worst president ever

Originally posted by Bozco
There is a difference between knowing what other countries have, and butting are head into things that aren\'t our business.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Ace..It is not our business untill he attempts something else. We cant just go running around jumping the gun.

Just to play devils advocate..we go storm iraq and kill him..guess what..he has children..and from I understand..his son is even more irational and sicker than his old man. It is going to come and bit us in the ass severely if we dont stop this world policing.

Eventually it will only lead to more hatred and more enemies...less allies...etc..etc

[Titan]

We need to eliminate the threats from the world. If they aren\'t done now, the world is screwed up the bum (in terms of nuclear war)

Ace-
You didn\'t understand what I meant by that at all.

Originally posted by Ace
To tell you the truth, I really don\'t care why someone hates us. We have to look out for our best interests.

Ace

Ironic, because based on what you\'ve posted, I\'d say you embody why people hate the US.

Why the hell do you think the rest of the world would go to hell without us policing them?  The people out there are just as good as us, and that is a very arrogant view point.

Yes, we won a war with Iraq, but that doesn\'t mean we can control them forever.  The reason they would create powerful weapons wouldn\'t be to attack us, but to defend themselves against us.

And by the way, as for fostering democratic ideals in a nation, since world war 2, we have taken away democratically elected leaders and replaced them with dictators for political reasons more often than we have done the reverse.  We do it because the democratically elected ones aren\'t always in our best interest.  For example, people elected by nations during the cold war era from the communist or socialist workers parties.  And besides, who the hell are we to tell the rest of the world how they should run their nations?  We don\'t even have a real democracy anyway.

Originally posted by Titan
We need to eliminate the threats from the world. If they aren\'t done now, the world is screwed up the bum (in terms of nuclear war)

Uhm..that would include us.

Originally posted by shockwaves


Ironic, because based on what you\'ve posted, I\'d say you embody why people hate the US.

Why the hell do you think the rest of the world would go to hell without us policing them?  The people out there are just as good as us, and that is a very arrogant view point.

Yes, we won a war with Iraq, but that doesn\'t mean we can control them forever.  The reason they would create powerful weapons wouldn\'t be to attack us, but to defend themselves against us.

And by the way, as for fostering democratic ideals in a nation, since world war 2, we have taken away democratically elected leaders and replaced them with dictators for political reasons more often than we have done the reverse.  We do it because the democratically elected ones aren\'t always in our best interest.  For example, people elected by nations during the cold war era from the communist or socialist workers parties.  And besides, who the hell are we to tell the rest of the world how they should run their nations?  We don\'t even have a real democracy anyway.

Chill my man.

Until Iraq allows us to do what we need to do, according to the treaty, we can do what ever we please.

If that\'s distasteful to you than look away or bury your head in the sand. I wonder how many countries would cry to us if we decide to just sit back and let the chips fall where they may.

I am frightened by the fact that you think Iraq would only use a powerful weapon to just protect themselves from the evils of the US. I am glad that thinking is not prevalent.

Again, I just think we are coming from two different directions and it\'s cool if that\'s you position.

Ace

Don\'t worry, I am "chilled"

I often post sounding like I\'m pissed in topics like that, but I never am.  I never take any of it personally, or hold any of it against anyone either.  *shrug*

Anyway, I guess I just believe we should be doing things differently, and I don\'t believe that Iraq even has weapons like that.  Ever heard of Scott Ridder?  He was one of the former chief weapons inspectors over there.  I basically tend to agree with his position.  (He also happens to live a few blocks from me.  woo! )

Anyway, it\'s cool to have different opinions.  Afterall, that\'s what makes democracy necessary, no?

That\'s cool! I love a good political debate.

Give Scott a dope slap for me and ask him who is lining his pockets to make a 180 about everything he said in the past.

Ace

Same here Ace..no problems here. I know how sometimes in these discussions things can seem to be on a level of which it is far from.

You still wont convince me though

And you don\'t think Iraq is just a little bit different than Russia or Germany? Besides, World War 2 was very different. What nations are being taken over by Iraq right now? I don\'t see Iraq bringing nukes into other nations. In fact, I don\'t even see them having nukes. I personally do not believe they have weapons of mass destruction. - Viv

WWII is directly linked to WWI as the result of the rules the Leauge of Nations imposed on Germany with the Versai Treaty. WWI can all be traced back to the assassination of 1 man. If Archduke Ferdanan hadn\'t been killed.. neither World War would have happened.. and as a result, the Cold War probably never would have occured either. Of course, the problems in Israel and the middle east in general can also be traced back to the influx of Jew fleeing German and (later) Russia. In those times tho, America was an isolationist country. We didn\'t want to have to fight other people\'s wars for them.. it wasn\'t our buisness. We, and the collective world community, let events snowball into a series of events which would begin tearing the world apart.

Now-a-days, we would never let it get that far. By having our hand in the pot, we can control what happens to a certain digree.. and at least try to diffuse potential world problems before they have a chance to snowball out of control. Come on guys.. this is basic History Channel knowlage.

Christ.. you all talk about keeping American lives safe. How safe are we by turning our backs to the problems of the world? Purposely blinding ourselves like we did in the past which lead up to two world wars where hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died. People are still going to attack us.. regardless. We can\'t totally withdrawl from the rest of the world.. we need trade partners and allies. As big balled as we yanks are.. we couldn\'t have won even a fraction of the wars we\'ve fought without the help of forigen allies. What are we gonna do if we ignore everyone.. and wait until our allies are overrun and the wolf is at our door before considering dirtying our hands.

Ya know.. I agree that the scale in which we meddle in the affairs of others needs toned back a bit. But Isolationism is WRONG... plain and simple. It hasn\'t worked in the past, and it will not work now. To think otherwise is just insane, IMO, expecially when you can still feel the aftershocks of it\'s effects in most corners of the world.

You make some great points but terrorism was not a big deal untill we started getting our nose\'s in everything possible and supporting the isrealis(sp)?

Im pretty positive that as a country we shouldnt just fly blind, but we dont need to have soldiers occupying other territory.

With the gulf war..we should have let Iraq take kuwait. That was business that only concerned us b/c of our oil intrest. When Hussein started to choke our oil supply off is when we should have moved. Thats basically what we did anyway..but I dont think we should have moved untill it came to that point.

Hussein and the rest of the tyrants out there now... We should just let sleeping dogs rest. Monitor them..but from a distance. No need for saftey and eapons inspectors poking around everywhere. If they really want to have nuclear weapons, they will get them. Its obvious the US is NOT a threat for them to pursue it. Id be willing to bet Saddam wouldnt even use a nuke (if he does not already have one now) unless his country was in trouble..which by that point, its his right to defend his country. My second guess is that he may launch it at Isreal if they did something again.

Luckee.. Terrorism was a big deal even before the US got our interests entangled in it. Thousands of Jewish refugees were flooding out of Europe into Palestinian territory. What\'s the point of putting Nazi war criminals up on trial if we\'re jus going to let the jews walk into another holocaust? Both groups had equal claim to the land.. expecially since the Palestinians didn\'t have any internationally acknolwaged land. They were like the Native Americans.. nomads. The UN sat down and devided up Isriel into a fair settlement.. which both parties agreed to. However the Jewish refugees kept pushing and pushing into Palestinian land and caused the initial conflict.

I personally sympathise with the Palestinians, not their actions, but their situation. However, strategically, Isriel is a VERY VERY important ally to have. They are our base in which we can operate out of to keep stability in the region. It\'s basically blackmail.. since we have no other allies like that in the regieon. We have to protect them if we want to keep a presence over there.

Unfortunately.. that gets us into a whole mess of trouble because as Isriel pushes further and further into Palestinian territory.. the Palestinians become on big Muslim charity case that religeous fanatics use to justify their causes. Since we cannot afford to loose Isriel (Politically now, as well as strategically), we support them.. and through that support channel many muslims anger towards us.

The point of the above synaps, is that this conflict has been going on a long time... and US directed Anger is a reletively new development. Or need I remind you of the noumerous terrorist attacks aganst Jewish Temples in Germany, riots in Egypt, the Munich Olympics?


As far as Iraq, granted we put him in power and supplied him with weapons.. but he\'s proven to break every promise he made to us and break just about every rule he could whenever it damn well pleased him. Example: Use of gas as an offencive weapon of war was banned by the UN/LoN ever since WWI. We gave him gas to use in the defense of his own country.. and what did he do? He used it against Iranian soldiers in the Iran/Iraq war.. and later used it against the Kuwaities and even his own people. There is also strong evidence that he has been developing biological weapons, and has used them on his own people to test their effectiveness. Based on precidence.. I don\'t think the use of nukes is beyond him.

As far as Iraq taking over Kuwait.. I agree that military actions by Iraq were justified considering how Kuwait was trying to choke off Iraq\'s income. However, the digree and severity of his attack called for action from the US and it\'s allies to secure our oil supply from the upheaval it would have caused in OPEC.. and to keep stability in the region. If the US and it\'s Allies hadn\'t interviened.. Kuwaiti allies would have attacked Iraq.. allies that didn\'t have near the military capability we had. It would have been a very bloody and drawn out war. Iran/Iraq all over again.. and this time our Saudi and Isralie allies would have been at risk. If we lost them.. we\'d loose our influence in the regieon.

Like I said earlier.. the US military (idealistically) is trying to put a stop to conflicts before they grow out of control. The Gulf War was that policy in action... as well as padding our own pockets with oil.

I knew I shouldnt have started to drink. I think ill hit these good topics tomorrow man

Originally posted by SonyFan


WWII is directly linked to WWI as the result of the rules the Leauge of Nations imposed on Germany with the Versai Treaty. WWI can all be traced back to the assassination of 1 man. If Archduke Ferdanan hadn\'t been killed.. neither World War would have happened.. and as a result, the Cold War probably never would have occured either. Of course, the problems in Israel and the middle east in general can also be traced back to the influx of Jew fleeing German and (later) Russia. In those times tho, America was an isolationist country. We didn\'t want to have to fight other people\'s wars for them.. it wasn\'t our buisness. We, and the collective world community, let events snowball into a series of events which would begin tearing the world apart.

Oh, come on, you can\'t really trace all that back to the Archduke\'s assassination.  With the alliances being built up, and the tension in the area at the time of World War I, a war was inevitable.  It just needed a spark.  Had this not been the spark, something else would have been.

Even if there was no World War I, Hitler still could have come to power due to the economic situation created by the depression.  Had that happened, and he retained the views without a war happening earlier, which is likely, then there is still a World War II.

Had there not been a World War I or World War II, there would have probably been a Communist revolution in Russia.  With the two superpowers still being Communist and Capitalist nations, the cold war would most likely have still happened.

It\'s late, I\'m tired, I just wanted to talk through this  

And Ace, I too always enjoy a political debate.  And it\'s not who\'s lining Scott\'s pockets, but who\'s lining the pockets of those who give reports that conflict with his .  This whole Iraq thing is just a case of Bush trying to finish his father\'s war.  They\'re just building up propoganda to justify it.  I actually know some people who predicted this when Bush was elected.

With the alliances being built up, and the tension in the area at the time of World War I, a war was inevitable. It just needed a spark. Had this not been the spark, something else would have been. - shockwaves

You\'re right, and had the Archduke not been assassinated then I would be tracing this line back to some other event. The Archduke is a jus a detail.. I\'m tracing it all back to the spark which ignited the powderkeg regardless of what that spark is. The point is, the US is trying to keep conditions around the world from getting to the point where a spark from anywhere can ignite the powderkeg again.

Even if there was no World War I, Hitler still could have come to power due to the economic situation created by the depression. Had that happened, and he retained the views without a war happening earlier, which is likely, then there is still a World War II. - shockwaves

That depression the world was in was heightened in Germany by the fact that Versaii treaty crippled the country and they had no aid in rebuilding their nation. Why do you think the US spends millions of dollars to bomb the shit outta some country.. and then spends billions to rebuild it? It\'s to keep situations like this from happening again.. it was a mistake of the old-world which we corrected when we saw it\'s impact. I, however, seriously doubt Hitler could have still risen to power without a broken a despirated nation to gull into his facist leadership. Nazism promised to rebuild the country bigger and better than it had ever been, and rebuilt their spirits by giving them somone to blame for Germany\'s defeat.. the Jews. It started out as a promise of simple deportation and relocation.. and grew from that into the concentration camps we know existed by the end of the war.

Had there not been a World War I or World War II, there would have probably been a Communist revolution in Russia. With the two superpowers still being Communist and Capitalist nations, the cold war would most likely have still happened. - SW

The communist revolution started well before WWII actually, if my memory serves. Wasn\'t Tzar Nicolas and his family killed sometime in the late 1920\'s? Anyhow.. yes we would still have ended up in some sort of a conflict with the communists. The digree of which is just wild speculation. However, the cold war between the US and the USSR did in fact start with a single country.. post WWII Germany. They wanted to add it to their iron curtain.. we wanted to rebuild them into a democratic nation. The line was drawn, and a wall was built.. and Berlin became a keystone. Either side attempting to take the other would trigger an all out war. The biggest fear of the Cold War was of course, nuclear holocaust. Who built the first Atomic bomb? The US did to strike against Japan in WWII. Why did we build it? Because we knew damned well the Germans were already well underway with their own nuclear weapons program. Germany\'s technology was what made it so valuable to both sides of the one time Allies. Granted, nuclear weapons would have been built regardless.. but I doubt they would have come so soon without two major World Wars to spurn their development.

All in all, I\'d say how things turned out was pretty good. The US built the first bomb.. and while it was a tragedy for Japan.. it put the fear of armageddon into the hearts of the world. Without those haunting scenes from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think the superpowers would have been less apt to think things through before launching nuclear weapons against each other. I think things could have turned out very differently if it wasn\'t for lessons learned and fear instilled from those first two bombs. Granted, while we did live in fear for 50 years.. it\'s a helluva lot preferable to living in ashes I think.