11 ms·

I always liked this quote from Carter on his legacy: "We kept our country at peace. We never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. But

I always liked this quote from Carter on his legacy: "We kept our country at peace. We never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. But still we achieved our international goals. We brought peace to other people, including Egypt and Israel. We normalised relations with China, which had been non-existent for 30-something years. We brought peace between US and most of the countries in Latin America because of the Panama Canal Treaty. We formed a working relationship with the Soviet Union."

vph 13y ago
With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, and he is a good man at heart, but he appears naive as to what is the true core of the USA. The USA has always been a country of military power. Without military power, the USA would not be what it is today. Even during peace time with the Soviet and others, the underlying military power of the US serves as an important factor to maintain that peace.
- adventured 13y ago
  America in fact had a very modest military before the WW2 build-up, as others have noted. Before it could afford that military might, it required a substantial economy to pay for it all. Land, natural resources, enterprising & hard working immigrants, low regulation, the protections enshrined in the Constitution, ease of starting a business, labor mobility, strong judicial system, checks & balances restraining and slowing down government abuses - just a few of the actual reasons America became what it did.
- drcube 13y ago
  "Since WWII" is not the same thing as "always".
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Even during peace time with the Soviet and others, the underlying military power of the US serves as an important factor to maintain that peace. What makes you think that Carter, who was President during that time and initiated the large military buildup that Reagan is often credited with to maintain that peace, is too naive to recognize that?
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  The military-industrial complex was basically created from scratch in WWII (The U.S's industrial contribution to WWI was a joke). This was never de-mobilized because the Cold War began immediately after, and Europe was in no position to defend itself.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >The military-industrial complex was basically created from scratch in WWII (The U.S's industrial contribution to WWI was a joke). This was never de-mobilized because the Cold War began immediately after, and Europe was in no position to defend itself. Actually it was never de-mobilized because the US needed it to play the role of a world hegemonic power -- to control other places with diplomatic and military might, grab resources and such. It was its opportunity to step on to that role, since WWII had destroyed the European colonian empires. As for Europe, defend itself from what? With the exception of right wing nuts in power, Europeans didn't feel threatened by the USSR. The people of (non Eastern) Europe, were half and half in favor of communism (huge following in Italy, France, Greece, etc. In Western Germany there were lots of sympathizers too, but the communist party was crashed by Hitler (and then the country was divided post war). That would also be the case in Spain and Portugal, if it wasn't for the dictatorships.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - toyg 13y ago
      >Europeans didn't feel threatened by the USSR. Some Europeans certainly didn't, but many of them, in fact, did feel threatened by the USSR: the ruling classes. Also, opinions on the USSR were quite divided even on the left, with (Moscow-sponsored) hardcore Communist parties being on very different terms with it than traditional Socialist movements.
  - Avshalom 13y ago
    Eh, while that's true of what we think of as the military-industrial complex, prior to WWII American history is still one of pretty consistent war. Or in the case of say the Monroe Doctrine, war posturing.
- hga 13y ago
  His surprise at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was telling as was his overreaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afganistan#International_reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afganistan#I...), including a grain embargo and canceling our participation in the Moscow Olympics. Followed by a big military buildup in the next term of whoever was in office; quite a shift from this first year in office quote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Foreign_policy http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Foreign_policy): "Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed."
- dualboot 13y ago
  I still haven't forgiven him for bringing back Selective Service.
tome 13y ago
Carter's being generous to himself. It was Nixon who opened up relations with China (and it probably could only have been a Republican who took that first step), and Carter presided over the mess subsequent to the incredibly disatrous Iranian revolution.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Carter's being generous to himself. It was Nixon who opened up relations with China Carter didn't claim to have opened up relations with China, he claimed to have normalized relations with China. > and it probably could only have been a Republican who took that first step While there was a popular saying relating to that about Nixon, it doesn't really stand up too much; its hardly as if Kennedy and Johnson were perceived, at home or abroad, in ways which would have made that difficult in any way that it wouldn't be for Nixon. What really set the stage in the 1970s for the opening in relations that began under Nixon and culminated under Carter wasn't the political party of the US participants but the growing rivalry between the USSR and PRC.
znowi 13y ago
This relative peace was forced upon by the Cold War. It largely restrained the militant zeal from both sides. As soon as the Soviet threat was gone, the US devised the new concept of evil - terrorism - and, with no viable checks and balances, went on fighting it around the world. Except that, in time, the notion of terrorism became very vague and murky. Anyone is a potential target now.
- btilly 13y ago
  Forced? Forced? His predecessor presided over the end of Vietnam, and there were plenty of casualties. His successor was involved in lots of hot conflicts, from illegal covert operations to the invasion of Grenada to the bombing of Libya. Why did the Cold War not keep that from happening?
ihsw 13y ago
What are your thoughts on the Carter Doctrine? He effectively annexed the Middle East without all the benefits of being US territory. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine
- euroclydon 13y ago
  I think that his doctrine was influenced by what happened to Germany in WW2: they had a tremendous war machine, but were hobbled by a lack of oil. The U.S. had enough domestic oil to wage any war they needed to, but diverting that oil to war would have wrecked havoc on the global and domestic economy. That's was the state of the Cold War and the state of things today: a strategy of maintaining economic levels while simultaneously waging war.
- 300bps 13y ago
  That speech reeks of spin. The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet Union was in Afghanistan which has no oil. President Carter seems to making a very tenuous connection between Afghanistan and the Middle East. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. Looking at the Straits of Hormuz on Google Maps, it appears to be not even close to Afghanistan which isn't surprising considering Afghanistan is totally landlocked. Again, President Carter appears to be trying to link Afghanistan to the hot-button topic of the day. i.e. Stop the Soviet Union or they'll be able to stop the flow of oil!
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Go look at the map a bit harder. Afghanistan is the neighbour of Iran and is more or less the same distance from the Straits of Hormuz as LA is from San Francisco.

vph 13y ago

With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, and he is a good man at heart, but he appears naive as to what is the true core of the USA. The USA has always been a country of military power. Without military power, the USA would not be what it is today. Even during peace time with the Soviet and others, the underlying military power of the US serves as an important factor to maintain that peace.

adventured 13y ago
America in fact had a very modest military before the WW2 build-up, as others have noted. Before it could afford that military might, it required a substantial economy to pay for it all. Land, natural resources, enterprising & hard working immigrants, low regulation, the protections enshrined in the Constitution, ease of starting a business, labor mobility, strong judicial system, checks & balances restraining and slowing down government abuses - just a few of the actual reasons America became what it did.
drcube 13y ago
"Since WWII" is not the same thing as "always".
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Even during peace time with the Soviet and others, the underlying military power of the US serves as an important factor to maintain that peace. What makes you think that Carter, who was President during that time and initiated the large military buildup that Reagan is often credited with to maintain that peace, is too naive to recognize that?
jivatmanx 13y ago
The military-industrial complex was basically created from scratch in WWII (The U.S's industrial contribution to WWI was a joke). This was never de-mobilized because the Cold War began immediately after, and Europe was in no position to defend itself.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >The military-industrial complex was basically created from scratch in WWII (The U.S's industrial contribution to WWI was a joke). This was never de-mobilized because the Cold War began immediately after, and Europe was in no position to defend itself. Actually it was never de-mobilized because the US needed it to play the role of a world hegemonic power -- to control other places with diplomatic and military might, grab resources and such. It was its opportunity to step on to that role, since WWII had destroyed the European colonian empires. As for Europe, defend itself from what? With the exception of right wing nuts in power, Europeans didn't feel threatened by the USSR. The people of (non Eastern) Europe, were half and half in favor of communism (huge following in Italy, France, Greece, etc. In Western Germany there were lots of sympathizers too, but the communist party was crashed by Hitler (and then the country was divided post war). That would also be the case in Spain and Portugal, if it wasn't for the dictatorships.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - toyg 13y ago
    >Europeans didn't feel threatened by the USSR. Some Europeans certainly didn't, but many of them, in fact, did feel threatened by the USSR: the ruling classes. Also, opinions on the USSR were quite divided even on the left, with (Moscow-sponsored) hardcore Communist parties being on very different terms with it than traditional Socialist movements.
- Avshalom 13y ago
  Eh, while that's true of what we think of as the military-industrial complex, prior to WWII American history is still one of pretty consistent war. Or in the case of say the Monroe Doctrine, war posturing.
hga 13y ago
His surprise at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was telling as was his overreaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afganistan#International_reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afganistan#I...), including a grain embargo and canceling our participation in the Moscow Olympics. Followed by a big military buildup in the next term of whoever was in office; quite a shift from this first year in office quote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Foreign_policy http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Foreign_policy): "Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed."
dualboot 13y ago
I still haven't forgiven him for bringing back Selective Service.

tome 13y ago

Carter's being generous to himself. It was Nixon who opened up relations with China (and it probably could only have been a Republican who took that first step), and Carter presided over the mess subsequent to the incredibly disatrous Iranian revolution.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Carter's being generous to himself. It was Nixon who opened up relations with China Carter didn't claim to have opened up relations with China, he claimed to have normalized relations with China. > and it probably could only have been a Republican who took that first step While there was a popular saying relating to that about Nixon, it doesn't really stand up too much; its hardly as if Kennedy and Johnson were perceived, at home or abroad, in ways which would have made that difficult in any way that it wouldn't be for Nixon. What really set the stage in the 1970s for the opening in relations that began under Nixon and culminated under Carter wasn't the political party of the US participants but the growing rivalry between the USSR and PRC.

znowi 13y ago

This relative peace was forced upon by the Cold War. It largely restrained the militant zeal from both sides. As soon as the Soviet threat was gone, the US devised the new concept of evil - terrorism - and, with no viable checks and balances, went on fighting it around the world. Except that, in time, the notion of terrorism became very vague and murky. Anyone is a potential target now.

btilly 13y ago
Forced? Forced? His predecessor presided over the end of Vietnam, and there were plenty of casualties. His successor was involved in lots of hot conflicts, from illegal covert operations to the invasion of Grenada to the bombing of Libya. Why did the Cold War not keep that from happening?

ihsw 13y ago

What are your thoughts on the Carter Doctrine? He effectively annexed the Middle East without all the benefits of being US territory. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

euroclydon 13y ago
I think that his doctrine was influenced by what happened to Germany in WW2: they had a tremendous war machine, but were hobbled by a lack of oil. The U.S. had enough domestic oil to wage any war they needed to, but diverting that oil to war would have wrecked havoc on the global and domestic economy. That's was the state of the Cold War and the state of things today: a strategy of maintaining economic levels while simultaneously waging war.
300bps 13y ago
That speech reeks of spin. The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet Union was in Afghanistan which has no oil. President Carter seems to making a very tenuous connection between Afghanistan and the Middle East. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. Looking at the Straits of Hormuz on Google Maps, it appears to be not even close to Afghanistan which isn't surprising considering Afghanistan is totally landlocked. Again, President Carter appears to be trying to link Afghanistan to the hot-button topic of the day. i.e. Stop the Soviet Union or they'll be able to stop the flow of oil!
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Go look at the map a bit harder. Afghanistan is the neighbour of Iran and is more or less the same distance from the Straits of Hormuz as LA is from San Francisco.