President Carter: “The Rest of the World, Almost Unanimously,

[Ichingcarpenter]

President Carter: “The Rest of the World, Almost Unanimously, Looks At America As The No. 1 Warmonger. That We Revert To Armed Conflict Almost At The Drop Of A Hat — And Quite Often It’s Not Only Desired By The Leaders Of Our Country, But It’s Also Supported By The People Of America”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/12/1291483/-Carter-s-Salon-Interview-On-Race-Slut-Shaming-and-How-U-S-is-Viewed-as-World-s-No-1-Warmonger

[The Blue Flower]

1. We seem to revert to armed conflict at all levels

Cops tase kids and seniors at the drop of a hat. They shoot to kill those who are unarmed and defenseless. We are a thoroughly militarized society.

[JDPriestly]

81. Unless some armed right-wingers bring their guns to defend using federal lands to graze

cattle without paying the government for it.

[billhicks76]

136. Repubs and Dems Agree On Only One Thing

War and Coups

[JDPriestly]

137. I think that the federal government will simply go back to court and get an order to

go into the accounts of the person who earns money from Bundy's use of federal land without having paid the fee. I don't think it will come to a war or a coup or any violence at all.

It's just about money.

[billhicks76]

138. I Meant Wars Abroad

Carter is tired of the war machine making policy

[tazkcmo]

2. The People

are fed false information in order to garner their support. Even when disagreeing about the use of force, the People tend to support the People that make up our military force as it is populated by the People.

[treestar]

3. That does not seem all that fair a statement from the rest of the world

Afghanistan was not at the drop of a hat.

Even Iraq involved a lot of arguing and persuading.

And we are out there expected to defend the rest of the world when some part of it has a problem. Are the same willing to let us sit back when something bad happens somewhere? No, it's always what are we going to do about it and how it's not good enough.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. I'll take Carter's Opinion

rather than yours anyday

But you are welcome to your opinion.

[treestar]

51. Oh thanks

Do you think for yourself or just do what Carter says? I like Carter, but don't slavishly follow his opinions, or the opinions of "the rest of the world."

[Enthusiast]

97. Me too.

Even the response in Afghanistan was way out of proportion.

No nation-state attacked us on 911. The Afghan government at the time of 911 was hardly worthy of the name. Any positives from the Afghanistan War are far outweighed by negatives. Someone on DU actually argued that the US had built them schools, roads and bridges, lol.

Iraq hardly needs a mention. It was ridiculous from start to finish and resulted in untold suffering.

But, once again, because the media is 100% controlled, we cannot have a reasonable discussion about how the filthy war criminal Bush Administration should be prosecuted for a number of crimes.

If we had an objective media the Obama Administration would never have been able to say, "We must look forward."

[merrily]

122. Carter would seem very highly qualified to opine on world affairs.

Besides, the world's current view of us is not a big secret.

[pangaia]

6. Afghanistan WAS very much ast the drop of a hat.

Iraq was exactly ar the drop of a hat.
If " we are out there expected to defend the rest of the world when some part of it has a problem," it is because those who expect it know we are arrogant suckers.

[greytdemocrat]

8. Correct.

Well said.

[rhett o rick]

40. Nothing he said was correct. It was all totally unsubstantiated. nm

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Dissenting

Neither in Afghanistan nor Iraq did the Bushies consider any option other than military action.

In Iraq especially, Bush could have let the inspectors do their jobs, accepted that Iraq had no WMDs and come out smelling like a rose, "If we did not threaten to invade, we would not have known that Saddam poses no threat." However, no matter how many times the Bushies' case for war was debunked, they kept repeating the same lies and smearing Dr. Blix, Dr. El Baradei, Major Scott Ridder or anybody else who dared to put facts on the table. Clearly, ridding Iraq of a bio-chemical arsenal was not what the Bushies' were concerned about. They were obviously concerned about something that could not be obtained peacefully.

[treestar]

52. Still the drop of the hat is not accurate

Afghanistan had like 80% approval - because the Taliban let Al Qaeda work there. Right after 911, one could not reasonably expect Americans not to approve (and I did not)

Iraq - I did not approve but - it is not the case that it wasn't dwelt upon - the UN, the IWR, etc., it was not easy for Shrub to get approval for that.

[otherone]

57. I remember both wars

Both were at the drop of a hat

[Jenoch]

134. I was under the impression

that years went by with UN weapons inspectors, no fly zones, and 18 months went by after September 11, 2001, including a vote in congress, before the invasion of Iraq. I was no fan of the Iraqi war, but to say it was started "at the drop of a hat" is incorrect.

[Jack Rabbit]

59. It is quite accurate if there is no other plan

True, going into Afghanistan was a lot easier For the reason you state, but diplomacy should have been tried first. Personally, I would have expected that to fail and not necessarily because the Bushies would have sabotaged it. Going to war should never be the first option; with the Bushies, it was always the only option. For the record, I opposed going into Afghanistan until diplomatic options were exhausted, but I don't think that would have taken very long.

For Iraq, I believe you're dead wrong. The case was not dwelt on for the simple reason that the Bushies lied about the reasons for going into Iraq and our free press was complicit in the crime. There can be no real discussion under those circumstances. The same lies were told to the United Nations, but they were reading something other than Judy Miller's above-the-fold fiction in The New York Times. That's why the Bushies never got approval in the UN. The resolution was withdrawn because of fear that it would have been voted down.

There was an online ad for the Guardian about a year after the invasion which cited a poll showing that most Americans believed that most of the world at large supported Bush on Iraq. The clever pitch line was, "It must be the newspapers they're reading."

[CFLDem]

96. ^^^THIS IS WHY WE LOSE ELECTIONS^^^

Diplomacy with the Taliban...

After 9/11!?

Jeebus fugging Christ on a stick...

GET IT TOGETHER PEOPLE!!!!

[Cheviteau]

119. I won't take sides here but,...

if my memory serves me well, a very short-lived agreement was established between the Bush admin. and the Taliban to hand over Osama to the U.S. The Taliban then reneged on the deal thus prompting George-The-Lesser to go to war with the Taliban, and by extension Afghanistan as a sovereign nation.

[mn9driver]

123. No agreement.

The Taliban government offered to "discuss" handing over bin Laden to a hypothetical neutral third party, if "proof" of his guilt was supplied.

This offer came only after the US bombing campaign had been underway for a week. Other Taliban officials denied it had been made at all.

I disagreed with a lot of things regarding US actions in Afghanistan, and still do, but I also believe the only way to get bin Laden out of there was to go in and get him. And we screwed that up. The Taliban would never have handed him over.

[Jack Rabbit]

140. I beg to differ with you

It looked pretty good at the time, but how did going into Afghanistan work out for us?

In the long run, it was a costly disaster. We've got as much to show for going into Afghanistan as we had for going into Vietnam.

True, the Bushies made a few astonishing blunders, like inexplicably turning around when Osama was cornered in Tora Bora. Would we still have been there when Bush's term of office ended if he and his team had followed through and pursued Osama? Then the Bushies got us into Iraq; that was a monumental blunder in its itself. Better management of the war on terrorism would have been helpful, too, like instead of a war on terrorism having a war on specific terrorists and defined, achievable goals by which success could be measured.

Nevertheless, the Bush/Cheney shoot first and ask questions later approach to foreign affairs is now widely discredited. Obama was elected in 2008 on the perception, and I believe a well justified one, that he prefers to avoid war if possible. Obama begins the management any crisis by opening diplomatic channels. The only election the Democrats lost since 2004 (if indeed they actually lost in 2004) was in 2010, when foreign policy wasn't an issue. Today, the Republicans are on life support and the only reason that party is at all competitive now is dirty money courtesy the Citizens United decision and legalized election fraud in states where the GOP holds a legislative majority and passes racist voter ID laws. Nowadays, instead of seeing Dick Cheney calling anyone who opposes the war on terrorism unpatriotic on Sunday morning, we see Bill Kristol calling for war at (pardon me) the drop of a hat anytime any situation gets uncomfortable and then watch how fast he backpedals when a Democratic spokesman confronts him and suggests his idea is as stupid as it sounds.

[rhett o rick]

108. You are trying to change the discussion. The world sees us as a big bully.

argue all you want about your idea of justification for our actions in one specific case. The world sees us as a big bully. Do you recognize that? President Carter does as do a lot of us. Do you approve of the USofA being a big bully? Illegally using drones to kill, spying on the whole world, etc.

[treestar]

113. I am talking about what Carter said the "rest of the world" thinks

And whether that is fair, which is relevant comment to the OP.

How do you explain the countries that sent troops to Afghanistan with us?

What of the countries that know we are defending them?

[LiberalLovinLug]

124. Sorry to burst your bubble

Speaking as a Canadian, yes you are perceived that way.

Afghanistan was an exception to the rule. At least for the first while. We sent the third, and at one point retained the second, largest contingent to support our good neighbours in their quest to round up the perps of 9/11. We purposely did NOT help you with Vietnam or Iraq.

It is perceived around the world that for the most part your aggressions are based on monetary interests above all. That you worship your military like gods, and considering how much you spend on it, its no wonder.

There is also the perception that while folks like you complain that the US HAS to be the policeman because no one else will do the thankless job, Americans also don't want to work with other nations via the U.N, which negates that former argument. The thumbing your collective noses at the U.N. is an insult to the rest of the world. You couldn't wait for Hans Blix to complete his weapons inspection job and kicked him out of Iraq to do what you were going to do regardless anyways. The U.N. is not perfect but it is the ONLY venue we have in the world to attempt to solve problems and listen to each other. I am disturbed by how many on DU are U.N. haters.

You are like a dominant sports team in a league of nations. A league that has no cap limit. So you are blessed with being the top dog, like the Yankees x 1000. Way ahead of other teams. You tempt and sign all the best players and use all the latest training equipment. And the fans in the stands love it! USA USA USA!!! But there is no humility. There is no maturity. No concept of "with great power comes great responsibility". Your cultural popular TV programing reflects your collective attitudes. You glorify wealth and privilege like the Kardashians or Housewives of wherever.

Yes you come across as assholes who plunder kill and steal others resources just because...you can. and your populace thinks its all fair as long as your news media tells them its ok. Either that or they are simply ignorant and revel in it. That you don't even want to know harmful things you cause around the world because it would disturb your fantasy that you are always the white hatted heroes. That kind of naive defensiveness is interpreted as a weakness in your collective character.

That is your collective perception outside of your country...sorry. But of course I have to add that individually you are great! Many great Americans I have had a friendship with over the years. Many more I wish I could meet. Your contributions to the world in the arts, music, acting, as well as heroic stories throughout your history like of the defeat of slavery, MLK are inspiring. You have a "can do " spirit that is infectious. There are so many good and gifted people down there I would be proud to stand beside.

[tomg]

126. As someone from the States

who spends a fair amount of time overseas (3-4 months clips in Europe), I think you are being charitable to us and how we are viewed ( actually- I think your post is absolutely spot on). Also have some friends currently working overseas who say pretty much the same. In fact, your post mirrors exactly what one friend who worked for an NGO in Sudan and is now in Afghanistan recently said.

[LiberalLovinLug]

129. thanks

I hesitated to reply because I also have been raised that if you don't have anything nice to say....don't say anything. But since treestar asked...
I think its kind of a schizophrenic relationship with other countries peoples. Like I said, there is so much to admire in Americans and their history. And I can even understand to some degree the hubris. With the greatest concentration of wealth in human history, its no wonder that the corporate owned media has the resources and influence to alter and twist truth to such a degree that many are fooled. Its more sad than anything. Of what could have been in your great country. All the money spent of wars and tax breaks to the wealthiest in the last thirty or so years that could have elevated the citizenry to the best education, healthcare, high-speed rail, and standard of living..in the world.

[tomg]

131. Thank you. Actually, from our side,

I think it has to do, at least in part with a completely split concept of American Exceptionalism. On the one hand we have conservatives claiming we are exceptional due to our roots in the past ( essentially, a Garden Paradise - we were the vision to the world because we first recognized certain things) while Progressives claim it is in a future ( we are exceptional because we can conceptualize a future, a city on the hill that is one based in universal human rights). Both therefore claim an essentially American vision that is somehow or other limited to the United States- one based in ontology ( origins) and the other in teleology ( ends). So meanwhile so many other countries ( like yours) go about creating the kinds of conditions that will create that better world - while we are just blowing smoke. Sorry, while I am just a tad depressed about the US tonight, I am still hopeful for the rest of us elsewhere.

[LiberalLovinLug]

142. Very interesting deduction

In essence, in America, the conservatives live in, and for, an idealized past, while the liberals live in, and for, a utopian future. I can see that.

I'd rather be in the latter group of course. I'd rather envision a better future on the principle of "creative visualization". Working for and be optimistic about what we can achieve. Rather than living in the past, especially a past that is created out of a selective memory (like the fact that in the right-wing glorified '50s, the corporate tax rate was one of the highest in history)

And i wouldn't praise our country's leadership for a while now with our Con PM running the show. (he got in because the other 3 more left/center parties split their vote) For instance, the only country in the world to pull out of the international conference on de-desertification of Africa. I guess that was too much of a liberal utopian ideal for PM Harper to fathom. We are fast becoming isolated and ridiculed by the rest of the world by our neanderthal right wing policies.

[treestar]

132. I'm sure you are not sorry

But you are only one Canadian, and seem to have a US-hatred for some reason.

I don't think we have to be world policeman. As most powerful and richest nation we are simply asked to be. They wanted us to join in WWI and WWII and drug us in kicking and screaming. Ever since that and the Cold War, we're the only ones who could counter the Soviets with nuclear power. So I think it not in order to be insulting - other than Iraq - maybe I could agree on that, but it's still just one case.

When there was uprising in Libya, there was demand that we do something. And yet whatever we do is wrong, too. Something goes wrong in Syria or Ukraine and it is immediately asked what we are going to do about it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

141. Yes I am truely sorry

I'm Canadian after all.

And I can only assume that your interpretation of me having a "US-hatred" is you putting yourself in my place and how you'd feel about a country that lives so close to you that acts that way. I shouldn't have to explain, on an intelligent site like this, that there is a difference between not liking US foreign policy steered by a powerful elite to further their financial interests and how one feels about the great and generous US people, and pretend that you didn't see that difference.

No, no one asked you to be the world's policeman. I'm not a complete pacifist. Like I said, I understand going into Afghanistan initially. And I think there was a need to fight WW2. But you only entered that, after your own nation was attacked. You didn't enter it because you were answering a call.

Libya, under Obama and the Dems, reacted right in Libya by joining forces with NATO on an agreed upon limited strike plan.

And who is asking what we are going to do about "it"? (in Syria or Ukraine) insinuating military action. Its mostly the right wing, the GOP within your own borders. It doesn't mean you have to cater to that voice. But too many times in US history, you HAVE listened to that voice. And the rest of us in the world just shake our heads and cringe at the upcoming human loss and misery to come.

[A Simple Game]

115. The correct way to take out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan would have been with

10 or 20 attack helicopters and 10 or 20 troop transports. 90% of Al Qaeda could have been killed or captured by a quick attack. We knew where they were.

But a full invasion of the country gave Al Qaeda time to disperse and an excuse to occupy the country which was the true intention of the war.

As for Iraq? It wasn't hard for them to get approval for that, they are expert liars. They would have gone without support anyway it's what they really wanted.

[Chemisse]

125. The drumbeat for the Iraq war went on for maybe 3 months

But it was clear that Bush et al had no interest in a peaceful resolution. Going to war was inevitable as soon as it was proposed. At one point, they even argued that all the military was in place, so they really couldn't wait to see if Hussein planned on complying with any demands. Timing and logistics simply demanded the attack. They even had the PR campaign planned (shock and awe).

In my opinion, taking only 3 months to pretend they were just considering an act that would slay hundreds of thousands of people (ours and theirs) is a 'drop in the hat.'

[treestar]

133. Well OK if you have to define it that way

But then we muddled out of Syria (or I suppose you give Putin credit, but if we were such warmongers we'd have gone in.) Obama said we will not go into Ukraine in any military fashion.

We had to be convinced to get into the World Wars. It was known we had huge resources and manpower and with us, the Nazis could be defeated.

[sabrina 1]

12. Afghanistan wasn't at the drop of a hat, but it sure wasn't for the reasons, more lies, we

were given. It was another invasion that benefited only those who profit from these policies, using our military and our tax dollars to enrich themselves.

There is simply no doubt that the world now views the US as the primary threat to world peace. To deny that is simply futile.

I have no idea why anyone would deny it frankly. At least some Americans don't hide their support for being the world bully, I have much more of a problem with those who try to excuse it, as if that is even possible.

[LibDemAlways]

22. PNAC suggests that these wars, especially Iraq, were

a foregone conclusion once the chimp was installed in the WH. Any "arguing and persuading" was for show.

[progressoid]

39. ^^^this^^^

[treestar]

53. They still had to do it

the UN, Congress, they still had to do it. It wasn't immediate. I don't agree with it, but can admit that my fellow countrymen disagreed with me in huge numbers.

[roody]

116. The war machine was hungry and

had to be fed.

[Enthusiast]

98. A free and fair media would be discussing PNAC and their role in these wars.

But we can no longer have a free and fair media.

[LibDemAlways]

117. I have a friend who at the time had some responsibility for

programming content on several cable networks. I told him about PNAC and suggested that he google it. He did and told me no network - cable or otherwise - would ever go near it. Even Rachel, in her recent one hour special about why America went to Iraq never mentioned it -- which turned the hour into a joke - well-meaning, but nonetheless laughable.

Free press? What's that?

[Enthusiast]

118. Yes, MSNBC, the "liberal" channel.

Rachel and rest are very strictly limited in their words and what they discuss. If they won't comply they can join Donahue, Olbermann and the others.

[rhett o rick]

41. The statement was made by a former President. He is explaining the worlds perception.

Now the "American Exceptionalist" among us of course would disagree. But I believe that's how the world sees us. Iraq wasnt a drop of a hat. It was planned for years before 9/11. Does that make the worlds perception of us any better? Afghanistan was a drop of a hat. And how about Pres Obama's drone killings in sovereign countries? How does the world perceive that?

No one except the "American Exceptionalists" among us believe we should be policing the world. Most of the time we are only looking after our own interests when we interfere with other countries.

I stand by Pres Carter.

[Dragonfli]

72. the "American Exceptionalists" consider drone killings to be nothing but bug splatters

Such is the thinking of these no hearted sociopaths that really do calll children blown to bits "bugsplats"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024814866

[Enthusiast]

102. The "American Exceptionalists" do not

give a fuck about American children let alone foreign children.

[Dragonfli]

105. I wish that I could argue against your statement, sadly however your statement has become an axiom

[Enthusiast]

99. +1 a whole bunch!

[otherone]

56. USA

USA

[Hissyspit]

77. Nah, Carter has it right.

There was going to be an attack on Afghanistan no matter what.

[reACTIONary]

79. Agee. (nt)

[Nevernose]

83. Libya, Pakistan, Somalia (multiple), Haiti (multiple)

Yemen (multiple times), Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Phillipines, Congo, Colombia, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's just the last three presidents. Two of whom were Democrats (and both of whom I like).

[treestar]

112. Other than Iraq and Afghanistan, the others are such that

if we did nothing, we'd be blamed for that too. People get themselves into some sort of conflict, and we're expected to do something about it!

and we usually don't do it alone, so why doesn't the UK, etc. come in for the same?

[Nevernose]

120. I don't live there

So it's not ny job to kvetch about their government. They've got their own progressives for that.

I'm an American, and I want to change America for the better, just like Jimmy Carter.

[BlueMTexpat]

94. I live in western Switzerland

where internationals from all over the world live. I have done so for nearly 20 years. I can attest to what I see and hear from friends, acquaintances and colleagues, present and former, as well as in the press.

What I see and hear is that the US (which people still admire nonetheless for many reasons) is generally viewed as overly ready to resort to military "solutions" in its reactions to crises - manufactured or real. Still, the Obama Administration has made great advances - and is perceived to have done so - in returning to considering all other remedies so that military recourse is - as it should be - the LAST of last resorts. This is a MAJOR accomplishment after Bush II literally left our goodwill in shreds and tatters.

While what I see and hear points out that Carter is more accurate than not, people here generally also give our Prez much more credit for what he has done than do some here on DU.

[LuckyLib]

5. My French daughter-in-law shrugs at a violent

Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2014, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

America, and says "it's how you solve problems -- with guns".

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. Keeping in mind that French is the international language of diplomacy....

America is the international house of pancakes.

[Enthusiast]

103. Pfft!

[loyalsister]

7. "Supported By The People Of America”

Would it be less so if there were a draft (male and female) in place?

[zeemike]

17. Yes it would.

Restore our military to a conscripted force and you would solve a lot of problems, including with the budget.

[Jgarrick]

28. Forced servitude? No thanks.

[zeemike]

29. Forced servitude my ass.

It is called doing your civic responsibility and was used to great effect in the past.
But some don't like it because the children of rich people have to serve too...and that is just an outrage.

[Jgarrick]

30. So in the name of liberty, you want to force young people to join the army.

[zeemike]

37. No I want the draft back.

Where if we have to fight a war everyone is involved in it...and that makes war harder not easy like it is now.
As it stands now the volunteers will be poor kids that have no other opportunities available to them and sociopaths who love the idea of killing people, getting paid for it, and being called a hero when they do...and it is because of them that we have so many war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Boreal]

50. It's involuntary servitude

and Vietnam worked so well..

[Enthusiast]

107. That's the point.

Vietnam was unjustifiable. The "Domino Theory" was a flawed concept used as an excuse to go to war.

What if we had "won" in Vietnam? How would things have been better? For anyone? Maybe Vietnam could be ruled by a right wing dictator? How would that be better?

If a war is not worthy of a military draft it isn't a war worthy of being engaged in.

[Lasher]

54. Fuck that shit.

You want to volunteer other people to serve as slaves. You have no skin in the game yourself. There's lots of people like you who think it's a great idea for other people to get drafted when they have never been drafted themselves and never will be.

[zeemike]

60. Well I did my time from 1960 to 67

Under the draft...and I served with people from all walks of life including the rich kids...and it did not hurt me or them...but you are right, I will never be drafted again.

But we have a profound difference in perception of what is slavery and what is your duty and responsibility to your community.

[Lasher]

65. You exercised a choice by joining the Navy. You were not drafted.

If you were like most others who joined at that time, it was mainly because you were under threat of being drafted into the Army.

Involuntary servitude might sound a little better than slavery but it's pretty much the same thing. If this is a duty and responsibility to my community, then shouldn't every single person share an equal burden? It's never been that way and it never will be.

If you served with some affluent people, it is not evidence that the draft was fair. For example, please consider the story of George W Bush and others who hid out in the TANG. How about Dick Cheney who had more important things to do?

And then there's the argument that we would be more reluctant to go into war if conscription were resumed. But that is just as logical as fucking to promote virginity. We don't need more people in the military. We need to drastically reduce the size of our armed services. That is the way to end foreign entanglements.

And yes, I was drafted into the Army. That was in 1969. I did my two years and got the hell out. I was lucky to have never seen combat but what a waste. You will never catch me wishing that on anybody else.

[zeemike]

70. Well that is exactly right.

I would have been drafted into the Army but I chose to join the Navy...and while it may have been a bad experience for you in the Army it was a good experience for me in the Navy...in fact I had it in mind to make it a careerer until Viet Nam and the changes it made in the military.
And it was Viet Nam that changed things...the PTB wanted the war but when their kids had to go they sought an out and found it in deferments and the National Gard....and money and power was coming into it's own right about then...so they got it.

And it was that way before Viet Nam...Poppa Bush served in WW2 as well as JFK and his older brother...actors and celebrities as well as farm boys from Kansas...all were subject to the draft and most of them served.

But we need to reduce the contractors first...there is where the money goes...and there are far more contractors than service men...and contractors are why we have perpetual way, because it is perpetual profit.

[Lasher]

74. I agree that contractors need to be reduced or eliminated.

That is one point on which we agree.

[Scootaloo]

87. "It did not hurt me or them"

[zeemike]

88. This was while they were still alive.

And you will find few rich kids on that wall...that is the point.
But not so in WW2...they died just like the average Joe....and you will find none in Iraq or Afghanistan or any future wars...and there will be many for that reason.

[Scootaloo]

89. Oh well, nearly sixty thousand people did just fine until they were killed. How nice.

The point is that the draft did not stop Vietnam
Nor Korea.
Nor WW2
Nor WW1
Nor the Spanish-American war
Nor any of the Indian wars
Nor the civil war
Nor the Mexican-American war
Nor the war of 1812
Nor either barbary war
Nor the American revolution...

Nor the over 100 other military operations, interventions, invasions, and occupations that have taken place wiut hte draft in palce, from the suppression of the Moro rebellion in the Philippines, to our involvement in Lebanon in 1958, to our invasion of Russia in 1918, and our involvement in Laos and Cambodia alongside Vietnam.

The draft didn't do shit to halt any of it - And in fact very clearly expanded some, such as the Spanish-American war, the Civil War, and hte Mexican-American war, all of which were utterly dependant on levied troops, were immensely unpopular, and still happened and still ground down generations.

The key to defeating war is to oppose war itself, not to come up with some bumblefuck double psych-out scheme to keep shoveling bodies into the machine and hoping people get fed up with it.

[zeemike]

91. And neither did the all volunteer military stop any war

And in fact made it much easyer...the draft can not stop wars at all, but it can make the rich who profit from the wars pay a price for it...something they do not do now and so don't give a fuck if a bunch of poor people get killed and maimed..

But you can oppose war all you want and look what it gets you...nothing in the last few decades but more war.
You cannot stop war when you have a media that is controlled by the same people we are talking about who have no skin in the game and will make billions from it...they control the message and the message is pro war...and pro all volunteer military by the way for obvious reasons.
If you want to stop wars then stop the media from instilling fear in people and glorifying war...that will do more good than pretending an all volunteer military (with lots and lots of contractors) is better than a draft where all are subject to it.

[GeorgeGist]

95. "...and it did not hurt me or them..."

I have dead and disabled friends who might disagree.

[Scootaloo]

86. Well, I'll tell you what

Here's a list of nations that still utilize conscription:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Countries_with_and_without_mandatory_military_service

Feel free to emigrate, zeemike.

[2banon]

48. No. Rich Kids didn't have to serve if they didn't want to.

That's a fact. The Draft during Vietnam was NOT to any "great effect" except as bigger fodder and carnage.

[zeemike]

61. Well they did when I was in 1960.

The guy in the bunk above me when I was in training was the grandson of one of the richest men in the country.
It was the meat grinder of Viet Nam that made them seek a way out with deferments...which led to the all volunteer military we have today...in which they don't have to slip out of it because there are plenty of poor kids that have no other opportunity but the military...now the wars can be forever.

[2banon]

69. Yes, In 1960 it wasn't a "war" yet. That was the time of "special ops"

Thank you for making my point, exactly. If memory serves, I want to say the draft wasn't instituted until around 1964-1965 (?) I think. That was the year my dad did his first tour there, I was a sophmore in H.S. at the time. All hell had been breaking loose here with the civil rights movement, we were in the South and we were pretty fresh off the Cuban Missile crises, the assassination of JFK and the arrival of the Beatles. Johnson was calling the nation to war in Viet Nam to keep the Communists from our back doorsteps. Where the fuck is Viet Nam I asked, (I didn't say fuck) and why are we going to war with these people?

Needless to say, that was a time I learned a lot, but didn't understand any of it.

[larkrake]

76. No one can be forced to serve for corporate interests, the main reason we have

joined and created wars since Viet nam. Not one war since WW11 has been justified. Yes, go back to the draft and see how many kids are too smart to comply. Our tresspassing into other countries created the terrorists, our insistance they think and act like us, and stealing their resources. Joining the military is not a civic duty, it is outright stupid. Kids join to get a free education, not fight for oil, and find out later it was all lies and the Repugs will take their benefits away.

[Warren Stupidity]

128. Yeah, "great effect" such as Viet Nam. 50,000 of our kids dead for bullshit.

[Martin Eden]

38. No, it wouldn't.

You put the cart before the horse.

What do you think would have to occur for there to be enough public support to reinstate the draft?

The only way that's going to happen is if the volunteer force is insufficient and the public sees the need for more troops to fight in war.

Military conscription = more war, not less.

[bvar22]

47. The "Voluntary Force" is CLEARLY insufficient.

7 tours and MORE for the Regulars,
and the National Guard treated as regular Army with indefinite foreign deployments?

THAT is how I define "insufficient".
The DUTY should be shared among ALL Americans.

[Martin Eden]

58. DUTY? Not hardly.

It should be NO ONE's "duty" to kill and die for the delusional ambitions of neocons and war profiteers in a war crime like our invasion of Iraq.

I do not support providing more for the meat grinder, or more tools to be misled and abused by war criminals and the military industrial complex.

But that is what would happen if we had "sufficient" forces.

IMO, it is the DUTY of all Americans to put a stop to this madness.

[The Wizard]

78. An all volunteer force

raises the risk of a military coup. Conscripts are aware that their time in uniform is limited and long to return to civilian life. A volunteer force on the other hand has made the military their home. The military supplies all sustenance and support. If a general orders an all volunteer force to march into Congress and take over it's more likely to happen with the all volunteer force than the conscripts who do not want to be under military rules for the rest of their lives. At least that's how Senator Eugene McCarthy felt.
He also observed that when the Department of War became the Department of Defense in 1948 we were on a permanent war footing The Department of War was only fully funded when Congress declared war as prescribed by the Constitution. The Department of Defense has been looting the Treasury ever since its inception. They convinced the American people that if we didn't surrender huge amounts of tax dollars for defense we'd be speaking Russian in a matter of days. Recall Eisenhower's farewell address in January, 1961 when he warned of the Military Industrial Complex. That Eisenhower was the highest ranking officer in the military during WW II says we should have heeded his warning.
Foreign military adventures have brought about the demise of History's great empires. The road to empire is paved with failed republics.

[Scootaloo]

82. it seems to me that the problem isn't the sufficiency of forces...

But rather the militarist impetus that drives our policymakers to chuck bodies around the globe.

I'll bet if we severely cut back the staffing at the Pentagon - from the top down - we'd suddenly have more than enough people to cover our needs on a voluntary force basis.

[zeemike]

62. "Military conscription = more war, not less."

Well I am sorry but the facts do not bear out that statement...sense the all volunteer military we have had noting BUT war...count them up...it is easer to count the years we were not at war.
We have been at war now for 13 years or so...Afganistan is the longest war in our history...and no end in sight...and in fact threaten war all over the world.

This insanity all started with Gulf War 1, and the support the troops meme that suckered us in like a bunch of fools.

When the PTB have no skin in the game it is just a profit making opportunity to them...and they have no skin in the game now.

[Martin Eden]

63. Vietnam wasn't insane??!!!

58,000 dead American soldiers is several times the total since Gulf War I, if you want to talk about facts.

What I'm trying to make my fellow DUers understand is the political reality of the 21st century. Under what circumstances would there be public support for reviving military conscription?

[Scootaloo]

85. Actually, it doesn't matter which side of 1973 you look at.

The statement, "it is easer to count the years we were not at war" goes all the way back to 1776 - earlier in fact, if you want to count the idea of an American state, rather than the US as a specific nation.

For the vast bulk of that, soldiers were conscripted.

The only difference is a matter of scale - a volunteer force is inherently smaller and thus necessitates a larger focus on high technology and precise involvement, rather than tidal waves of conscripted grunts.

[2banon]

46. comrade, I just simply and wholeheartedly disagree.

as evidenced with the war in Viet Nam. One thing I keep hearing from politicians and others, that somehow if there was a draft, that the kids of the wealthy elite would be subjected to go to war, and quite frankly that just didn't pan out that way. The elites that had a taste and eagerness for warfare, joined up voluntarily. The elites who did NOT want to be enlisted, simply got a pass vis a vis deferments of various sorts, which is incredibly easy for those with connections, which by definition is the elite class.

Even a friend of mine who was court ordered to join the Marines, or serve time for possession of marijuana was able to avoid Viet Nam because of his moms connections with the right channels to get him orders for a tour to Japan (This is in 1969/1970) instead of Viet Nam.

The Draft is not the answer, and it isn't "democratic" like Barney Frank loved to say.

on edit to point out that the elites that volunteered for service were sent to officers training, or came of West Point etc. Officers, aren't drafted.

[Lasher]

66. And serving as an officer is a whole different world from being an enlisted person.

Compensate soldiers better if you want more people to join. And give privates the same perks that officers get. But that's going in the wrong direction. We need to cut our military spending by at least half, and that includes reducing the number of soldiers.

[2banon]

73. exactly.

I hung with vets who returned with a mind and a purpose to end that war, even if meant dishonorable discharges for radical anti-war activism.. for several that's exactly what they got. Affiliations with SDS guaranteed dishonorable discharges. Considered it a badge of honor.

[CFLDem]

100. Good idea, wrong era

As the military rapidly automates, we are leaving the era of wars consisting of people shooting each other and entering an era of mass drone warfare that no human can realistically compete in.

However, a mandatory civilian corp here in America is a fantastic idea!

[Enthusiast]

106. That's why they changed it.

Since Vietnam TPTB recognized that conscripted Americans would insist that our conflicts be justifiable and worthy of their blood.

Now we can have multiple unjustifiable conflicts but remain happy watching it on TV.

[tomg]

127. Thank you. As a CO from 1969

that is exactly what they figured out. They also knew it would be middle to upper middle class college kids who would resist the grinder of war ( if for nothing else then for self-interest) so they defused them one way ( no more draft) and jammed them up another so they would not resist ( hard to protest when you are paying down educational debt). Fascists think long game; progressives, of necessity, have to think short.

[Scootaloo]

80. Nope

The overwhelming majority of US wars occurred under a draft - turns out the ability to conscript actually makes war easier and cheaper. And for all of those, the majority of the US marched right along, happy to rah-rah the "war-effort."

The only way reinstating the draft would change this, is if it picked up right where it left in 1973. The only people i ever see calling for a draft are baby boomers, but I'll bet they'll change their mind if they start getting those yellow cards in the mal, instead of their grandkids.

[loyalsister]

92. You don't think people were war weary enough after Vietnam

that they would resist having their children sent off to war? The draft has never been reinstated after Vietnam, so the analogy to other wars doesn't quite work.

I was surprised to discover that a professor friend who teaches Peace Studies supported a draft. At the very least, it would have been a more honest approach to the Iraq war. Although, honesty was not a factor in the previous administration. I do think there would have been more resistance if the IWR had included a draft.

23 suicides a day. I can't help but wonder if not having several tours might have made a difference.

[Scootaloo]

93. Well, they weren't doing it after nine years

Nor after the nearly two centuries of near-constant warfare prior. So no. I don't think most Americans really gave a shit. What, are you imagining riots in the streets over one kid too many sent home in a box? What's the magic number, do you think?

Because that's the number of conscripted kids you're asking to die, just to prove your theory here.

But I'll make a deal with you. I'll accede to conscription... if when the draft is renewed, it starts with the last number called before it was halted. Baby boomers want a draft so bad, well, let's put them at the head of that line, right where they belong.

[Jefferson23]

9. The main reason this former POTUS has credibility is because he is honest. K&R

[malaise]

13. Ha

I wrote my response before I read yours

[Jefferson23]

20. Right back at ya.

[malaise]

11. Carter is a really honest man

Hard not to love him - he's right.

[Nye Bevan]

14. That appears to be quite a slam at Obama, given that he uses the present tense,

and Obama has been in power for quite a number of years.

[malaise]

23. It's a slam on American Foreign Policy

period

[Nye Bevan]

25. which has been run by Barack Obama since January 2009 (nt)

[bvar22]

49. Tell the TRUTH,

....and let the chips fall where they may.

[mylye2222]

26. It sound better to be an advise to Obama

He expresses a wish for Obama be more personaly invilved in peace process than before.

[colsohlibgal]

15. Our Reputation has Suffered Since "The Decider".

Also - the staggering costs, which will continue for decades, of our boneheaded Iraq war is a big reason for the debt the republicans like to whine about.

There is no doubt that out "enhanced interrogation" techniques are basically what we executed Germans for. We've largely conceded the high moral ground.

The chest thumping of the right continues, I heard California republican congressman Duncan Hunter on Maher last night say we ought to use tactical nukes on I believe Pakistan, saying they exploded underground so no harm. What?

We have to come to our senses sooner rather than later or we may go the way of the other defunct empires. Then again, we're killing our oceans and ocean life with trash so maybe we ought to find another earth ASAP.

I think I, and maybe my children, may miss the worst of it, but I fear for any grandchildren I may have.

[malaise]

24. Read Mark Twain

This is not new

http://www.internationalist.org/marktwain3.html

[totodeinhere]

43. Not to in any way to defend the "decider," but our warmongering goes back long before

he ever took office and it has been a bipartisan problem.

[Enthusiast]

110. Warmongering does go way back.

But with Iraq it was ham handed, obviously trumped up affair, that was right in our face. We could all see through the obvious lies.

If we had any kind of an objective media the Bushies would never have accomplished their Iraq War.

[Enthusiast]

109. Dubya also advocated the use of tactical nukes.

The radical far right are some war mongering blood thirsty fuckers. Indistinguishable from their WWII Nazi counterparts in ideology, except for the holocaust part.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. This is what happens when you have the budget geared for war production....

After 9/11 there was actually an effort by some of the Republicans to build troop transport ships.

Of course the fact that their states have huge navy yards had nothing to do with it.

No money for roads and bridges. (unless they're in Iraq and KBR gets the no-bid cost-plus contract.)

[Enthusiast]

111. Well said.

"No money for roads and bridges. (unless they're in Iraq and KBR gets the no-bid cost-plus contract.)"

[AlinPA]

18. IMO, most Americans look to guns as a first solution to problems and conflicts.

[mylye2222]

21. Rally, how DARE could once voters deny THAT TRUTH STATEMAN a second term?????

He's one of the honestest guys in US Politics,..... Bravo, Mr President, for staying involved and teach us integrity!

[L0oniX]

32. We like and vote for liars. Why do ya think they call us "the great Satan".

Truth tellers have to leave the country now or get thrown into the torture chambers ...just ask Snowden.

[devils chaplain]

64. There's a reason politicians are liars...

It's because telling the truth is a very ineffective means of getting elected.

[Lasher]

67. Now, now. We like to call them pragmatists these days.

Same thing, it just sounds better.

[maddiemom]

27. Carter was the POTUS most citizens imagine they wanted, but crucified as a weakling.

Although an Agnostic myself, I've always seen Carter as the real Christian the right winger crazies rave on about without a real clue. I first heard Carter's name in the mid-seventies, from some Georgians hanging out in my family room in Kentucky, passing through while doing business with my then husband. No mistake: these were business guys who who were far from liberal, but had great respect for Jimmy Carter. They named names of some of those around him. Uh , don't make spell Zb---Mika or not

[L0oniX]

31. Most of us already knew this ...but ...Hillary 2016 ...whoopee.

[mylye2222]

35. I don't event want to think at the sight of her in Oval Office!!!!!

No no........ I. Don't
.Like. Her.

If a woman might be , I agree, be a progress for nomination history, there is more les rock-star like female politician, and more valuable I would prefer see to run. Like Boxer, Pelosi, for example.

[tecelote]

33. OMG Finally, someone said it!

We're borderline evil.

Reverse, full power.

[tecelote]

34. BTW... Re-Elect Jimmy!

[mylye2222]

42. Yes!

Carter-Kerry 2016;

Carter-Dukakis.

Carter-Kuccinich!


Carter- Gephardt!

[otherone]

55. yes!

.

[Lasher]

68. I could get behind that but he's 89 years old.

Maybe he's too far over the hill now for the job.

[japple]

36. USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

Thank god for the sarcasm smilie. That way, I don't have to explain what I meant by the title.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, O Favorite Son of Georgia, for your wisdom and sage advice. You make all current and former governors of Georgia look like nitwits.

[DeSwiss]

44. K&R

''All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.''

~George Orwell


[center]Monsanto Hires Mercenary Blackwater
[/center]

[alp227]

45. The 19th century had Honest Abe. The 21st: Honest Jimmy. nt

[CFLDem]

101. ...

[Octafish]

71. Money trumps peace.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4047666

[lunasun]

75. true dat ! & people in US who think they are the world's idols

are stereotypical caricatures in other places too!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. And, America still attempts to bury the carnage under flimsy lie of "good intentions".

Unfortunately, the corpses are still piling up due to our not-so-good intentions.

[Corruption Inc]

90. But didn't you hear the latest defense dept. propaganda tour, they're buying amputees limbs

after they get them blown off so perma-war is good for "the Homeland".

[ProSense]

104. What's with the

John Kerry goes on “Meet the Press” after the Russian actions in Crimea and says, with a straight face, that “it’s the 21st century, you can’t just invade another country anymore.” And I think a lot of us said, “Well, wait a second. That sounds a lot like something we did in Iraq, you know, during the 21st century.”

Right. We did. We do it all the time. That’s Washington. Unfortunately. And we have for years.

...editorializing? What is Carter responding to? The response and the question don't seem to match. I notice there is no question about foreign policy under Carter. This is selective at best. He has a lot of respect for Kerry.

<...>

Do you feel that Iran and the US can be friends and allies again, like they were before the 1979 revolution?

Well, even after the ’79 revolution, that’s what people forget. After the Shah was overthrown and the Ayatollah Khomeini established his revolution, I immediately recognized that government, and I sent diplomats over—those were the ones taken the by the Iranian militants, so yes, I think we should and we ought to. If we can’t have full diplomatic relations, we can certainly work out an agreement whereby we can avoid armed conflict.

What’s your take on Secretary Kerry’s efforts so far in the Mideast?

I think they are notable, and I have a great admiration for him. I stay in touch with him fairly often by email, I send him messages and tell him what my thoughts might be, and he has responded very graciously. He has had a very difficult time operating pretty much on his own. I know from experience that the best way to have the United States be a mediator is for the president himself to be deeply involved. In this occasion, when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace. It was only John Kerry’s coming into office that reinitiated all these very important and crucial issues.

Can you share some of the advice you’ve given him?

I don’t want to reveal what messages I’ve sent to Secretary Kerry. But I’ve urged him as he formulates the framework not to deviate from longstanding international law that has always been observed by the United States and by all the Europeans and by the Israelis and the Arab countries, and I think to reverse all those basic United Nations that everyone has agreed to establish would be a step backwards.

- more -

http://ti.me/1oNs8VY

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024805960

[mylye2222]

135. Thanks you Jimmy

For backing Jks efforts. Yes you are right he was pretty isolated with peace process. We love and miss you.

[JEB]

114. A country run, owned and operated by corporate interests

cares not who dies, is maimed, or driven from their homes.

[merrily]

121. Not only the #1 warmonger, but also the #1 terrorist.

[RainDog]

130. k&r n/t

[hughee99]

139. Perhaps it's time we opened up american elections to all the people of the world.

If the opinion of the rest of the world is that important, perhaps we should let the people of the world vote in our national elections.