMs or SLBMs.
True the cancellation of the program led to the B-1B multi-role
version but I'd don't like politicians being cheap and cancelling
things. *cough* Comanche *cough*
Point of the matter is Carter was weak on defense and has gotten
even worse since leaving office... He was wrong about the Russians
back then not wanting to invade afganistan and he was wrong about
believing N.Korea was going to stop making nukes... Lame. |
|
|
| qussay |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Unfortunately, I think that's how it's going to end. The complete elimination/displacement of the Palestinian people. |
^
Dont Worry ...... it wont . Trust me ... ! :p |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| how dare he question or criticize israel? doesn't he know that israel does nothing bad? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Couldn't be arsed to read any of the thread but I'll just add my two penneth...
When people draw comparisons between apartheid and Israel, they are not refering to the Arab Israelis but to Palestine. The way Palestinian life is pretty much controlled by Israel and the way the settlements (and everything that comes with them such as their connecting roads) can divide the West Bank up cause major disruption to Palestinian life. Palestine is not a sovereign state. It has no control over it's borders without Israel's approval and is forced to live with the settlements in it's land.
But...I don't think I myself would call it apartheid. It's different. Altho Palestine has been divided up in the past into "Bantusans" (or Cantons) it was for completely different reasons than racial superiority. Originally it was for security reasons, altho more recently it has taken on a more religious aspect (and if you want to label anyone as "apartheid" then it is probably the settlers who deserve that tag, and their supporters - but altho they do form a powerful block in the Knesset they don't represent Israeli policy)
And as a side note, despite what the author of the article may wish to believe, Nelson Mandela and the ANC were "terrorists" just like we label the Palestinian militias today...(it was just "cool" to support old Nelson) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Another smack-down on this book...
You'd think a former US president would have a little more balanced view...
...maybe he's a Mel Gibson Fan club card carrier...(that's a joke for all you prune juice drinkers)
| quote: |
Carter’s new book belongs in fiction
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Jimmy Carter has written a dreadful book about Palestine and turned himself into the next thing to a shill for terrorists.
Start with the title: “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” Surely this implies a discussion of apartheid (the South African system of strict racial segregation) in Palestine. It takes Carter until three pages from the end of his text to mention apartheid, in a single paragraph. He claims that Israel is imposing such a policy on its occupied territories. He defines apartheid as “two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other” with Israelis “totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.”
That’s all. It ignores the million Palestinian citizens of Israel proper who own property and vote. This is apartheid?
Carter almost completely ignores terrorism and its effect on Israel. Only a handful of terrorist acts are mentioned, unelaborated, as in the backhanded reference to “violence” just quoted.
The day is not long enough to list all the offensive material. On Page 199, Carter claims that “more than 800 Lebanese civilians” were killed in the first month of this summer’s fighting in southern Lebanon. There’s not the merest hint that any of them were responsible for the 4,000 rockets fired into northern Israel, or that the Hezbollah firing positions were smack in the middle of civilian areas.
Carter ignores inconvenient evidence. The “Palestinians responded” to Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount in 2000 with the “second intifada” uprising, he wrote. The Palestine Liberation Organization had planned the uprising and was looking for an excuse to launch it when Sharon unwittingly obliged. How do we know? PLO leaders have said so. You wouldn’t know it from reading Carter. He abhors the fence Israel is building around the West Bank; you’d be hard-pressed to learn that it is aimed at preventing the murder of Jews.
Carter appears to be snuggling up to the conspiracy theorists who think Jews control American policy. “Because of powerful political, economic and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned,” he wrote.
The former president gets a hearing because he won the Nobel Peace Prize for arranging the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. He has now shown that his views are unworthy of respect.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | He claims that Israel is imposing such a policy on its occupied territories |
| quote: | | It ignores the million Palestinian citizens of Israel proper who own property and vote |
Yes because he is talking about Palestine, not Israel
| quote: | | He defines apartheid as “two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other” with Israelis “totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.” |
Perhaps then, we should compare the living standards, rights and day to day experiences of the settlers to the Palestinians? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yes because he is talking about Palestine, not Israel
|
But that's the reviewers point; Carter ignores that fact entirely. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
But that's the reviewers point; Carter ignores that fact entirely. |
So if you're admittedly writing a book about the Palestinians suffering and how Israel is suppressing them you have to somehow do an overview of Israel too? Is that what you're saying?
im typing in small text to say that your comment doesnt make sense to me.... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
But that's the reviewers point; Carter ignores that fact entirely. |
My point is that it is irrelevant, what is relevant is the lives of the Palestinians in the occupied territories (which is what people refer to when they accuse Israel of being "apartheid") |
|
|
|
|
