- This topic has 9 voices and 28 replies.
-
Posts
-
yeah Historywonk i am agree with you, Clinton was very good president!
No, Clinton COULD have been a very good President. As it was, he just wasn't very bad but could have been much better. He didn't start a civil war in somebody else's country like Bush II and Reagan, he didn't try to rig an election like Nixon, but he didn't liberate a country like Bush I, he was just another Carter - well meaning but ineffective. In fact, I think he has accomplished more positive good since leaving office.
What about Woodrow Wilson? Wilson totally mishandled foreign policy. He had the Congress declare war, when the army was totally unprepared to fight. No planes, no machine guns, no artillery!Every weapon of some quantity was obsolete, except the Springfield '03, of which there were severe shortages.
Don't forget that Wilson fought desperately to keep us out of World War I because he felt that it was our place, our duty, to act as a neutral arbitrater and to help the belligerents end the fighting. He was also worried about the increasing chaos in Mexico which was undergoing something very similar to what Iraq is undergoing now, except their problems were the end result of almost serial revolutions and the resulting destabilization that sequed into constant wwarfare between factions rather than outside conquest followed by a total failure to have a plan for ensure stability and move into a different form of government. He had to withstand public pressure after overblown reports of German atrocities in Belgium, the German introduction of aerial bombardment of civilian targets, poison gas and flamethrowers, not to mention unrestricted submarine warfare and resulting incidents like the sinking of the "Lusitania". There was also the infamous Zimmerman telegram in which the Germans purportedly offered to help Mexico regain the territories lost to the U.S. in the Mexican-American War of less than a century earlier if they would ally themselves with Germany. So the U.S. only went to war, an not completely willing at that (the vote in Congress was nowhere near as overwhelming as for World War II) only after a long list of incidents and direct provocations. Granted, that should have given the country plenty of time to get prepared, but don't forget that it is the Congress that has to provide the appropriations for the preparations and much of the country was not interested in getting in the war. If you're going to condemn Woodrow Wilson as overrated, you'd be better off using his failure to get his pet project, the League of Nations, approved by the Senate. But that may have been an impossible task. Look at all the resistance today to really untilizing the United Nations as an instrument of controlling or reducing conflict despite the increasing level of conflict that we have been seeing over the last few decades. At times this country talks a better game than it plays.
Kennedy was over rated and exploited by his family for political gain. His father got him a comfortable job in Washington during WWII but had to leave due to his sexual behavior and nazi spys. As a PT boat captain he got his boat sunk due to not doing his job and spun it into his being a hero. He did not face down the Soviets but cut a deal.
Kennedy was over rated and exploited by his family for political gain. His father got him a comfortable job in Washington during WWII but had to leave due to his sexual behavior and nazi spys. As a PT boat captain he got his boat sunk due to not doing his job and spun it into his being a hero. He did not face down the Soviets but cut a deal.
This seems to be the general consenses of most people who have studied history at all.
I was never really impressed with Teddy Roosevelt. Somebody here convince me he was anything more than mediocre.
I think his most glorious moment came before he was even president at San Juan Hill. 🙂His most significant contribution to foreign policy (The Roosevelt Corollary) was never utilized to its full effect, but then again TR might as well say he was a success since he didn't have to use it much. I don't know, TR was a great personality president, but his war on monopolies and trusts netted him little returns IMHO. Maybe someone here can really posit a better view of him. I want to acknowledge his greatness, but for now, I cannot. 🙁
I have to jump in here.
They made their point - they can hurt us and hurts us badly - but their real emphasis is getting us out of their part of the world.
I don't agree. They want to do physical harm to America ON American soil, whether we're in their part of the world or not. I'm not a big fan of the Bush and Cheney-ism propaganda, but ont thing they've said "we fight them over there instead of over here" is incredibly valid. Since we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other than the US Embassy in Iraq, when was the last time a terrrorist attacked a US Embassy? I haven't heard of any US Navy ships or US Embassies in Africa being blown up since 2002. Have you?
But they can NEVER destroy us, but we can destroy ourselves
But that's how they operate. That's how they are destroying us. In other words, it's not us, it's them
The way we do that is violating every principle that this country supposedly stands for
Please provide examples.OK, you did
with things like invading a foreign country because we don't like their form of government
We don't like it because it is a threat to ours
locking people up without the basic rights and guarantees that are in our Constitution
This is just absolute garbage. How many Americans are in Gitmo? ZERO! How many Americans SHOULD be charged with treason? I can think of quite a few..some even got reelected to Congress in 2006
by torturing those we have seized in violation of international law
I agree that torture isn't the best method to get valid information, and although some may consider it immoral, it's not illegal. Bush was smart enough to keep it open-ended.
by violating the civil rights of our own citizens
Name some that we've lost. Everyone can still protest the war if they want, freedom of the press has not changed one bit, no protesters have been arrested for simply protesting..they've only been arrested for criminal acts, like blocking military recruiting offices (which has been a crime long before the Patriot Act came into play)
And finally, would a Christian theocracy be any better than a Muslim theocracy?
Depends on the denomination or sect of either. I too take some issue with how the Catholic's handled things in the Middle Ages, but they've learned to adapt, have they not?
And finally, would a Christian theocracy be any better than a Muslim theocracy?
Depends on the denomination or sect of either. I too take some issue with how the Catholic's handled things in the Middle Ages, but they've learned to adapt, have they not?
Ski, I know we've discussed this kind of thing before, but....do you find it problematic with co-mingling of spiritual and temporal powers in other regimes/nations from history, such as the Protestant/Anglican monarchy of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, etc.; or Israel; or a more or less officially atheist state (USSR)? Or even the Greek city-states for that matter, or Rome.
Phid, the only thing I find problematic is the oppression of other beliefs under a government. My “argument” in this particular case is what some people refer to as a Christian theocracy here in the US. Is prayer or teaching Creation along side evolution in a public school a separation of Church and State issue? Is a president who meets the Pope or publically declares his beliefs violating the 1st? I don't think so, but I'm wondering why some think that way. Personally, I think it's because they don't know the definition of freedom of religion. No one is forcing anything. If they (teachers, the Dept of Education) are saying “you must pray to Jesus/Buddha/Allah/Krishna” then there's a problem. All those who say the US government is a theocracy because the president is a Christian, or because they think this war in Iraq is a conspiracy theory to continue the Crusades because the Christian president decided to go to war with a predominantly Muslim nation, are just way off the mark, IMO.
Oh, ok. I had been wondering because you brought up “how the Catholic's handled things in the Middle Ages” though I think that there are a slew of other examples that should also be brought up in the same breath as that one – be it religiosity within ancient Greece or Rome, Protestant England, Israel, Muslim countries, etc…..basically all of history prior to the 19th Century was involved with this to one degree or another. And this isn't even to mention the imposition by the State on the Church throughout the ages, which should also be brought up. So to me it seemed that….alright, I read it again and I guess you were responding to the “Christian theocracy” issue. But I think that if you point to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages you could have also pointed to any Christian church for many centuries across nations. I guess that's what my concern was.
The only reason I point to the Catholic Church was because they were the ruling and/or had the most influence over government at the time. I “fault” them as far as governing goes, not religion. And I'm not ignoring the good things they did either. Just about every migrating Germanic tribe converted to one or another form of Christianity.You bring up a good point, all governments and leadership have made mistakes. As far as Church and State goes, it went both ways. Forcing a religion not good, banning a religion not good either.
My money is on George Bush junior, as the most childish (not yet an adult) president. Over rated? He does not qualify for the overrated category – so he wins by default. Right?
