Carter receives Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--carter-nuclear0926sep26,0,1033762.story

Carter critical of efforts to slow nuclear proliferation
5:07 PM EDT, September 26, 2007

HAMDEN, Conn. - Former President Carter criticized the U.S. and other nations Wednesday for doing too little to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

The former president criticized the Bush administration for striking a deal that would effectively waive rules by allowing the U.S. to supply India with nuclear fuel despite its refusal to sign the nonproliferation treaty and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect all of its nuclear facilities.

Carter spoke at Quinnipiac University after receiving the school's Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award, named for the medical missionary who won the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize.

<snip>

He also scoffed at pledges made Tuesday at the United Nations by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his nation will not use nuclear power for weapons. He said such denials are common.

<snip>

Than Jimmy Carter

He was pretty certain of Iranian intentions when he couldn't stop kneeling before the great and terrible Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, the vicious little homicidal cretin who called himself the "Shah" (Emperor) of Iran.

In the years since being President of the United States, Jimmy Carter has done some great things for human rights, but when he was President, Jimmy Carter apparently couldn't have cared less about Savak, the Iranian KGB, not that I wish to make the KGB seem all that awful.



http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/War/torture2.htm

The assertion of oracular authority usually depends on complete ignorance.

Irrespective of Jimmy Carter's concerns, the number of nuclear wars that have taken place in the last half a century is zero. The number of dangerous fossil fuel wars that have taken place in the last 25 years is not zero.

For instance, the Iranian-Iraq war in part a dangerous fossil fuel war. Nearly a million people were killed in this war, many of them by weapons sold to the Pahlevi, vicious dictator, murderer and close personal friend of Jimmy Carter. And if you believe for a New York second that the Iran-Iraq war wasn't involved in the history of the Shah of Iran, I'd have a billion shares of Amory Lovins' Walmart stock I'd like to sell you.

Jimmy Carter has done much to redeem himself for his cozy comfortable co-conspiracy with Reza Pahlevi, but by opposing the Iranian nuclear reactors, he is taking up the "kill Iranians" business again. First, he has no moral right to tell the Iranians anything. Hanging out with the owner of Savak eliminated that right forever. Second he apparently couldn't care less what dangerous fossil fuels do to Iranians and every other person on the face of the planet.

The number of approaches to eliminating dangerous fossil fuels without vast death without nuclear energy is zero.

Every single nuclear reactor that operates on the face of the earth saves lives if only because fossil fuels are so deadly and so dangerous that every time they are used, they kill. Thus there is a 100% certainty that the use of fossil fuels will kill.

There is a tiny potential - never actually realized - that used fuel from a nuclear reactor could be used to make a small inefficient nuclear weapon. This probability is so vanishingly small that it has only been tested once, by the United States. There is an even smaller probability, non zero but small of there actually being a nuclear war as a result of such a weapon, but like everything else, the comparison to dangerous fossil fuel tragedy - about which the mindless anti-nuke community could not care less, is ridiculous. Clearly this probability is so small that the emergence of nuclear energy as the world's largest, by far, climate change gas free form of energy, has led to zero nuclear wars.

Of course, the anti-nukes, led by the $20,000/day Walmart executive - who couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel wars - Amory Lovins, the Oracle at Snowmass, are practicing a religion, since only a religion makes assertions that fly in the face of all the data.

Is nuclear energy perfect and without risk? No, it is not. It's simply better than all of its alternatives, by far. This is true in Iran; it is true in Argentina; it is true in Syria; it is true in Isreal; it is true in North Korea; and it is true in the United States. It is true in Botswana; it is true in Bangladesh; it is true in Antarctica.

As it happens, Jimmy Carter lived a part of his life in close proximity to nuclear reactors and he actually spent some time walking through the Three Mile Island reactor during the famous accident which, according to the sacred texts of the anti-nuke religion, wiped out everybody in Harrisburg except Jimmy Carter. So Jimmy Carter should know better about nuclear energy, and from the consequences of his close friendship with Pahlevi, all about dangerous fossil fuels as well.

Some people, usually simple minded people, wish to represent that people like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter are perfect and without flaws, major flaws. This is simply not true. Jimmy Carter had selective attention to human rights, just like mindless anti-nukes have selective attention to the threat of energy related wars, terrorism, waste, economics, accidents and pollution. In general, the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less about wars, terrorism, waste, economics, accidents and pollution connected with dangerous fossil fuels.

Jimmy Carter has lead an exemplary life, more or less, since leaving office and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Then again, Henry Kissinger was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, one million dead Cambodians - and God knows how many Chileans - notwithstanding. Jimmy Carter has some moral authority, but it is not absolute. As a man who lived close to nuclear reactors, he has some authority on nuclear issues, but as President, his action on nuclear energy cannot be described in any way other than dumb. He dismantled the US intention to reprocess used nuclear fuel and this has lead to the deaths of many tens of thousands of Americans, if not more, because it put the breaks on nuclear energy and prevented its utilization as broadly as it could have been utilized. He claimed he was going to exert "moral authority" by forgoing reprocessing. He did no such thing. He simply wasted a great opportunity to do great things.

This is a lot closer to the truth than your attempts to blame Savak on Carter - you're doing a heckuva job, NNadir:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-01.htm

When Democrats Lean Right, They Lose: A History Lesson
by Paul Rockwell

<snip>

While South Africa offered asylum to the Shah, most countries, including Britain and France, closed their doors. President Carter first resisted the Shah's requests for safe haven in the United States. After all, the U.S. Embassy in Iran had warned the president of potential repercussions if the U.S. aided the Shah, whose hopes for a counter-revolution were public knowledge. In one prophetic moment Carter asked: "What do we do if our embassy personnel are taken hostage?"

But right-wing pressures on Democratic presidents are unceasing. David Rockefeller, whose banks held $8 billion in Iranian assets, a personal friend of the Shah; and Henry Kissinger, mastermind of the illegal secret bombing of Cambodia for the Nixon administration, urged Carter to bring the Shah to the U.S. American arms dealers, who concluded $15 billion in arms sales to the Shah between 1974 and 1978, also put pressure on the White House.

When Jimmy Carter succumbed to the pressure, he not only reversed his own position on human rights, he touched off a crisis that ended any chance for winning the campaign of 1980. Having goaded Carter into an open alliance with the deposed Shah, Kissinger and Rockefeller never took responsibility for the subsequent disaster. They let the Democrats take the blame.

<snip>

where do you think that the
(extra clean from frequent reprocessing)
Plutonium for the Nagasaki Fat Man came from?

Hint --> ncluaer rtcoaer