Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Jimmy Carter: Bad US President Amazing Human" video.

  1. Well, if you're maintaining peace by selling your country; then yeah, that tracks.
    44
  2. @johnroscoe2406  Fine then. Explain to me how allowing the Iranian Revo lution to occur served US interests? Abandoning the Shah and allowing the modern Iranian state to be formed has led to millions upon millions of bodies and the perpetuation of an ti-US proxies and groups by that gov. Thnx Jimmy. 👏
    22
  3. @chenfung789  U guys have zero imagination. No, send in the air force to support the Shah, provide funding, give info the CIA has, use the navy. What, do you think the US needs to send in troops in every instance to influence stuff???
    12
  4.  @dixieslav1274  The Panama Canal thing was a good thing, unironically. It allowed Panama to grow economically, tied the US politically to the country, deflected claims of i m pe r i a l i s m from Latam, and doesn't require constant US presence. Imagine if Islamist groups targeted the canal because the US controlled it? But I generally agree with everything else. He was a very very bad President.
    11
  5. The copium here is impressive. The world actively became a worst place under his tenure. Whether its true about the Shah or not, not supporting him allowed for the rise of modern Iran and the many proxies it supported across the region causing mass deva station. From Yemen, to Lebanon, to Syria, to Ga za. Millions gone, not to mention the mistreatment of the Iranian people. All because of Carter. He doesn't deserve a state funeral.
    7
  6.  @DJuuJ  Classic anti-US bashers; you have zero knowledge of what actually happened and thus feel compelled to vo mit your theories as if they are facts. God's sakes, the US did not even support the Taliban; it didn't exist until years after the US left Afghanistan. You are talking about the mujahideen, which was a completely separate organization that lost control later to the Taliban. And for the record, it was the USSR's invasion that triggered their rise, not US money. So your analogy makes even LESS sense.
    6
  7. The amount of b l o o d on his hands far exceeds the amount of people he has helped. His actions led to the rise of the Islamic Republic, and would lead to what has happened to Syria, Yemen, Ga za, Lebanon, etc.
    4
  8. @EduardoEscarez  The issue is that the US didn't even try. And the Iranian air force is an insignificant contrast to the US one, so that isn't even worth mentioning.
    3
  9. @SheksgemWhepdo  Literally nobody but u guys mentioned ground forces. It's a strawman u made, not my idea. God, no wonder u guys like Jimmy; zero imagination.
    3
  10.  @unecstacy9698  Your definition of "logical" is what benefits the USSR, not the US. But ur type also tends to believe that those ungrateful Eastern Europeans should be quiet and stay under Soviet control anyway.
    3
  11. Its kinda funny that a lot of people can say the same exact thing about him to the point that there are a lot of good answers here.
    3
  12.  @abarette_  Its just a catch-all term. Language is flexible, and that's what the groups that fought called themselves from varying orgs working together. Yes, they're Islamists; but the Taliban did not emerge until years later. And you are intentionally rewriting history. Supporting Islamists from years prior doesn't mean you support the ones that emerged later. That's blatant misinformation.
    3
  13.  @theotherohlourdespadua1131  Wow, yeah, there are people here talking about invading Iran with troops? Where?
    2
  14.  @cynicat74  I answered almost half a dozen questions from people that can't read, so you're going to have to be specific.
    2
  15.  @cynicat74  I answered that question; how is intentionally thro wing away allies and allowing the formation of one of the chief insti gators of ant i-US proxies and conflicts throughout the region NOT selling out your country?
    2
  16.  @ferns9555  A good man, still one of the worst leaders in US history. In any other country, he'd be lambasted and hounded into depression.
    1
  17.  @spregged7231  Under Reagan the USSR was collapsing and millions of people were freed from its opp res sion. I doubt it was the worst. Nice try, though.
    1
  18.  @evanmoore3114  The Ayatollah's movement was not exactly populist at the time, you're just coping to justify this abysmal failure on Jim's part. Spare me the copium. Nothing indicates that a literal invasion would be necessary, they were not the Taliban for goodness sake.
    1
  19.  @spregged7231  I think everyone in Eastern Europe would emphatically disagree with that. Also, the many bodies in the m a s s g r a v e s in Syria for that matter.
    1
  20.  @Mshi-  "B-B-But what about X?!?!" Grow up. Why are u bringing up another US President when we're talking about the absolute dismal showing of Jim Jim? Nobody praises Bush, but the we ird os here idolize him. That's kinda the issue.
    1
  21.  @spregged7231  I think everyone in Eastern Europe would emphatically disagree with that. Also, the many bod ies in the m a s s g r a v e s in Syria for that matter.
    1
  22. @evanmoore3114  He literally did nothing, so basically everything. From sanctions to air strikes to naval strikes, etc.
    1
  23. @evanmoore3114  I see people here have zero imagination. U do realize that most sanctions are aimed at individuals, right? Not countries? Cutting cash flow for the Mull ahs would have helped.
    1
  24.  @evanmoore3114  It would have made it harder for groups to support him. Khomeini's popularity was due to him manipulating events in a populist fashion, like blaming the events of Black Friday on "Zi on ists" when the Shah himself tried to stop it. Or his subordinates constantly using times of prayers to rally support or coordinate massive protests. Heck, the Shah's police were so underequipped because Jimmy refused to sell tear gas or rubber bu ll ets to him, forcing him to call on the army. U are making excuse after excuse, when the issue is that Jimmy did NOTHING. Or actively hindered him. So again; thnx Jimmy.
    1
  25. He was an abysmal President. But a good man, all things considered. He should have never been President.
    1
  26. @johnroscoe2406  Fine then. Explain to me how allowing the Iranian Revolution to occur served US interests? Abandoning the Shah and allowing the modern Iranian state to be formed has led to millions upon millions of bodies and the perpetuation of anti-US proxies and groups by that regime. Thnx Jimmy. 👏 And no, it has nothing to do with him being a Democract. I supported Harris for God's sakes. It has everything to do with his h o r r i d foreign policy.
    1
  27.  @cynicat74  I answered that question; how is intentionally throwing away allies and allowing the formation of one of the chief instigators of ant i-US proxies and conflicts throughout the region NOT selling out your country? You're right though, Jimmy is the ultimate hypocrite. Toss his bo dy into the sea instead.
    1
  28. @cynicat74  I keep replying, but YT keeps removing it. So, to be blunt; there is no reason for u to not understand. Jimmy had an option, and chose the one that haunted the US to the modern day and led to millions of d e a d.
    1
  29.  @johnroscoe2406  I did answer. My messages keep getting de le ted by YT, though.
    1
  30.  @johnroscoe2406  All of my responses after your last replies were d e l e t e d. Sorry to tell ya 🤷
    1
  31.  @johnroscoe2406  I'm not, but keep comforting yourself if you want. I don't see them, and I'm tired of edu cat ing people on this platform. Why do you think I keep spacing words like the above?
    1
  32.  @starman275  Any nation that has immense influence can make things better for the world; it comes with the territory of having that influence. Doing nothing is just as much an action as doing something, and Jim Jim did nothing. For example; the UK actively hunting and shutting down the s l a v e trade across the planet during the 18th century was unequivocally making the world a better place. The UK c o l o n i z i n g Africa? Not so much. Same deal here. The only ignorance here is thinking that shoving ur head into the dirt and ignoring the world is the answer. In which case; no wonder u like Jim Jim.
    1
  33. Uh, no, he's definitely amongst the absolute worst. The US was in its nadir in terms of power and influence given to the USSR for free in this time period. The only thing that panned out positively from his tenure was giving Panama the right to the canal.
    1
  34. Piss on his grave then, because a "good man" can sell your country no better than Carter did. Or sell other countries for that matter.
    1
  35. @abarette_  That's like saying that the US supported a group of liberals means that all liberals are supported by the US. Genius logic. Wow, it's almost like there are different groups despite them all being Islamists or something. It's called nuance. Have some. 🙄 Edit: LMAO. I like how you intentionally paint the absolute worst picture for groups when it's convenient for you. I guess the liberal controlled Ukraine is just N a z i now despite not following that government format? 🤔
    1
  36. Great. That doesn't change the fact that he had his own policy, and that things BTFO'd under his control.
    1
  37.  @cloudyfromtpotreal  No matter what Trump says, the US will not be using military force on a US ally. Well, not without him getting overthrown anyway.
    1