Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Unknown to much of the world, the US (tired of diplomacy and intent on further warfare) was poised and ready to invade East Germany.
President Reagan woke up briefly, uttered something about "tear down that wall" and once again we were robbed of the opportunity to wage war.
That typo would have been hard for me to resist too. :laugh:
Just another fine example of the forces of destruction being foiled by inept political leadership eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Eki, since it is your assertion Bush is inept, name me one American President who would meet your standards and why?
I'd like them to, but it's not the same. Darfur has never been a sovereign country, and I'm not sure about Tibet either. If every one who want independence were given it, that would include the Kurds in Turkey and Iran, the Palestinians in Israel, the Basques in Spain, the Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Chechens in Russia, the Scottish, the Quebecains, .........Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
They all had some room for improvement IMO, but Bush Jr is clearly the worst I've seen (Nixon is probably the first I have some personal memories of). Ford, Carter and Clinton weren't too bad, nor was Bush Sr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Oh, and the Bush administration has done such a wonderful job both home and abroad? I wish Bush had the decency to resing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Good point, Tibet was its own nation, but don't let Beijing hear that, they get real mad at that assertion. They still threaten Taiwan but don't because they know they will have a war with not just the people on Taiwan but the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Darfur isn't not a country, you are correct. The people there seem to have committed no inserrection towards the government yet they are being attacked by thugs who seem to be in the good graces of the government for nothing has stopped them. What are we to think of this? You don't condemn this action. I take is surely you are ok with this? Sudan isn't harming anyone so we should just stand by and watch? Diplomacy is busy right now trying to save those people. The only assistance they are getting is aid from western nations through NGO's. We can't do anything in your world because no nation should ever invade another for ANY reason. I guess the slaughter is ok then if your own people do it? There you go, defending dictators then.
Oh yes, I agree, not every group wants to be "free" in their own nation will get that right. Some fight for it, some try to do it through the ballot box. IN nations where democratic rights and freedoms are in place, I am all in favour of the right of the people who want out to try to get out in a fair and vaild refrenedum. In Canada the Quebecois (Your spelling was wrong, but I don't blame you, your French is probably as good as my Finnish) have twice gone to the ballot box to try to force a relationsship they call "sovreignty association". I call it having your cake and eating it too since they wouldn't give up all the good things about Canada, just what they didn't want to deal with, but at least it was done in a civilized manner. See, contrary to what some might think, I am open to diplomacy, and democracy even when I don't agree with it. The Scots and Irish in Northern Ireland have both been trying through the ballot box although the Irish terrorists did much to hurt that movement.
My contention is though that at some point, when people are dying due to oppression from a repressive regime, at some point something has to be said. When that leader doing the oppressing is also a threat to his neighbours, you now have a very delicate situation. When diplomacy is entered into on behalf of the oppressed or those threatened outside that nation's borders, then you have to have a last resort. There has to be more than hot air. If you don't have that threat, then you have no leverage, and the slaughter and threats continue. IN your world, that works. In mine, it does not.....
Bush Sr. invaded Kuwait, I thought that was a bad thing? Ford was a good man trapped in a bad time. Carter was the worst president in the last millenium IMO and Clinton was ethically challenged. You have not really stated your reasons for these three, but I suspect you hate Reagan because he actually was another US President that stood up for human rights in other nations. Cant have that can we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Carter ran a nation with double digit inflation and unemployment by the time he left. He left the US economy in the worst shape it was in since the Depression. He had allowed a diplomatic crisis in Iran turn into a hostage crisis where 52 people were held at gunpoint for over a year. HIS people. He was defeated by the greatest margin in modern US history. Good man ethically, horrible president.
Clinton launched cruise missle attacks on Baghdad, Afghanistan and the Sudan. He sent US troops to Yugoslavia, Somalia and threatened Saddam Hussein for the same reasons Bush did. He was using the same intelligence of WMD's in Iraq too. Yet you think Clinton was ok? You are not even intellectually consistent. Clinton should be your poster boy for what is wrong with US foreign policy. Clinton never had the guts to stand in there and do what he thought was right. He would never send a man to kill another when a cruise missle strike would do the job. He wouldn't see the project through to the end. Somalia is a basket case today because the American's pulled out after arriving with great fanfare. In short, the US is hated a lot because of the actions of Bill Clinton. Bin Laden said when he saw the Americans run in Somalia he knew he could attack them. Bill Clinton never truly retaliiated or did anything after the US Embassy bombings in Africa, the apartment bombing in Saudi Arabia, or the attack on the USS Cole. All by your "freedom fighters" . When Clinton did nothing of subtance to stop Bin Laden then, he plotted 9/11. This isn't something I have made up, it can be gleaned by Bin Laden's own words in his endless videos going to al Jazeera.
No, Bill Clinton should be the man you are upset with Eki using your principles. He did more invading foreign nations for weak reasons than George did.
George Bush is not a great American president, I wont ever say that he is. I wont even say he is bad president. I think he lies somewhere in the middle. I do know he knows nothing about conquering and keeping the peace in a mad house, but we can forgive him that, he was elected, he knows nothing of putting down a people through force. He is a man with faults and merits like all leaders. In two years, he will be gone, for Americans don't have leaders for life, unlike corrupt autocratic regimes. He will retire, a man who may not have his historical record accurately written until he is dead. That is the reality. You think you have the answers on Mr. Bush, but I am afraid Eki, you don't. He isn't an evil man, but you portray him as such. He isn't a dumb man, although I can agree he looks it at times. What Bush is though is an honest man. He cannot be dumb as you make him out to be and dishonest. To be as dishonest and wrong as you have portrayed him, he would have to be a bloody genius. He isn't, but he is honest.
I don't think for a second I agree with his use of Capital punishment when he was in Texas, but I also understand that the US legal process is rigourous and in time, anyone tried and convicted in the US usually has had a fair hearing. No system is perfect, and hence my objection to the death penalty in all but the most heinous crimes.
Saddam Hussein commited heinous crimes before he even ate breakfast. He did it against his own people, the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, the Kurds. Used WMD's against them too. Not a nice man. Yet you spent a lot of time on here defending his right to do it. Sorry, in the universal declaration of human rights, mass murder isnt listed.
Your knowledge of US presidents is limited, and if you are to comment on the foreign policy of one, you should understand all of them.
OH one more thing. I would love to see Bush resign. For one reason. So Cheney would take over. You think you hate George Bush, you would be in a fit of apolexy with ole Dick Cheney. No, you want Bush to be healthy and stay in office. Trust me, because if you think Bush is a nasty fellow, let me assure you, Richard Cheney would be the most direct and hard to deal with fellow when pushed into a corner. He would also be governed by his principles also, so telling him he is wrong in a morally corrupt world isn't going to sway him. He would do what he thought was right, and he wouldn't give a flying fidoo towards his re-election.
Would you "resing" for us, Eki? What pitch would be best for you, perhaps B-flat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki