Jimmy Carter: still a liberal, still stupid

[The Laughing Man]

Source

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about—this is going to cause some trouble with people—but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?

CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought.

Say what? Okay, ignoring the obvious slight towards President Bush ("up until recently") for now, Carter is a little off on his thinking. (Big surprise, eh?) The Revolutionary War resulted in less than 5,000 American deaths. The Civil War and World War II resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 and over 400,000 respectively - 1 million total. Now, the war in Iraq and the subsequent acts of terror there have cost the lives of just over 1,000 Americans - not even close to the deaths in the Revolutionary War.

I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

ALL wars could have been avoided, but the Revolutionary War was not unnecessary.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive

BWOOOOOOP!!!! BWOOOOOP!!!! BWOOOOOP!!!!
RED ALERT!!! RED ALERT!!!
LIBERALESE DETECTED!!! LIBERALESE DETECTED!!!
WARNING!!! WARNING!!! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!
BWOOOOOOP!!!! BWOOOOOP!!!! BWOOOOOP!!!!

"A little more sensitive." Yeah, right. And if we had been just "a little more sensitive" to Saddam's brutal, murderous dictatorship, we never would've had to have used military force to oust him. Why, he would've just handed over his keys just like that.

to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

No, we wouldn't have been a free country because the British would've crushed us.

I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.

You know, it sickens me that Carter is comparing the modern U.S. to late-1700s England and Iraq to Colonial America. :puke: It's like comparing apples to, um, that stuff that comes out of your backside and you flush down the toilet.

[AtheistArchon]

- Don't beat around the bush, Jinx, tell us what you really think.

[The Laughing Man]

I will take that as an agreement with my assessment. Thanks, Arch.

[AtheistArchon]

I will take that as an agreement with my assessment. Thanks, Arch.

- Um... okay. How you did that I'm not sure, but okay.

[The Laughing Man]

Is there a difference between not disagreeing and agreeing?

[AtheistArchon]

Is there a difference between not disagreeing and agreeing?

- Does LW agree with you too since he hasn't disagreed?

[The Laughing Man]

We'll see, I guess. You had a chance to disagree and you didn't.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Source

You know, it sickens me that Carter is comparing the modern U.S. to late-1700s England and Iraq to Colonial America. :puke: It's like comparing apples to, um, that stuff that comes out of your backside and you flush down the toilet.

Uh, Jinx, just in case you missed it, it was Chris Matthews who made the comparison by asking Carter to draw parallels between the insurgency back then and the insurgency now. Matthews set the parameters for the modern US and 18th Century England to be compared, and for the Colonial and Iraqi insurgents to be compared ... not Carter. I think you need to read that again.

From your OP: " ... but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side [the Colonists] and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today [the Iraqi insurgents]?"

That said, I agree, he was off in his characterization of the Revolution being the bloodiest war we've fought until recently. The Civil War was, I believe, by far the bloodiest. As for the figure of less than 5,000 Americans lost in the Revolution, I believe that there were technically NO Americans lost in the Revolution (they weren't Americans yet). But I'm just pointing that out to be facetious.

[Sheepdog]

i'm suprized they didn't compare us to the Nazis and Iraq to Poland. isn't that the standard liberal comparision^TM?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

i'm suprized they didn't compare us to the Nazis and Iraq to Poland. isn't that the standard liberal comparision^TM?

Time to stop listening to Limbaugh and Savage, dude. There is no "standard liberal comparison." This kind of stereotyping needs to stop on both sides.

[Arnold]

i'm suprized they didn't compare us to the Nazis and Iraq to Poland. isn't that the standard liberal comparision^TM?

Yep - that's the standard.



---------------------------------

John sKerry addresses the UN:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Sheepdog]

stereotyping? i'm only deflecting the fecal matter back towards its source.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

stereotyping? i'm only deflecting the fecal matter back towards its source.

Oh? And what's the source? If you provide specific quotes, then you've shown that certain people (maybe liberals, maybe not) have drawn that comparison, but you'll have to post a really, really huge list of similar quotes to establish that it is the "standard liberal comparison". Or you can just say the source is liberals in general, in which case you are stereotyping, since liberals in general, afaics, don't make any such comparison, nor are liberals in general similar enough across the board with regard to the war, its rationale, and its methodology, to actually arrive upon a "standard comparison."