Home | About | Donate

Jimmy Carter: US 'Most Warlike Nation in History of the World'

Jimmy Carter: US 'Most Warlike Nation in History of the World'

Brett Wilkins

The only US president to complete his term without war, military attack or occupation has called the United States “the most warlike nation in the history of the world.”


Jimmy Carter: The last president to give a damn about “We the People”!


The US has “actively sought to crush nearly every single people’s liberation movement over that same period.” Primarily any attempt at a country becoming a Socialist country. Capitalism brooks no competitors or limits.


I can agree with bits and pieces of this article and Carter, but the rest is hogwash.

Is the US spending way too much money on its military and intervening across the globe when it shouldn’t be? Yes, absolutely yes.

Is the US the most warlike nation in the history of the world? Absolutely not. We don’t wage wars of aggression. Whether you agree with our military interventions or not, we don’t wage wars of aggression like fascist and communist countries have in the past. I know Carter was trying to be provocative, but that line, the one that the article has as its title, is absurd.

Plus his idea of how we should spend that military money if we downsized our military is a stretch, as well. High speed rail was an abject failure in California. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that it could be successful nationwide. And just because we spend trillions more on education (as a government) doesn’t mean that we’d receive any meaningful amount of positive return. We already spend in inordinate amount per student in our public schools and they’re a disgrace. Pouring more money into a failure doesn’t necessarily result in a success.

But if you gave $5 trillion back to the citizenry in reduced taxes and gave the citizenry the freedom to spend their own money how they please, that would be meaningful prosperity.


Congratulations, Brett Wilkins, on a solid piece.

I still blame Carter for the war in Afghanistan Brzezinski thought a really clever idea to start: the model eternal war. That colors Carter’s observation, but does not impeach the truth of it.


And Carter has also said:
The US is an Oligarchy, with Unlimited Bribery.


Wilkins sez:
“The US has also … supported nearly every single right wing dictatorship in the world since the end of World War II.”

And still there are folks who believe fascism was defeated in that war — the last war constitutionally declared by a U.S. congress.


Perhaps Mr. Carter could go on a touring circuit to as many sunday lectures in churches as his health allows. While he is not free from blame having allowed Mr. Brzezinski to control his foreign affairs his arguments on the financial rewards of peace sound like a good sell. Any ideas introduced to the religious fanatics that might open discussions are worth muchos.


I always have held Jimmy Carter in high esteem, but he did do a few things that really boosted the military.
(Never forget that he was a “Military Man”).
(1) He did reinstate Mandatory registration for the Selective Service (in 1980)
(2) His library boasts that he increased military spending after a long period of decline.
Surprisingly, Nixon had decreased military spending. See the chart at Think Progress:
His increases were modest comparted to Reagan and NOTHING compared to Dubya.


Or, you could just remove your IV drip from the bottle of upside down priorities.


Human prosperity is not an upside down priority. I don’t want to live in Mao’s China.

I’d much rather give that money back to the people rather than have the government continue to squander it.

I think Carter, though with flaws like any human, is basically right. I’d add that the US doesn’t even face any real threat the way many other countries with hostile neighbors have done. And even when not at war we bully weaker countries like Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Honduras, because we can.

And of course we got our start with wars of aggression against native Americans and later with Mexico.


Actually, all US wars since WWII have been wars of aggression.


Ugh, no. I’m an anti-interventionist and yet that statement is totally false. A war of aggression is meant to overtake lands. We’ve never tried to do that, unlike Nazi Germany or the USSR. However, we’ve intervened when we had no business doing so.

The sold-out US Congress, in thrall to corporate profiteers who bribe its members, has “given back” far more than $5 Trillion in taxes since the 91% top rate under that horrific socialist dictator Eisenhower. Most of the “giving” has been to the ultra-wealthy and to corporations, many of which literally pay ZERO taxes now, and even get “tax rebates” on the taxes they don’t pay.

You are insane. Thanks for the giggles though!


Welcome to planet Insano, and your guide trftcvor. On planet Insano, the USA has waged “no wars of aggression.” Please be kind to trftcvor, he has debilitating ideological growths in his mind.


No one paid the 91% rate. That’s been debunked countless times.

What’s your definition of a “war of aggression?”

Carter also began the build-up of US nuclear arms that is generally attributed to Reagan, and started funding the Islamic rebels in Afghanistan to foment trouble for Russia, which ended up feeding Osama bin Laden’s cohort.