Skip to main content

View Diary: Paul Krugman Did Not Win a Nobel Prize in Economics (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Carter?!? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Little, Bob Love, IreGyre

    I can roll with you on Kissinger, who was a hawk from the word "go" and deeply involved in the Vietnam War, but Carter? The man who negotiated the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaty (and carried out the subsequent return of the Canal to Panama as well), one of the more successful rounds of SALT talks, and refused to go to war with Iran despite the hostage crisis? That Jimmy Carter?

    I fail to see how Carter's record constitutes an ironic awarding of the Peace Prize, since he is one of the few modern presidents to fight no wars and instead be instrumental in some of the more important moves for peace and international justice of the 20th century.

    But maybe you're using a different definition of "irony" than I am.

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

    by Stwriley on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:19:20 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe you are thinking of a different (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, FG, RageKage, MGross

      Carter than I am, who knows?

      The Carter I was thinking of was the one who lured the Soviets into the "Afghan Trap" - yeah, pretty clever!!  Unless you think of the million or so innocent Afghani's - including many kids - who were casualties.   Not to mention setting in motion (or at least giving increased impetus) to a chain of events that led to 9.11 and Bush's response thereto.

      And why not google the Carter Doctrine wrt middle east oil?

      Heck, I'll do it for you (it's easy, Wikipedia has it):

      The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the U.S. would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.
      needless to say, when Bush the Elder and Bush the Idiot followed through and actually carried out this doctrine - most at this site didn't stand up and cheer too loudly.     But you might have a point that if they had been Dems, we would have . ..
      •  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Jimmy Carter's fault?

        •  Fault? It was a deliberate strategy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, FG
          Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs10 that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention.11 In this period you were the national security adviser to Pre s i dent Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

          Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980,that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality,
          closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was Ju ly 3, 1979 that Pre s i dent Ca rter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention


          well woohoo you fuckwads, it worked!!

          •  That link you gave me does not say (0+ / 0-)

            it was a deliberate strategy. I am more than willing to learn more about this, but you have not made the case for this.

            •  Are. You. Kidding? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nada Lemming
              And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention
              Can you think of some other reason Carter would have funded right-wing fundamentalist monsters who were rebelling against their Government because it had started funding schools in which girls were being taught to read?

              dEar Ellois: U send Fud down holez, we no eaTz u. That iz deAl. No forget. MooRlockz Haz 2 eats. Stoopid Elloiz.

              by JesseCW on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:55:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm doing very simple math here. (0+ / 0-)

                Brzezinski says he wrote that after Carter signed the directive.

                •  You did the math? (0+ / 0-)

                  Based on this??

                  And that very day, I wrote a note to the president

                  I suppose you have a minute by minute timeline of these guys schedules from that day?

                  Well OK then - I believe you.  But having that level of detail makes your claim a couple of posts ago that you knew nothing about this just a tad sketchy.

              •  Wait - he says "that very day." I somehow (0+ / 0-)

                read that as the next day.

                Although, he says, right after that, this:

                Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

                B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

                And the source of my objection up ther was teh commenter acting like the Soviets had ZERO repsonsibility.
            •  I dunno - read the entire interview (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              he gave more than one essentially saying the same thing with slightly different wording

              Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

              Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

              IOW, they weren't sure the Soviet would take the bait, but the Soviets did and were successfully goaded into Afganistan - it's a fact they were quite willing to brag about in 1998.  Strangely it's not looking all that good these days and tends to be swept under the rug for some reason . . .
          •  I meant to say that that paragraph does (0+ / 0-)

            not say that. REading at the link now.

      •  And you bought that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That's not exactly a new charge, but one that's never had much credibility. Aid to the Afghan rebels was one thing, but this idea that it was a deliberate strategy to lure the Soviets into an invasion is contradicted by the very nature of the actions taken by the Soviets themselves. The Afghan invasion had been in the works (i.e., we'd seen the troop movements and other unconcealable evidence) for almost a year before it actually happened. Thus we know quite clearly that nothing that Carter did or did not do caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

        As for the Carter Doctrine, what of it? As I pointed out above, Carter specifically chose not to go to war in the Persian Gulf despite pretty clear violations of our sovereign territory (which an embassy is) and making hostages of American diplomats. You don't get to blame what every Republican yahoo who followed him did in the ME on Carter.

        Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

        by Stwriley on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 07:07:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is a principle in criminal law (0+ / 0-)

          that to be a party to a crime, you only have take a positive action with the intent of furthering a crime, even if, in fact, your actions did not have that effect.

          We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

          by RageKage on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 10:52:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly, that's the point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Afghan invasion had been in the works (i.e., we'd seen the troop movements and other unconcealable evidence) for almost a year before it actually happened.
          they knew something was in the works and wanted to be 100% (or as high of a percentage as possible) that the Soviets wouldn't wuss out and NOT invade.

          So the Carter Administration did everything the could to ensure that the invasion took place.

          Which is quite unbefitting for somebody who was given a Nobel Peace prize, which is my major point in this discussion.  Heck, in a sane world wouldn't somebody worthy of a prize with such a name have been furiously working behind the scenes to ensure that the Soviets * didn't * invade when it appeared that this eventuality was in the offing?  But no, they were doing just the opposite

          Just curious, what is the motivation of people who come on this site and defend the completely immoral and outrageous atrocities of US foreign policy on an ongoing basis?   You know, aren't there more appropriate internet sites for that?

      •  That "Carter Doctrine" has been US policy (0+ / 0-)

        since the Eisenhower era. Just because Carter made it explicit doesn't mean he changed middle east policy in the slightest.

        There was never a time when the US would not defend its nation interests, anywhere. Let's not get carried away here.

        "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

        by Bob Love on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 12:04:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but you find no irony in somebody (0+ / 0-)

          who did such iconic things as install solar panels on the White House with one hand up the ante wrt protecting "our" foreign oil by killing the locals?

          As compared to getting out of the thrall of Big Oil and saying fuck it, we don't need foreign oil (at least not middle east oil, if the Europeans want/need it that's their business / problem) .  Instead, he could have put us on a real path to become energy independent, which very likely could have been realized if we had undertaken a German-like effort starting back then.

          But again, relevant to this discussion - yeah, maybe that's not realistic given (as you point out) our country is not like that.   It's always military first, no matter what.  But still, by explicitly endorsing this, why the fuck was he awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (unless my original point that it is awarded just for the irony quotient is valid).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (66)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (43)
  • Republicans (39)
  • Culture (37)
  • Elections (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Labor (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • GOP (23)
  • Economy (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site