It's stuff like this that shows that we should've picked JC for VP. As long as we're slamming past presidents, I'd like to say that I was no fan of the Ford Administration, and I'm pretty sure everything that is wrong in the world right now is Gerry Ford's fault. And his Veep actually died in flagrante delecto with his mistress. You wouldn't get that kind of behavior from Walter Mondale. I mean, even the Saturday Night Live impersonations of the guy weren't any good. It was just Chevy Chase falling down. I could do that. I mean, Aykroyd's Jimmy Carter was nothing to write home about, but at least he was making an effort.
Really, and Chaney? Yes, Clinton was opposed to the war in Vietnam. Apparently everybody else who was around back then was in favor of it, which must of been why it was so successful and why people like Chaney were running down to the recruiting office to sign up. And as far as "run to London", you guys bring that up as if he were fighting extradition by going abroad. Please, he was a student who was exempt like every student back then. It's just that he went to Oxford. But I guess he should have been a real man and went to HCC or something and patiently waited to be called up like GWB or Chaney. Oh, and I forgot that pot-smoking disqualifies you from doing anything. Maybe he should have said "I had my wild time" and refused to answewr any questions on it because its irrelevant.
i really have to agree, bush is crazy he is trying to go to war with the world. There are other ways to o things without resulting to violence. But bush has killed over 100 people so i don'tthink he cares.
I honestly have no idea what Dick Cheney was doing those years. So we took a guy who had spent his adult life detesting military action...and then put him in charge of the military. And people wonder why he handed control of the military to the UN when it came time to go to Bosnia. I would have respected that a hell of a lot more than the BS he threw out there. ANY politician who is confronted with a scandal and says "yep...I did it" will get my vote. That I didn't inhale stuff was simply the most r****ded thing I had ever heard...and from the leader of the free world.
I'm a democrat (resisting urge to go back and forth in a pointless conversation.... arghhghg the photocopies of W getting thrown out are on mya rygghhg machine arhgh, can't res... p*rn!) later.
I'll tell you what Refman, I smoked weed socially back in college, but I don't think you'd vote for me if I was the last person on earth!
I don't think it's even that he detested military action, but that he detested the Viet Nam war. There's a difference. Also, is someone who didn't serve in Viet Nam any less fit to command than someone who didn't fulfill there obligation, and signed up, but then was basically AWOL for a year of duty? I would have respected that a hell of a lot more than the BS he threw out there. ANY politician who is confronted with a scandal and says "yep...I did it" will get my vote. I agree that was lame. Clinton had a real problem telling the truth. It's like a kid who's sure he's going to get in trouble, and knows he did something, so he half lies about it hoping to lessen the trouble he'll be in.
Originally posted by Stevie Francis i really have to agree, bush is crazy he is trying to go to war with the world. We're declaring war on the world? There are other ways to o things without resulting to violence. Sometimes there isn't. It doesn't take much thought to think of historical instances where this 'truth' would not apply...doesn't mean that we should war with Iraq, but platitudes like this one are useless. But bush has killed over 100 people so i don'tthink he cares.
You are dumb. Don't you see that "dark skinned people" gives my post (and comparison) universality? That is essential for my point. The term was my second choice, though...my first would have probably been interpreted as a slur because most are too dumb to understand the subtleties of my posts and that my word usage was designed to be insulting towards to evil whitey. Do you think that if you lived in Australia circa 1788-1810 you would have been able to get a real job? Keeping darkie down might be more lucrative than internet surfer, right? Or do you think your tie-dye only wardrobe would get in the way even back then? Maybe you should have studied a little more when you were a student at UTEP.
As with most political threads, we are truly falling off the topic. Instead of looking at these two presidents based on party lines etc, I think we need to focus on the fact that more and more people across the globe including such noted humanitarians as Mandela are making valid points about the repurcussions of our foreign policy. The United States is the greatest country in the world, but it is not infallible. As the home of liberty and freedom, we must analyze the actions of our government to be sure that it is representing us: the people. With Mandela's Soviet Union Example I think he makes a valid point. The U.S. government could have backed the moderate resistance groups in Afghanistan, but instead backed the ultra-extremist groups that comprised the Taliban in later years. Though they were the minority, they utilized U.S. weaponry to supress the majority and rule with an Iron fist over their people and created an environment that grew extremism that led to events like September 11th. Another example that he noted is the situation in Iran. Like we have done on numerous occasions in the past, we financially and militarily backed the Shah of Iran, a dictator that oppressed his people while lining his own pockets in an almost unimaginable fashion. The people were so oppressed by the Shah that they became extreme and had a revolution to free themselves. They saw the United States as a part of the Shah, because of their significant support of him. Supporting these dictatorial regimes that oppress their people are not going to make the people of those nations view the United States in the best of light. I believe that is what Mandela meant with his words to the reporter, and I have to say that I agree with most of that very much.
Generally speaking, nations spend as much money on their militaries as is to their advantage. So long as the US is willing to carry the freeloaders, other industrialized nations that generally agree with the US are not going to do so. Freerider problem... if the US becomes: 1. a perceived threat to world peace to wealthy nations 2. a recluce or 3. becomes to embittered in war to extend itself any further then you'll see Europe develop more of a military presence.
Many good points. The question is whether Mandela makes a good argument re. Iraq. He doesn't think that any actions should ever occur outside of UN approval. I am still open-minded about the principle, but I am not convinced that the UN an always act properly , or at least timely, when it comes to war.
My apologies to the Malaysian in the thread. My intent was not to villify your country although by lumping you with the other countries I have mistakenly done so. I think your country has some radical terrorist elements around but who doesn't. Hey, if you see Americans walking around, then that is a good sign . My gloomy forecast of the future is not meant as a knock against other countries more pressing problems or past wars. My forecast actually was meant to encompass the world as a whole and all of the problems in it. I definitely see your point that we still have it good here in America even though others don't. I wish the world was full of people wanting to help each other out and live peacefully but it seems most times the only solution to anything that comes along is more violence. How will the world ever endure in the long term with violence as the only answer to most problems? Maybe God will flood the Earth again so it can start over. Or maybe a nuclear holocaust will do that instead. It seems nowadays you can't even help people without criticism or backlash for something else. Noone sees the good...only the bad. It's like if we supply food to impoverished countries...they welcome the food but it's also our fault their in the predicament their in. It's hard to remain optimistic about the future. I guess I just need to quit watching the news.
There are obviously two schools of thought on this...Those who believe that the US has the right to act as it sees fit, when it sees fit, irrespective of world opinion, if it deems those actions to be in it's own interest, and those who believe that the above terms of action are subjective, and that when we act irrespective or world opinion/approval, and these actions take place in foreign lands, we are entering into the nebulous region of imperial/tyranical actions often ascribed to those we hold to be dictatorial. In terms of those who cite examples like the Kurdish massacres in Iraq, or the human rights violations of the Taliban, I only ask one question...would you have accorded the right to other foreign powers to invade the US and impose their own standards when we were doing similar things to Native Americans/slaves at periods in our history, or would you have said that that was our problem, and that we had the right to deal with it ourselves? With regards to Bush/Clinton and their respective military records, I have only this to say...It obviously doesn't matter. These were the choices of the people, over other candidates with more examplary military service records. As such, we can only conclude that we, as a people, have either resolved that it makes little difference, or that the machinations of military culture have always been replete with examples of old men courageously sending young men to fight and die in fear while sitting at desks, and whether or not those old men once fought and died in fear has little or no effect. Personally, I agree with the adage that politicians start wars, generals lead them and soldiers fight them. I wish generals and soldiers had the right to decide whether to go or not, but it hasn't worked that way for a long time...
Does anyone know of a source with any evidence to back this claim up? I find it hard to believe that anyone would be against Mandela's release from prison. If this is true, it would significantly diminish my opinion of Cheney. I also don't see where being an arch-conservative would cause someone to become 'particulary concerned' about him.
Thanks Cohen. I feel that if there is strong support within the United States and sufficient reasoning, then we shouldn't be leashed to the whim of the UN either. If there is proof of weapons of mass destructions, then tell us! The Al-Queda-Iraq link has been proved incorrect, and there has been no acts of aggression on Iraq's parts, let alone any words of aggression.
The object of US foreign policy is not to please Nelson Mandela. War with Iraq serves US interest. In the absence of superpower threat, war with Iran and Syria may well also be advantageous. We could also stand to remind the Saudis they need to act as better partners. War is a necessary evil and part of the real world, which has real evil, in spite of our best wishes. There is no "world peace".
