Jimmy Carter's Christian foreign policy

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian with an unblemished moral reputation, benefited from Watergate to win the 1976 presidential race.

Carter was sincere in wanting to establish a foreign policy based on Christian principles, in so far as it was possible. That's why he removed support from the shah if Iran, the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, and elevated human rights and human dignity as a foreign policy goal. He relentlessly promoted human rights in the USSR and the Soviet bloc.

He also tried to promote world peace, the Camp David Accords was his most important contribution to world stability.



Source credits
History of the United States, 2nd edition, Patrick Allit, PhD
 
Cypress said:
Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian with an unblemished moral reputation, benefited from Watergate to win the 1976 presidential race.

Carter was sincere in wanting to establish a foreign policy based on Christian principles, in so far as it was possible. That's why he removed support from the shah if Iran, the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, and elevated human rights and human dignity as a foreign policy goal. He relentlessly promoted human rights in the USSR and the Soviet bloc.

He also tried to promote world peace, the Camp David Accords was his most important contribution to world stability.



Source credits
History of the United States, 2nd edition, Patrick Allit, PhD
Click to expand...
And in doing so, created a series of foreign policy disasters that echo negatively for the US to this day.

Better to deal with the dictator you know than replace him with one you haven't got a clue about. Each time Carter sided with replacing an in-place dictator, the replacement was far worse both for the people of that nation, and for the US.

Carter destabilized Central America, the Middle East, and even much of Asia. He emboldened the Soviet Union, and if anything, contributed to world political instability.
 
Cypress said:
Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian with an unblemished moral reputation, benefited from Watergate to win the 1976 presidential race.

Carter was sincere in wanting to establish a foreign policy based on Christian principles, in so far as it was possible. That's why he removed support from the shah if Iran, the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, and elevated human rights and human dignity as a foreign policy goal. He relentlessly promoted human rights in the USSR and the Soviet bloc.

He also tried to promote world peace, the Camp David Accords was his most important contribution to world stability.



Source credits
History of the United States, 2nd edition, Patrick Allit, PhD
Click to expand...
Jimmy was to nice a guy to be President
 
T. A. Gardner said:
And in doing so, created a series of foreign policy disasters that echo negatively for the US to this day.

Better to deal with the dictator you know than replace him with one you haven't got a clue about. Each time Carter sided with replacing an in-place dictator, the replacement was far worse both for the people of that nation, and for the US.

Carter destabilized Central America, the Middle East, and even much of Asia. He emboldened the Soviet Union, and if anything, contributed to world political instability.
Click to expand...

Wasn't intentional, but yes, pretty much the way it worked out. He hated the Israelis, and pandered to the Islamists, who then turned around and spit on him, being largely just homocidal bandit vermin hiding behind a fake religion, but he never learned his lesson, even in to old age. Reagan didn't do any better, so that whole era sucked re foreign policy, the only bright spot being the Soviet Union imploding on itself.
 
Good. Given how frequently right-wingers like to parade around with their supposedly pious Christian credentials, I was hoping a MAGA moron would admit that trying to live out a New Testament ethos is both wimpy and pointless.
T. A. Gardner said:
And in doing so, created a series of foreign policy disasters that echo negatively for the US to this day.
Click to expand...
Please explain how the Camp David Accords, which has prevented another major regional regional Arab-Israeli war from breaking out for 50 years, is a failure and a disaster.
T. A. Gardner said:
Better to deal with the dictator you know than replace him with one you haven't got a clue about. Each time Carter sided with replacing an in-place dictator, the replacement was far worse both for the people of that nation, and for the US.
Click to expand...
Please show your proof that the United States could have forced the Iranians to keep the Shah. The Shah was almost universally hated in Iran, the uprising against him was widely supported, and I would like to see your proof the US could have forced Iran to keep the Shah.
T. A. Gardner said:
Carter destabilized Central America, the Middle East, and even much of Asia. He emboldened the Soviet Union, and if anything, contributed to world political instability.
Click to expand...
Central America has been ground zero for authoritarian dictatorships for two centuries. Did FOX tell you to believe central America only became unstable between the years 1977 to 1980?

Carter had a mixed bag on foreign policy, but I would say it was neither disastrous nor exemplary.
 
Cypress said:
Please explain how the Camp David Accords, which has prevented another major regional regional Arab-Israeli war from breaking out for 50 years, is a failure and a disaster.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see... The UN condemned them (Resolution 34/70). Then Egypt was kicked to the curb by the Arab League (Syria, Iraq, et al) for agreeing to them. Syria and Iraq (under Saddam) continued to attack Israel. Anwar Sadat was assassinated for signing that accord. In fact, it accomplished exactly the opposite of what Carter wanted: A lasting peace between the various Arab factions and Israel. Instead, the Arab factions fractured with some continuing to fight Israel others wanting peace. Created internal strife across the Middle East for Arab nations, and pretty much kicked the Palestinians to the curb.
Cypress said:
Please show your proof that the United States could have forced the Iranians to keep the Shah. The Shah was almost universally hated in Iran, the uprising against him was widely supported, and I would like to see your proof the US could have forced Iran to keep the Shah.
Click to expand...


Finale of the Persian Monarchy and Prelude to the Iranian Revolution – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training

adst.org adst.org

Much like Russia in 1917, the Shaw could have stayed in power, even if he had to accept some form of shared government, except for US meddling and the return of the Ayatollahs. That last was much like the Germans in WW 1 returning Lenin and his circle of Communists to Russia to stir up shit with the Czar and topple the government. Carter was simply too naive to recognize this at the time.
Cypress said:
Central America has been ground zero for authoritarian dictatorships for two centuries. Did FOX tell you to believe central America only became unstable between the years 1977 to 1980?
Click to expand...

But nothing like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Ortega at the time was building a military far beyond what any previous government in that region had possessed. His neighbors were seeing increasing amounts of terrorism and guerrilla warfare and becoming nervous there was going to be a regional war against them by Nicaragua.
Cypress said:
Carter had a mixed bag on foreign policy, but I would say it was neither disastrous nor exemplary.
Click to expand...
Carter's foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It is interesting that we are seeing an attempt to rehabilitate the failed Carter Presidency.
Click to expand...

I think it's interesting that nobody wants to admit Reagan just copied his policies and right wingers suddenly proclaim the same policies 'great' when Reagan copied them. Reagan did add his own twists, though, like negotiating with terrorists selling guns to Iranian terrorists and operating a major dope smuggling ring from the White House, then suddenly losing his memory n stuff, the latter being a popular pastime for people facing major felony charges, like mobsters and Biden. AT least Carter didn't have to resort to such a silly gimmick.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It is interesting that we are seeing an attempt to rehabilitate the failed Carter Presidency.
Click to expand...
That’s the thing about history, people living it in the present don’t have all the facts. History exams the facts and things like Carter’s Presidency are then determined to be better than perceived at the time.
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, let's see... The UN condemned them (Resolution 34/70). Then Egypt was kicked to the curb by the Arab League (Syria, Iraq, et al) for agreeing to them. Syria and Iraq (under Saddam) continued to attack Israel. Anwar Sadat was assassinated for signing that accord. In fact, it accomplished exactly the opposite of what Carter wanted: A lasting peace between the various Arab factions and Israel. Instead, the Arab factions fractured with some continuing to fight Israel others wanting peace. Created internal strife across the Middle East for Arab nations, and pretty much kicked the Palestinians to the curb.



Finale of the Persian Monarchy and Prelude to the Iranian Revolution – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training

adst.org adst.org

Much like Russia in 1917, the Shaw could have stayed in power, even if he had to accept some form of shared government, except for US meddling and the return of the Ayatollahs. That last was much like the Germans in WW 1 returning Lenin and his circle of Communists to Russia to stir up shit with the Czar and topple the government. Carter was simply too naive to recognize this at the time.


But nothing like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Ortega at the time was building a military far beyond what any previous government in that region had possessed. His neighbors were seeing increasing amounts of terrorism and guerrilla warfare and becoming nervous there was going to be a regional war against them by Nicaragua.

Carter's foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster.
Click to expand...

Ever since the Camp David Accords, there has never again been a major regional Arab-Israeli war in 50 years.

There were four major regional Arab-Israeli wars in the 25 years between 1948-1973.

Taking Egypt off the map would ensure no more major regional wars, and Carter knew it.

No one has ever demonstrated to me how leftist governments in Latin America were a threat to the people of the United States. Self determination is a principle I adhere to short of any direct threats to the USA.

You have no adequate explanation for how the United States could have forced the Iranians to keep the Shah. He was a dead man walking who had little popular support, and was widely hated.
 
Cypress said:
Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian with an unblemished moral reputation, benefited from Watergate to win the 1976 presidential race.

Carter was sincere in wanting to establish a foreign policy based on Christian principles, in so far as it was possible. That's why he removed support from the shah if Iran, the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, and elevated human rights and human dignity as a foreign policy goal. He relentlessly promoted human rights in the USSR and the Soviet bloc.

He also tried to promote world peace, the Camp David Accords was his most important contribution to world stability.



Source credits
History of the United States, 2nd edition, Patrick Allit, PhD
Click to expand...

Make sure to tell Jimmy how you:

1. Want a hell to exist so that people you don't like will be tortured for eternity
2. You find it stupid to "turn the other cheek".

I think you'll find that you have missed the entire point of Christianity.
 
Cypress said:
Ever since the Camp David Accords, there has never again been a major regional Arab-Israeli war in 50 years.

There were four major regional Arab-Israeli wars in the 25 years between 1948-1973.

Taking Egypt off the map would ensure no more major regional wars, and Carter knew it.
Click to expand...

Or didn't. Instead of large regional wars of short and intermittent duration the region became wrecked by perpetual civil wars, terrorism, and tribal in-fighting. That includes Egypt. Syria just fell to a theocratic revolutionary group. Lebanon is a polyglot of factions that hate each other. Jordan had to fend off an attempted insurrection / coup by Palestinian refugees who were then forced out of the country. The Palestinians fight each other by faction as much as they fight Israel.
Iraq turned their attention elsewhere and started wars with Iran and Kuwait instead. Iran became a leading terrorist state hell bent on obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Cypress said:
No one has ever demonstrated to me how leftist governments in Latin America were a threat to the people of the United States. Self determination is a principle I adhere to short of any direct threats to the USA.
Click to expand...

I Nicaragua under the Sandinistas had successfully taken control (in whatever form) of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador they become a serious threat to Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico. They had, easily, the largest military in the region too. For example, Ortega had gotten about 15 to 25 MiG 23 jet fighters but they were in Cuba because he wanted to avoid an immediate escalation of conflict with the US.

Left unchecked, Cuba (with Soviet backing) was attempting to install governments hostile to the US in every country in Central and South America they could. That was a huge problem, and one Carter did little to nothing to stop.
Cypress said:
You have no adequate explanation for how the United States could have forced the Iranians to keep the Shah. He was a dead man walking who had little popular support, and was widely hated.
Click to expand...
The Shah would have remained in power and he had the internal means to do so. It was a combination of CIA action and allowing revolutionary leadership into the country that doomed him. The Ayatollahs have been no better, and they too are widely hated, but they, like the Shah, can keep a lid on things internally by repression. It takes outside forces acting internally to move the needle, so to speak.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Or didn't. Instead of large regional wars of short and intermittent duration the region became wrecked by perpetual civil wars, terrorism, and tribal in-fighting. That includes Egypt. Syria just fell to a theocratic revolutionary group. Lebanon is a polyglot of factions that hate each other. Jordan had to fend off an attempted insurrection / coup by Palestinian refugees who were then forced out of the country. The Palestinians fight each other by faction as much as they fight Israel.
Iraq turned their attention elsewhere and started wars with Iran and Kuwait instead. Iran became a leading terrorist state hell bent on obtaining a nuclear weapon.


I Nicaragua under the Sandinistas had successfully taken control (in whatever form) of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador they become a serious threat to Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico. They had, easily, the largest military in the region too. For example, Ortega had gotten about 15 to 25 MiG 23 jet fighters but they were in Cuba because he wanted to avoid an immediate escalation of conflict with the US.

Left unchecked, Cuba (with Soviet backing) was attempting to install governments hostile to the US in every country in Central and South America they could. That was a huge problem, and one Carter did little to nothing to stop.

The Shah would have remained in power and he had the internal means to do so. It was a combination of CIA action and allowing revolutionary leadership into the country that doomed him. The Ayatollahs have been no better, and they too are widely hated, but they, like the Shah, can keep a lid on things internally by repression. It takes outside forces acting internally to move the needle, so to speak.
Click to expand...

The goal of the Camp David Accords was not to prevent civil war in Lebanon, Libya, or Syria.

It was to prevent anymore major regional Arab-Israeli wars between coalitions of Arab states and Israel. In the cold war context, these conflicts were thought to be particularly risky and incendiary because they were basically proxy wars between the USA and USSR.

Carter knew taking Egypt off the map would mitigate the risk of a widespread regional Arab-Israeli war.

You've provided no credible evidence the Sandinitas were a threat to the American people, irrespective of whatever we thought of their socialism.

The brutal autocratic rule of the Shah made the Iranian revolution inevitable. He was a dead man walking and he was widely hated. You've provided nothing but sheer speculation that America could realistically have forced Iranians to keep the Shah.
 
Cypress said:
The goal of the Camp David Accords was not to prevent civil war in Lebanon, Libya, or Syria.
Click to expand...

Those civil wars were in part a result of the Accords.
Cypress said:
It was to prevent anymore major regional Arab-Israeli wars between coalitions of Arab states and Israel. In the cold war context, these conflicts were thought to be particularly risky and incendiary because they were basically proxy wars between the USA and USSR.
Click to expand...

Substituting one form of conflict for another didn't accomplish much.
Cypress said:
You've provided no credible evidence the Sandinitas were a threat to the American people, wherever we thought of their socialism.
Click to expand...

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp88b00831r000100210055-0 (sorry that it's hard to read. The military build up of the Sandinista military was a regional threat and that made it a threat to the US as well)

THE NICARAGUAN CONNECTION: A THREAT TO CENTRAL AMERICA | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov www.cia.gov

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell
history.state.gov history.state.gov

www.heritage.org

The Nicaraguan Connection: A Threat to Central America

(Archived document, may contain errors) 1 68 February 24, 1982 THE NICARAGUAN CONNEC7lOM A THREAT TO CENTRAL AMERICA INTRODUCTION Nicaragua and the United States enjoyed close ties for over half a century. This relationship ended as the Carter Administra tion provided tacit support for the...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org

The Yale Daily News 5 February 1988 — Yale Daily News Historical Archive

Yale Daily News Historical Archive
ydnhistorical.library.yale.edu ydnhistorical.library.yale.edu

Cypress said:
The brutal autocratic rule of the Shah made the Iranian revolution inevitable. He was a dead man walking and he was widely heated. You've provided nothing but sheer speculation that America could realistically have forced Iranians to keep the Shah.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. N. Korea has brutal autocratic rule and isn't about to be overthrown as but one example of that.
 
Daylight63 said:
Make sure to tell Jimmy how you:

1. Want a hell to exist so that people you don't like will be tortured for eternity
2. You find it stupid to "turn the other cheek".

I think you'll find that you have missed the entire point of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Why are you mad at me for exactly the same things Perry the PhD, Kafka, and Obtenebrator were also mad at me for? :laugh:
 
Cypress said:
Why are you mad at me for exactly the same things Perry the PhD, Kafka, and Obtenebrator were also mad at me for? :laugh:
Click to expand...

I am mad at you for calling me "Stalin" just because I don't believe as you do.

And I'm mad at you for lying about my posts and my position. You are strange. You have a fight with someone I don't even KNOW and you take it out on me for some reason only you understand.

Get a grip on your hatred. It's eating you alive.

And while you're at it: learn what Christianity is about so when you blather on about it it doesn't make you into a gigantic hypocrite bastard.
 
Cypress said:
Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian with an unblemished moral reputation, benefited from Watergate to win the 1976 presidential race.

Carter was sincere in wanting to establish a foreign policy based on Christian principles, in so far as it was possible. That's why he removed support from the shah if Iran, the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, and elevated human rights and human dignity as a foreign policy goal. He relentlessly promoted human rights in the USSR and the Soviet bloc.

He also tried to promote world peace, the Camp David Accords was his most important contribution to world stability.



Source credits
History of the United States, 2nd edition, Patrick Allit, PhD
Click to expand...
Jimmy Carter was NOT a Christian as we currently know them.
He actually believed in New Testament-endorsed moral standards.
 
Cypress said:
Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian with an unblemished moral reputation, benefited from Watergate to win the 1976 presidential race.

Carter was sincere in wanting to establish a foreign policy based on Christian principles, in so far as it was possible. That's why he removed support from the shah if Iran, the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, and elevated human rights and human dignity as a foreign policy goal. He relentlessly promoted human rights in the USSR and the Soviet bloc.

He also tried to promote world peace, the Camp David Accords was his most important contribution to world stability.



Source credits
History of the United States, 2nd edition, Patrick Allit, PhD
Click to expand...
Jimmy was a nice guy who was one of the worst presidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top