| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Carter admistration
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The Carter admistration

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Carter admistration
    Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 21:46
How effective was Jimmy Cater as President of the US and his international policies? Aside from brokering peace between Egypt and Israel, here in the States his administration was once seen as a weak and mostly a failure. Was his administration merely a victim of history and his two predecessors or was his really governance really ineffectual and weak?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Nov 2012 at 01:57
If you ask me, he was one of the better American presidents. Despite some rather strong religious views, he was a humanist, and a civilized person. His major sin was to tell the American people the truth, something that history has shown to be a mistake generally, and certainly so in recent years.
 
He assessed (correctly) that energy was going to be a big issue in the future, and suggested conservation. Cowboys don't do conservation, as Reagan implicitly implied a short while later; that's for wimps. This was the cheap shot, the soundbite that that had vote-buying value, but not the responsible policy for a genuine leader. I think history will have a negative conclusion for the latter opinion.
 
He had the unfortunate episode of the Iran hostage taking on his watch, and the botched rescue attempt. This was not his fault however, and there was little he really could have done about it differently. In fact there was somer rather dark evidence that the hostage drama was played out to benefit the incoming Reagan, in the most cynical fashion imaginable, in the Iran arms scandal.
 
He's still at it today, flying about and trying to tamp down violence and conflict in the world. Good on 'm.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Nov 2012 at 14:09
How can a president who balanced the budget, never had a recession in his term (except for 6 months at the end of his term and largely because of the 1979-80 oil shock) and reduced unemployment to below 6% from the 9% when he took office be considered a failure?
 
Carter got alot of bad press because of the massive inflation during his years and the fact that he was terrible at communicating but he was an excellent president, might even outrank Reagan in economic performance seeing that Reagan never achieved an unemployment rate similar to Carter (the lowest he got was 6.2% I think with nearly all his year averaging above the average Carter numbers).
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 02:00
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

If you ask me, he was one of the better American presidents. Despite some rather strong religious views, he was a humanist, and a civilized person. His major sin was to tell the American people the truth, something that history has shown to be a mistake generally, and certainly so in recent years.


As i have sorely come to learn, the truth is easily manipulated by those with an aggressive agenda. So basically, what is a truth, is open to interpretation. As it is, i think he is a nice man, pushy on his politics, but incredibly preachy in his lectures and long winded.
 
Quote
He assessed (correctly) that energy was going to be a big issue in the future, and suggested conservation. Cowboys don't do conservation, as Reagan implicitly implied a short while later; that's for wimps. This was the cheap shot, the soundbite that that had vote-buying value, but not the responsible policy for a genuine leader. I think history will have a negative conclusion for the latter opinion.


Regan tapped into American roots with this view. In essence, to do something to change the predicament, not to sit on their duffs and accept limitations. History doesn't need to come to a positive or a negative conclusion on anything. History needs to be objective in it's analysis and not picking one side because it suits a political view.
 
Quote
He had the unfortunate episode of the Iran hostage taking on his watch, and the botched rescue attempt. This was not his fault however, and there was little he really could have done about it differently. In fact there was somer rather dark evidence that the hostage drama was played out to benefit the incoming Reagan, in the most cynical fashion imaginable, in the Iran arms scandal.
 


He was the leader at the time of "Desert One" and it was his fault. He even admits and accepted it, which i find rather commendable, rather than passing the blame on it being dragged out by Regan, which is absurd cynical politicking! The release of the hostages was an Iranian slap in the face to Carter's administration after Regan took office, rather than the Iranians doing any favors to Regan. If anything on the issue, Regan just accepted the lauding of the press and allowed the press to credit him for their release, doing nothing to correct this view.

Quote
He's still at it today, flying about and trying to tamp down violence and conflict in the world. Good on 'm.


I agree, give credit where credit is due.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 18:14
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

If you ask me, he was one of the better American presidents. Despite some rather strong religious views, he was a humanist, and a civilized person. His major sin was to tell the American people the truth, something that history has shown to be a mistake generally, and certainly so in recent years.


As i have sorely come to learn, the truth is easily manipulated by those with an aggressive agenda. So basically, what is a truth, is open to interpretation. As it is, i think he is a nice man, pushy on his politics, but incredibly preachy in his lectures and long winded.
 
 
Yes, truth can be manipulated, and often is. In this particular case though, I think history has shown a fundamental truth was at work, and has now come to be widely accepted. Most countries now acknowledge and plan for a more energy efficient future.
 
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Quote
He assessed (correctly) that energy was going to be a big issue in the future, and suggested conservation. Cowboys don't do conservation, as Reagan implicitly implied a short while later; that's for wimps. This was the cheap shot, the soundbite that that had vote-buying value, but not the responsible policy for a genuine leader. I think history will have a negative conclusion for the latter opinion.


Regan tapped into American roots with this view. In essence, to do something to change the predicament, not to sit on their duffs and accept limitations. History doesn't need to come to a positive or a negative conclusion on anything. History needs to be objective in it's analysis and not picking one side because it suits a political view.
 
I think to be honest here we have to say that Reagan tapped into American mythology. History has indicated that Americans have "sat on their duffs" at about the same rate as anyone else. Charles Dickens would have found much the same to write about in the nineteenth century industrial centers of New York or Chicago as he did in London. Workers endured the same hardships of the industrial revolution as in other countries. Gender inequality was a rampant in the US as elsewhere. Racial conflict was somewhat worse. Americans gave up their youth for imperial wars at about the same rate as others in the past, more so in recent decades. Americans "sat on their duffs" through the great depression, and were later than most to come to a greater political awareness that helped stem the effects in other countries sooner. They are "sitting on their duffs" today, as the corporate plutocracy confiscates ever more power and privelige for itself. The tough cowpoke/frontiersman was only a small segment of US history, one that has been blown up and exploited shamelessly by those with selfish interest in more recent times.
 
Reagan seemed to see a fuzzy line between fantasy and reality, perhaps an effect of all his years as an actor. This was to have serious effects for the US economy. What was remarkable about the Carter and following Reagan administrations was that we found out that fanatasy can trump reality to surprising degree.
 
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 
Quote
He had the unfortunate episode of the Iran hostage taking on his watch, and the botched rescue attempt. This was not his fault however, and there was little he really could have done about it differently. In fact there was somer rather dark evidence that the hostage drama was played out to benefit the incoming Reagan, in the most cynical fashion imaginable, in the Iran arms scandal.
 


He was the leader at the time of "Desert One" and it was his fault. He even admits and accepted it, which i find rather commendable, rather than passing the blame on it being dragged out by Regan, which is absurd cynical politicking! The release of the hostages was an Iranian slap in the face to Carter's administration after Regan took office, rather than the Iranians doing any favors to Regan. If anything on the issue, Regan just accepted the lauding of the press and allowed the press to credit him for their release, doing nothing to correct this view.

Quote
He's still at it today, flying about and trying to tamp down violence and conflict in the world. Good on 'm.


I agree, give credit where credit is due.
 
Technically, he was C in C, so was ultimately responsible. But let's face it, there was nothing he could have realistically done to get the hostages out alive. He also didn't crash the aircraft and cause the failures of the military operation personally. That was done by others under him, for which he accepted responsibilty, as was his duty.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 20:53
Carter and Nixon suffered from making the same mistake: trying to get Americans to face reality and tae action on real problems. Movie America would ultimately win out and neither Carter nor Nixon were the stuff movie heroes are made of. 

Instead:




Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 23:12
On the subject of how Carter handled the Iran hostage crisis, I must ask Carter's critics: "what more could the man have realistically done that he did not do?"
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2012 at 01:28
Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being, but a naif in foreign relations and military operations. To his credit, training for a second hostage rescue operation was underway when he lost the election. He never mentioned the fact despite the shellacking he was taking from the Republicans. In that regard, he has a better track record than Joe Biden. 

As for Constantine's question: What more could he have done? He could have told Beckwith to go ahead with the operation. There were those on the ground in Teheran at the time who assessed that even with Desert One, the operation had a very good chance of success. But, he took the more cautious approach, that of pulling back the force, ordering it to get its act together, and get ready for another try. Given that the hostages were released anyway, they might be very glad he didn't order Beckwith to drive on.

But, as a former president he grossly misread Kim Jong-il, and pandered to the Haitian military. Some of the violence that occurred in the aftermath of U.S. intervention in Haiti can be laid to Carter's inability to understand that he was representing the President of the United States, and was no longer the President himself.  

Carter's problem is that he can see a germ of good in every man, not realizing that for some men, that germ will not flower while the shell holding it within yet lives.


Edited by lirelou - 30 Nov 2012 at 01:30
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2012 at 15:57
Since I quoted one side of Feiffer, I'll quote him on Carter (I can't find the strip and I'll approximate the dialog.)

Carter as a small boy is sitting by a stream apparently waving his hands. An old black man comes up behind him and says "What ya doin' little Jimmy?' 

Jimmy: I'm fishin'

Man: But Jimmy, when you go fishin', don't ya need a pole?

Jimmy: Sometimes you gotta have faith. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2012 at 21:42
History has remembered Carter as a good, honourable man with humanist convictions. Unfortunately such men do not always make great politicians or leaders.

Jimmy Carter is the kind of man who creates the United Federation of Planets or who signs the peace treaty with the Klingon Empire or who succesfully negotiates a prisoner exchange programme with the Romulans. He literally belongs to another era!

There. I referenced Star Trek to recent American history. Do what you may.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2012 at 08:27
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being, but a naif in foreign relations and military operations. To his credit, training for a second hostage rescue operation was underway when he lost the election. He never mentioned the fact despite the shellacking he was taking from the Republicans. In that regard, he has a better track record than Joe Biden. 

As for Constantine's question: What more could he have done? He could have told Beckwith to go ahead with the operation. There were those on the ground in Teheran at the time who assessed that even with Desert One, the operation had a very good chance of success. But, he took the more cautious approach, that of pulling back the force, ordering it to get its act together, and get ready for another try. Given that the hostages were released anyway, they might be very glad he didn't order Beckwith to drive on.

Young men with guns and  a perceived cosmic mission can get pretty stoked. A shootout in an attempt to rescue the hostages could well have caused many deaths. Attempting such under anything but the most optimal conditions imaginable was probably not a good idea. As had already been starkly demonstrated, many things could go wrong with this type of operation, and already had.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

But, as a former president he grossly misread Kim Jong-il, and pandered to the Haitian military. Some of the violence that occurred in the aftermath of U.S. intervention in Haiti can be laid to Carter's inability to understand that he was representing the President of the United States, and was no longer the President himself.  

Carter's problem is that he can see a germ of good in every man, not realizing that for some men, that germ will not flower while the shell holding it within yet lives.

As for pandering to dictators, nutbars, and psychopaths, there are many in high places guilty of this, for various reasons, strategic and otherwise. Sadaam Hussien, the Nicaragua Contras, the Shah of Iran, Saudi royalty, and assorted others have all had praise- and more material endorsements- heaped on them by US presidents at one time or another.

By the way, Carter wrote a very even handed book on the Middle East (Peace or Apartheid) in which he refused to pander to Israeli interests, as is still the custom in Washington today.
Back to Top
Gen. Albert S. Johns View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Location: Alabama
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gen. Albert S. Johns Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2014 at 05:49
One of the few actions Carter ever took that showed he had guts was restoring the citizenship of Jefferson Davis. Davis was vilified for about ever act of the Confederacy.  That action was the least the could be done to restore Davis' reputation, which is something akin to Hitler.
Gen. Albert S. Johnston
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jul 2014 at 04:25
Panther wrote:
Quote He was the leader at the time of "Desert One" and it was his fault. He even admits and accepted it, which i find rather commendable, rather than passing the blame on it being dragged out by Regan, which is absurd cynical politicking!
 
How can it possibly be his fault that weather and human error led to the failure of the mission?
 
As C in C, it was his responsibility overall, but never his fault!
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jul 2014 at 07:16
Actually although no fan of the PF. He at least gets credit for having taken affirmative corrective action after his initial foreign policy gaffes.

Unlike the Obama administration, which continues to alienate once close allies. viz his prevarication-indecision and appeasement of the Russians and terrorist groups now led by Isis and their masters the Iranian fundamentalists.

''The president's critics in Washington, as well as some diplomats abroad, believe Mr. Obama's policies have fueled today's conflicts. They cite his decision to pull back from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his rejection of a more decisive U.S. and allied role in the Syrian civil war, and what they see as his reluctance to provide greater support to American allies in Asia and Europe as they face down the newly aggressive foreign polices of China, Iran and President Vladimir Putin's Russia.''


http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-contends-with-arc-of-instability-unseen-since-70s-1405297479

Edited by Arlington - 15 Jul 2014 at 07:22
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jul 2014 at 18:13
Originally posted by Arlington Arlington wrote:

Actually although no fan of the PF. He at least gets credit for having taken affirmative corrective action after his initial foreign policy gaffes.

Unlike the Obama administration, which continues to alienate once close allies. viz his prevarication-indecision and appeasement of the Russians and terrorist groups now led by Isis and their masters the Iranian fundamentalists.

''The president's critics in Washington, as well as some diplomats abroad, believe Mr. Obama's policies have fueled today's conflicts. They cite his decision to pull back from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his rejection of a more decisive U.S. and allied role in the Syrian civil war, and what they see as his reluctance to provide greater support to American allies in Asia and Europe as they face down the newly aggressive foreign polices of China, Iran and President Vladimir Putin's Russia.''


http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-contends-with-arc-of-instability-unseen-since-70s-1405297479

You're facts are so convoluted here Mr A, it's hard to know where to start. Iran does not oversee ISIS, they are strongly opposed to them, and have offered military aid to Iraq to wipe them out. ISIS are Sunni Muslims, currently at loggerheads with the Shia sect, the majority in Iran and southern Iraq.

The world is facing a number of issues right now, but has had many times in the past when events reached such a confluence, and indeed times when they were much more serious. The WSJ emphasizes the current situation, because it fits with the editorial stance of the paper. The Dems represent capitalism lite, as apposed to capitalism crazy, the WSJs favoured mode. So any innuendo that kicks dirt on the Dems suits their purpose, including suggesting that the current administration is weak in the face of unprecedented crisis. It's not weak, and the crisis's are unprecedented. You'd have to read some history to know that however, and the WSJ probably figures that most of its readers do not.

As for alienating US allies, I don't think many Americans realize the damage done by the Bush administration. Its policies were a complete departure from previous notions of rule of law.

No US president, not Bush or Romney, would have intervened in the Crimea situation. The west didn't in Germany in '53, Hungary in '56, Czechoslovakia in '68, or indeed cross any line that would have risked nuclear war over areas outside of critical interest, and militarily unwinnable anyway.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm sorry to break it to you, had become Vietnam style wars of attrition that the Bush administration initiated, but then had no idea how to finish. The problem was dumped in the lap of Obama, and Bush, hands now clean, could retreat to his ranch. No US president, Dem or Rep, would survive and open ended commitment to those places, stretching on decades, with US troops coming home in plastic bags. Public opinion would preclude it.


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 15 Jul 2014 at 18:18
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.