posted on October 11, 2002 06:59:21 AM new
What an outstanding distinction and he is so deserving of the prize...unlike our present day "men of peace"...Bush, Blair and Sharon.
posted on October 11, 2002 12:23:47 PM new
LOL! A year or so ago here on the RT, I made a mistake in saying that Jimmy Carter had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I got laughed at for this mistake. Seems I was mistaken, but not so far off the track, eh?
I like the fact the Mr. Carter states that MILLITARY FORCE should be used only as a LAST RESORT - not the First One! That has been our American Way for nearly 250 years. Mr. Carter is a True American HERO!!
OSLO, Norway -- Following is the full text of Friday's announcement by the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarding the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter:
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
"During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize.
"At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.
"Through his Carter Center, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2002, Carter has since his presidency undertaken very extensive and persevering conflict resolution on several continents.
"He has shown outstanding commitment to human rights, and has served as an observer at countless elections all over the world.
"He has worked hard on many fronts to fight tropical diseases and to bring about growth and progress in developing countries.
"Carter has thus been active in several of the problem areas that have figured prominently in the over one hundred years of Peace Prize history.
"In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."
ed. UBB
[ edited by Borillar on Oct 11, 2002 12:40 PM ]
posted on October 11, 2002 12:49:17 PM new
You know, in History, brutal dictators are often remembered - they get their place in history alright. But it is the likes of Jimmy Carter that in the centuries and millennia to come that will make him well remembered and a figure to be admired, loved and respected. It is the Peacemakers who inherit the earth and tyrants inherit only the dirt. "It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this" remarked another great American President at American Idealism at a battlefield at Gettysburg a 150 years ago. In a larger sense, we honor those who promote the Good of Society, and Justice, and Peace. And a thousand years from now, should Mankind still exist, the name of Jimmy Carter will still be spoken with reverence - unlike his current short-sighted counterpart, to whom history will have forgotten.
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Oct 11, 2002 12:53 PM ]
posted on October 11, 2002 05:25:31 PM new
Listening to the radio on my way home today, a "broadcast personality" said that Jimmy Carter was the only person of stature promoting peace in the world today. I think there are a handful of others, but their voices are seldom heard anymore. Can't have a cabal of right-minded intelligent leaders telling us peace is good when the company line is clamoring for war, war, war.
Jimmy Carter was the first presidential candidate I ever voted for. He was the last one I had any faith in, too.
posted on October 11, 2002 11:46:09 PM new
Pat, I'd say that the current Pope has made tremendous inroads to peace. He has buried the hatchet between so many. That he forgave his assassin and reached out to the Muslims of the world was a wonder. That he apologized to the Jewish people for the Catholic Church during the Holocaust of WWII was wonderful. That he ended the attacks against the Freemasons and the official animosity towards them shows his great understanding that Peace is not just a dream. His destruction of the long-standing disputes and reasons for hatred that have stood for nearly 2,000 years since the inception of the church has put him on a par with He whom he is appointed to represent. I am not a Catholic, in case you're wondering.
posted on October 12, 2002 09:47:51 AM new
Pat, the Dalai Lama is still pretty active. And yes, the Pope is a mensch, but not so active.
Looking at just some of what the Carter Center does made me realize anew what the real *enemies* are. Ignorance, hunger, disease, political oppression, violence, and greed. Jimmy Carter has battled them all, and continues. What a warrior!
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 13, 2002 07:40:23 AM new
I, too, have always judged Carter to be a very moral man who practices his deeply held, religious convictions. I was disappointed he wasn't re-elected for a second term. Didn't agree with each and everything he did, but on the whole I supported him.
He and Roslyn have done tremendous work in many ways since he returned to private life.
But I believe this peace prize was given for political reasons/statements. I believe it was given to try and embarrass our current President...and I don't agree with that being done. And I don't agree with Carter publically stating how wrong he feels the current administration is in their efforts to lead our nation. He's entitled to his opinions, and of course has the right to say whatever he wishes. I just don't feel it's appropriate for any any past president to be critical of the current administration.
I don't put a lot of credence in the Peace Prize anyway....being not much more than political statements...after all Arafat won it in 1994 and look at how peaceful his people are.
posted on October 13, 2002 08:36:02 AM new
>But I believe this peace prize was given for political reasons/statements. I believe it was given to try and embarrass our current President...and I don't agree with that being done.
From this thread's link above:
Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq.
"In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development," Berge said.
"It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."
However, other Nobel committee members distanced themselves from Berge's criticism of Bush, saying he was expressing a personal opinion and that such criticism was not part of the discussions leading to the prize.
"In the committee, we didn't discuss what sort of interpretation of the grounds there should be. It wasn't a topic," committee member Hanna Kvanmo was quoted as telling the Norwegian news agency NTB.
And there you have it. It obviously wasn't a consideration for most of the panel members and so, Jimmy Carter earned his Nobel Peace Prize -- like as if there's any doubt in anyone's mind as to that fact!
posted on October 14, 2002 06:48:20 PM new
So Linda....
Carter should not have gotten the Peace prize because of what you believe is the reason he got. All those years of working for world peace. All his long, hard and honest work for nought, because as we all know the Nobel committee is merely dedicated to only embarassing Bush. It has been their life's work, it in the Nobel Will: embarass Bush!
And Carter also is barred from using his First Amendment rights.
I love these "New" Americans...the bill of rights applies only when someone decides it applies...
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on October 14, 2002 09:00:37 PM new
Jimmy carter should win the nobel prize for peanut brain. His presidency threw the economy into a disaster...anybody remember the meat shortage, the sugar shortage, the GREAT RECESSION of the late 70's, the small business disasters or the hostages in IRAN? all during his reign as the President.
posted on October 15, 2002 01:36:07 AM new
Hockey Puck,Carter had to pick up where another had left off.(Nixon-Ford?)
And I do recall He was able to get the hostages released before he left office,The powers to be wanted the new President(Reagan) to get the credit, so there was a delay in the hostage release.
posted on October 15, 2002 06:13:09 AM new
The hostages were released after Reagan got them out. Jimmy Carter was indeed a good man but he did not have what it takes to be a President. He should stick to the Peace corp. Thank God he is not in office now.
posted on October 15, 2002 06:39:38 AM new
This is the story of the hostage release mentioned by Artdoggy. Although "Bomb Iran" bumper stickers appeared all over the country, Carter was able to resolve this issue without resorting to war. It was Carter's efforts at the end of his presidential term that led to the release of the hostages.
"The Shah was now in exile in Mexico, dying from cancer, and President Carter allowed him to come to the United States for refuge and medical treatment. This enraged Muslim fundamentalists in Iran. In November 1979, Islamic student militants loyal to the Ayatollah overran the American embassy in Teheran, Iran's capital. They seized sixty-six Americans and held them hostage, demanding the Shah's return to stand trial. In addition they demanded money and property that the Shah had stashed outside Iran, and an apology from America, who they considered "The Great Satan."
Carter took immediate action. He froze billions of dollars of Iranian assets in the United States, then began secret negotiations, but nothing worked. The manner in which television network news reported on the crisis served to build up America's frustration. Mobs burned the American flag and shouted "Marg bar Amerika" "Death to America" on nightly television news broadcasts in Iran. These film clips were rebroadcast in the United States, creating feelings of apprehension for the hostages and anger at Iran. By counting the number of days that the hostages had been held in capacity, nightly announcements such as "America Held Hostage, Day Eighty-nine" focused on the prolonged aspect of the situation. Americans grew impatient with the seemingly ineffective president who could not win the hostages' release. The Iranians heightened this political tension by making bright promises and then going back on them almost daily.
Finally, Carter approved a secret military mission to attempt to free the hostages. Unfortunately, three of the eight helicopters carrying the assault force developed mechanical problems. One crashed into a transport aircraft in a remote desert in Iran, killing eight soldiers. After the failure, Iran dispersed the hostages to hideouts throughout the country, making rescue impossible. The failure of the rescue mission doomed Carter politically. It seemed to reinforce the widespread notion that he could not get things done, and that America had lost its edge. His approval rating dropped badly and he was up for reelection within a year, when Republicans would make a major issue of his performance in the crisis. Near the end of his administration Carter concluded an agreement that led to the release of the hostages. His executive agreement with Iran specified that the U.S. would unblock all Iranian funds, and the U.S. and Iran would utilize a tribunal at the Hague, Netherlands, to settle their financial claims. The U.S. also promised not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. In return, Iran agreed to release the hostages. The U.S. embassy subsequently became a training camp for the Revolutionary Guards, the most militant and most anti-American wing of the groups backing the Islamic regime.
posted on October 15, 2002 07:10:21 AM new
Oh boys thats a good one! when they start putting carter on bumper stickers in Iran we know we were in trouble! Of course they all loved Carter, he was a man who lacked the courage to go to war! a man they could take advantage of completely. Iran released the Hostages because a Republican President stepped up to the plate. End of story! They knew they were going to be toast if they did not release those hostages. As far as Carter goes, I watched my parents family business go down the drain during his tenure, as well as many other family businesses. It was a painful time and I will never forget his lousy presidentcy, his horrible economic wasteland, the man was a nightmare of a leader. He is not a man of peace, he just a doormat that liberals love to love.
posted on October 15, 2002 07:40:50 AM new
It doesn't take courage to start a war. As we can see today, a man with a small brain can very easily do that.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:35:37 AM new
I don't agree that Bush is stupid or has a small brain for that matter. If you want to wait until Sadam nukes a major city or unleashes small pox on the nation, then you will have proof? won't it be a little late at that point? Is it not Sadam who invaded Kuwait? Is it not Sadam who had the lust for oil to invade a country? Is not Sadam who violated his treaty for conditions of surrender of war? Is it not Sadam who had barred weapon inspectors for the past 4 years? Is it not Sadam who kills and tortures his own people? Is it not Iraq where bin ladin's operatives have met secretly?
Sadam huessin has clearly made himself a target. If at anytime, he would cooperate with the agreements he agreed to with the United Nations, proved to the world he was not a menance to civilization, there could be no war. Bush could not start a war with a man that wanted to cooperate with the rest of the world!
The polls reflect the American people are in support of the war with Iraq. If the people of this country were not in support of the war, there could be no war.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:49:06 AM new
As much of a humanitarian as Carter is, he was only a run-of-the-mill President, certainly not our lousiest one. As indicated above, by becoming President, that gave him the credentials that he needed to go on and carrying out his true work. I do believe that God works in mysterious ways and hopefully, what we went through with his being President will be outweighed by the things that he's done since he left office and by the legacy which he will leave behind. He will be remembered in History, not as a Great President, but as a Great Man - among the Few that have been.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:49:11 AM new
As much of a humanitarian as Carter is, he was only a run-of-the-mill President, certainly not our lousiest one. As indicated above, by becoming President, that gave him the credentials that he needed to go on and carrying out his true work. I do believe that God works in mysterious ways and hopefully, what we went through with his being President will be outweighed by the things that he's done since he left office and by the legacy which he will leave behind. He will be remembered in History, not as a Great President, but as a Great Man - among the Few that have been.
posted on October 15, 2002 10:29:25 AM new
Oh GOD. Can't you Carter haters just admit that Carter is a poster-child for how former presidents can and should conduct themselves? There's Ford, out on the golf courses. There was Reagan, on his ranch. There's Bush, doing who knows what for fun?
And then there is a man of real integrity. No contest.
posted on October 15, 2002 11:17:46 AM new
Actually Carter did have a claim to fame, he had his brother billy and his billy beer. Man I wish I had a can now!
Actually the most depressing aspect of this discussion is that I can now remember in detail a President and his term of office from nearly 25 years ago.
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 11:19 AM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 12:59:59 PM new
mlecher - What I'm saying is that while I respect Carter as a man, and I believe he acts and has acted out of his convictions, I don't always agree with his opinions. And I do believe that the Nobel Peace Prize USE TO BE for those who made peace happen...not just those who speak peace. Is that allowed?
I didn't agree with what Carter said when Clinton was making efforts to stop nuclear proliferation in N. Korea either. And I also don't like him going to Cuba and other countries where dictators rule and speaking against the US. Sure...like anyone else...he's free to do so. And I'm free to say I don't like or agree with it.
Borillar - The head of the Nobel Committee, Gunnar Berge, says he and his colleagues meant to send a message about current affairs: "With the position Carter has taken . . . [the award] can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq," Reuters quoted him as saying. The link you posted may have been written AFTER those who were enraged by Berge's comments were added their comments. But..it doesn't change the fact that while others may not have agreed....those words were quoted [by Reuters] as coming from the head of the committee, Gunnar Berge. The head of most committes or organizations USUALLY speak for the whole group.
