Jump to content
kscarbel2

The last living U.S. President with Honesty and Integrity

Recommended Posts

seems to present himself alott better now,, than when he was president,,,,,interesting,,thanks for the post...bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sub drivers* are generally very sharp individuals, and President Carter is no exception.

This interview is extremely revealing across-the-board about what made the man, and his blunt position on the world today.

There isn’t a single man in Washington today of the same caliber.

You will not find any dirty laundry his closet. Now, when is the last time you thought that of a politician?

Unlike President Carter, today’s politicians are corrupt, unqualified, incompetent or all three.

President Carter sought to perform the job of President, not to become a politician.

* President Carter graduated 60th out of 820 midshipmen in the class of 1946.He was admitted to the US Navy's fledgling nuclear submarine program in 1952, led by the legendary Captain Hyman G. Rickover (of the generation of men who could move mountains). Rickover's demands on his men and machines were legendary, and Carter later said that, next to his parents, Rickover was the greatest influence on his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many points of his presidency Jimmy Carter got a bad rap and in other areas, he was just plain naive about the world of politics. I would think mainly because he didn't "owe" anybody in DC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have preferred his brother Billy, the comment of spineless is right on, the world is not a fun happy place, Americans were respected or feared on how you looked at it, never the less we could travel with out fear of harm, now we are the main target, we no longer take work over seas due to the lack of safety and having no back up from the US government. The young people of this country need a lesson in what other countries will do to us, then they will figure it out, till then they will go on there merry way with heads in dark area. If you are our friend then we should be there for you, if not then fear us and fear us well because we were and once again could be your worst nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one other thing for you that praise the peanut farmer with the big smile, you don't remember paying 21% interest at the bank for money, yeah he was a real brain surgeon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A gentleman, yes. Can't say much for his presidency. He put the knife in the Shaw's back and left it there. Much of our problems in the Middle East today had their genesis under his tenure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KS I was also nuclear sub sailor. I was a nuclear enlisted machinist mate. Admiral Rickover would personally interview all of the officers that would go into the nuclear sub pogram. As the story goes one time during an interview Rickover told the interviewee to do something that would piss Rickover off. The young officer smashed a plastic model submarine on Rickovers desk. The officer passed the interview because he had balls. :twothumbsup:Carter was the only Democrat I ever voted for. Prayers be with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame he now is ill. His military background was very good and we need people with character and those skills today. However, his Presidential career was lacking and he always seemed out of his element, even naive on the world scene. I believe his greatest successes were in his post-Presidential years, electoral monitoring in South and Central America, humanitarian efforts worldwide, peace agreements in the middle east, that still stand today. History will judge what he is remembered most for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I strongly agree or disagree with the above comments. I voted for Carter but was greatly disappointed on several fronts.

a) he couldn't get our boys (hostages) out of Iran, The hostages were freed within several hours of Reagan being sworn in. The story is that the Russians counseled the Iranians that Reagan was not the kind of guy to mess with. Carter might have been a smart guy but he did seem to be lacking in the testes department.

B) And the so called "double nickel, a law we can live with." Interstate speed limit of 55 mph and cops everywhere writing tickets for 3 mph over. Bull shit gas shortages when there was no shortage - tankers full of crude anchored off Galveston. If you're OK with 55 mph, try driving just a short way from Dallas to San Antonio at 55 mph. You'll want to scream.

Smart guy for sure but a crummy administrator. I was there, I lived through it, and sorry gents but that's how I remember it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I strongly agree or disagree with the above comments. I voted for Carter but was greatly disappointed on several fronts.

a) he couldn't get our boys (hostages) out of Iran, The hostages were freed within several hours of Reagan being sworn in. The story is that the Russians counseled the Iranians that Reagan was not the kind of guy to mess with. Carter might have been a smart guy but he did seem to be lacking in the testes department.

B) And the so called "double nickel, a law we can live with." Interstate speed limit of 55 mph and cops everywhere writing tickets for 3 mph over. Bull shit gas shortages when there was no shortage - tankers full of crude anchored off Galveston. If you're OK with 55 mph, try driving just a short way from Dallas to San Antonio at 55 mph. You'll want to scream.

Smart guy for sure but a crummy administrator. I was there, I lived through it, and sorry gents but that's how I remember it.

Reagan didn't get our hostages out of Iran. Rather, the Iranians were willing to let them go at that point on purpose, their way of trying to make Carter lose face. Carter didn't care about their childish thought process on that, he only cared that the American hostages were finally released. Watch the video in my first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton had his hand in the canal defense also.

The 1977 Carter-Torrijos treaty gives the United States the right to defend the Panama Canal militarily until the U.S. deemed it unnessary. The Clinton administrations refusal to renew the Panama Canal Zone Security Agreement is allowing circumstances to develop in which U.S. defense of the waterway will be impossible without confronting the Chinese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never say Carter is not a good guy. I would however say until the current occupant of the Whitehouse came along, Carter was going down in history as the worst president ever. Obama has clearly taken that title away from Mr. Peanut. I also think Carter's input into current events is not often of great value. - Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wish we still controlled the Panama Canal. However, knowing the history of it, I can understand President Carter’s thought process for handing over its control to Panama.

Mack has a place in the history of the Panama Canal, having built 69 massive model FCSW 50-ton “Super Dumpers” for the Third Locks Project in 1941 to move over 35 million cubic yards of rock and earth.

There’s so much history behind the concept of connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans via Central America.

The idea of building a canal actually dates back to 1534 with the Spanish, who wanted an easier way to reach Peru.

Then in 1869, President Grant established the Inter-Oceanic Canal Commission for investigating viable canal routes, stimulated by the discovery of gold in California. They surveyed Panama in 1875 and felt it would be cheaper to build a canal in Nicaragua. However, as time went on, they thought the Nicaragua plan might not be such a swift idea after all, what with a volcano just 20 miles away.

In 1879, after completing a survey of Panama, the French gave Ferdinand de Lesseps the go-ahead to build a sea-level canal. Lesseps’ skills were proven, having built the Suez Canal.

Elected in 1901, and as a result of the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana, President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt felt American had to have this canal in support of its national defense.

As was commonly done at the time by large nations, the US interfered in the internal affairs of another sovereign country for its own gain.

Columbia refused to sign a canal construction treaty with the US.

The US response was to then begin promoting an independence movement over the summer of 1902, led by Columbian Senator Jose Arango, Panama Railroad employees and U.S. Army officers.

Then Roosevelt told Panamanian rebels that if they revolted, the U.S. Navy would support their fight for independence.

In a classic example of gunboat diplomacy, the USS Nashville (PG-7) strolled into Panama in support of the Panamanian revolution, while other ships blocked the sea lanes preventing Columbia from sending reinforcements.

With the Columbian government unable to force the unwelcome foreign forces to leave, Panama claimed its independence from Colombia, and a then grateful new Panamanian government agreed to giving the Americans control of the future canal.

Under the original agreement that Columbia refused, the Hay-Herran Treaty, the US would give Colombia $10 million initially plus $250,000 annually for the duration of a 100-year lease of a six-mile-wide strip of land on either side of the canal.

When Colombia refused the offer. Roosevelt said "We were dealing with a government of irresponsible bandits. I was prepared to. . .at once occupy the Isthmus anyhow, and proceed to dig the canal. But I deemed it likely that there would be a revolution in Panama soon."

After having orchestrated a successful rebellion, The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed in 1903 giving the US a slightly narrower five-mile-wide strip of land on either side of the canal for $10 million per year. Unlike the Hay-Herrán Treaty, this treaty did not set a time at which the agreement would end.

In 1904, the US bought the assets of the French canal construction company and the Panama Railroad for $40 million (a lot of money back then), $30,000 of which was related to completed excavation work.

After 10 years of work, the initial construction of the Panama Canal was finished in 1914.

In 1921, the US and Columbia signed the Thomson–Urrutia Treaty in which the US agreed to pay $25 million in return for Colombia's recognition of Panama's independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...