First Hilliary Clinton does not speak to the press now Chelsea Clinton does the same:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071231/D8TS58V00.html
Printable View
First Hilliary Clinton does not speak to the press now Chelsea Clinton does the same:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071231/D8TS58V00.html
Yawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Maybe, but what are they trying to hide?
the fact that they have nothign to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Well I would hope and pray that an individual who wants to be the President of the USA would ask questions posed to him/her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
I would hope that the individual would answer them.
Typical squirming politicians.
In Chelsea's case, it sounds like her response was fair enough. Otherwise every political reporter would be prepping 9-year olds with questions. The rule is, she doesn't speak to the press. Sorry, no conspiracy.
I wasn't aware Chelsea Clinton was running for President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Give it another 10 years...
likely the fact that ANYTHING you say will be taken by the media masses and twisted into some alternate reality of what you actually said, and paint you to look like an evil crack smoking monster. Even scholastic kids news, they are the worst for this sort of stuff ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
As of right now, you are correct she isn't running for president but I was speaking about her mother's failure to address the press who will ask her hard questions which she is either afraid or is incapable of answering your choice.
As for Chelsea Clinton, I can definitely see her mother's handlers telling her not to speak to anyone from the press for the same reasons stated above.
What's that strange retarded thing they are doing with their hands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/thum...1230163447.jpg
I think she is waiting to catch a softball question from some partisan reporter, that she maybe able to answer :-)
looks like clapping to me :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Sometimes Sarcasm is lost on some people :eek2:
No I got the sarcasm. It just reinforces the point that people take photos/statements/etc, and its easy to look at them totally out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
I'm no Hillary supporter, I'm not republican or democrat. I am just voicing my hatred of the media ;)
It is just like this picture of Bush
http://www.infowars.net/pictures/new...binoculars.jpg
Perhaps that picture was snapped, just as he puts the binoculars up to his eyes, only to realize the lens caps are on. However a picture of it, caught in time, just makes him look like an idiot.
Now don't get me wrong, I think bush is an idiot, but not for his use of binoculars.
The next photo was of Bush using them the other way around :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
No, the next photo of him shows him with black circles under his eyes because someone put ink on the eye pieces before he put them up to his eyes :-)
it's obviously this scenario:
Aide: "Mr President, we want the US citizens to think you care about the war. Here, here's some military binoculars for a candid shot"
Bush: "Which end is which? I never actually reported to national guard duty and have no idea what binoculars are"
Aide: "Just hold them in front of your eyes and we'll take the picture"
(bush doesn't realize that the caps are on because he never gets them close to his eyes)
Bush "How's this?"
Aide (sighs) "just scrub the whole idea. Cameraman, destroy the film. He's already a laughing-stock and we can't let even more proof of the fact he can barely tie his shoes, let alone operate binoculars, get out. It's a good thing he never went hunting with Cheney".
Cameraman "uh i never took a picture. Yeah, that's it. I never took one. No film in the camera. I'm not selling anything to the enquirer for $10,000. Gotta have film for that. Nothing to worry about sir."
I'd say that any politician on the national stage who refuses to answer questions that are not softballs is just getting practice. If you look at the last (roughly 3) decades, the white house press corps, and the Washington press, are both getting lamer year by year, and this is no accident. Bush salted the crowd with planted reporters, and restricted access to only those who were "easy on him", but that's nothing all that new.
Back in Nixon's time, the press was more combatative, now it is more supportive. I would guess that the reason is that being a Washington "insider" is a prestige position that is highly attractive to a whole variety of people including reporters and publishers (as well as interns). If you make enemies of the people hosting the parties, you don't get invited back to any of them, so there is a subtle (or not so subtle) pressure on the Washington press not to press too hard lest they be kicked out of the club house.
I don't see anything wrong with Chelsea not speaking to the press, even if the "press" is a child. After all Hillary is running, not her daughter. And speaking of Hillary, what are you referring to when you say "First Hilliary Clinton does not speak to the press..."?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
What? She's just as ugly as her mother.Quote:
Tall and attractive, Chelsea...
So who is the 9 year old?
whadda ya talking about? She's quite a bit uglier. Has Bill's Nose.
I think he is probably referring to Hillary and her staff planting questions all over the place on the campaign trail. Typical Clintoniumism, everything is polled, focused grouped, and packaged. The main stream press throws her softballs and doesn’t ask any hard questions, then when she actually had the opportunity to take a stance on a tough question from Tim Russert in a debate she couldn’t answer; it took her a week and several different positions on one issue before giving her final answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
As far as Chelsea not answering a 9 year old’s question. Again I think this is typical of the Clintons, they fear any mis-quote or mis-step by their daughter so they tell her not to say a word to anyone. Personally I feel if you are going to use someone as a prop on your campaign for political gain that person should be open to the press for questions. If you don’t want to answer any questions don’t go campaigning with any political candidate.
X
I look at Hillary as the best chance to get Bill back in the White House.
Not sure why anyone would want either of them to be in power again. I think we are overdue for a change, I for one am tired of the whole Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton thing. Time for someone new to take over that isn't related to either family.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
X
Other than the fact that he couldn't keep his ...... in his pants, I think all but the most die-hard Republicans would agree with me that Bill was the best president we've had in modern times.
You can’t really ignore selling missile technology to the Chinese, giving nuclear power to the North Koreans, and ignoring the Islamic terrorist threat. Clinton by far almost single-handedly handed us our biggest problems we are facing today by doing nothing about them. Much like the stock market bubble his president was purely show, history for me will completely show this, his presidency was completely focus group driven; it was all feel good with no substance behind it. Personally he was one of the worst presidents in my lifetime, only Jimmy Carter was worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
X
Is that a joke?Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
I always knew about the folks who fell into the category of die-hard Republicans, and X leads the list, so his views are not very surprising. Let's see, he listed.....the only two democrats in that window. No surprise there.
Clinton did what I wanted him to do, as did the elder Bush to some extent: Address the deficit in a meaningful way. Reagan and Bush Jr addressed the deficit in a meaningful way, as well, but in the wrong direction, since both implemented policies to cause it to baloon to record sizes.
Both Reagan and Bush Jr went after the environment with as much vigor as they felt they could get away with, which nobody would be surprised to hear a biologist object to.
Reagan also went after technology, though, which is something often overlooked. Because of him, the 80's were a remarkable drought in basic engineering. By the early nineties, it was common for every breakthrough to be accompanied by the phrase "we were actually there by 1980, but then the funding went away." Reagan did cut something, he cut the future. This society dares not stagnate.
Clinton was not particularly environmental, nor excessively pro-technology, but compared to the one before and after him (ignoring the blip of Bush Sr), he shone like the sun on both those and fiscal responsibility, as well as being considerably more effective in foreign policy. Reagan was fairly effective in foreign policy as well, as was Bush Sr., but W has been a total loss. He will be able to point to every major area of foreign policy at the end of his term and say without a shadow of a doubt that the current situation is worse than when he took over.
Funny how democrats think they aren't biased.
Everybody who has an opinion has a bias. I favor those who benefit the causes I care about. There have never been any politicians with which I fully agreed, not even my mother (though she explained her positions well enough that I was generally persuaded).
However, my major objection to the conservatives is that they tend to follow people who are opposed to their own values, which strikes me as just stupid. Small government? Clinton and Bush Sr. were the best since Nixon. Strong on defense? Clinton and Reagan (W uses the troops, but doesn't support them with dollars). Social issues? None of the above. The democrats weren't pushing conservative social issues, and neither were the republicans beyond whatever minimal window dressing they could get away with. Supporting the poor and middle class? Well, that has never been a conservative position, despite a large segment of the party being in that category. Homeland security? Ok, that has only been an issue for part of one presidents term in office, but he has a pretty much failing grade as far as port security (quietly cut), police support (cut), security aid to cities (bizarrly calculated), FEMA (strong and respectable for decades, a disaster in its own right under W).
What other issues are there?
1) Preserving the freedom of the capitalist market.
2) Adopting policies which help Americans to save and not spend.
(15% savings tax vs 5-7% consumption tax)
I’m not a die-hard Republican and will not support anyone who doesn’t share my beliefs in Conservative principals. Much of the current Republicans in congress do not follow those principals and therefore I do not support them. I also do not support George Bush and will not carry his banner around either. Die-Hard Republicans as you put it don’t care about anything as long as there is an (R) after their names, that is not who I am. If a Republican is wrong I will say they are wrong, if they are right I will say that as well.Quote:
I always knew about the folks who fell into the category of die-hard Republicans, and X leads the list, so his views are not very surprising. Let's see, he listed.....the only two democrats in that window. No surprise there.
The problem with Clinton is he did what everyone wanted him to do. I liken him to the “Cool Dad” everyone thought they wanted. He would let you drink beer and smoke weed and party all you wanted at his house. On the surface everything was great but when you finally looked at everything you would see the son of the “Cool Dad” was an alcoholic loser who would die in a drunken driving accident a few years later, and the daughter of the “Cool Dad” would wind up pregnant with several kids on welfare in a trailer park somewhere. Everything looked great on the surface under Clinton but when you looked behind the scenes it told a different story.Quote:
Clinton did what I wanted him to do, as did the elder Bush to some extent: Address the deficit in a meaningful way. Reagan and Bush Jr addressed the deficit in a meaningful way, as well, but in the wrong direction, since both implemented policies to cause it to baloon to record sizes.
?Quote:
Both Reagan and Bush Jr went after the environment with as much vigor as they felt they could get away with, which nobody would be surprised to hear a biologist object to.
I think the early 80’s were a remarkable drought for everything; after all it took some time to reverse the disastrous policies of Jimmy Carter. But I will have to disagree with you about the 80’s because from what I remember the personal computer, cell phones, and other high tech items were introduced in the 80’s. Reagan’s free market policies and the cutting of the top rate of income taxes all spurred investment and innovation during the 1980’s. If you believed in the free market the 80’s were a breath of fresh air after the stagnation of the 70’s.Quote:
Reagan also went after technology, though, which is something often overlooked. Because of him, the 80's were a remarkable drought in basic engineering. By the early nineties, it was common for every breakthrough to be accompanied by the phrase "we were actually there by 1980, but then the funding went away." Reagan did cut something, he cut the future. This society dares not stagnate.
Clinton’s time in office saw no major challenges so it’s no surprise that he was able to show fiscal restraint. Having a Republican congress with something to prove (for the first time in 40 years) for six years of his term didn’t hurt either. Bush Sr had to deal with Iraq and Bush Jr. had to deal with 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan at the same time.Quote:
Clinton was not particularly environmental, nor excessively pro-technology, but compared to the one before and after him (ignoring the blip of Bush Sr), he shone like the sun on both those and fiscal responsibility, as well as being considerably more effective in foreign policy. Reagan was fairly effective in foreign policy as well, as was Bush Sr., but W has been a total loss. He will be able to point to every major area of foreign policy at the end of his term and say without a shadow of a doubt that the current situation is worse than when he took over.
Everyone says how disastrous Bush’s foreign policy is yet Clintons approach to foreign policy seemed to be if we ignore it, placate it with gifts the problems of the world would go away. Giving nuclear technology to the North Koreans and saying well you be sure to only use that only for power Ok? Didn’t seem to go too well did it? When Clinton took office the Chinese couldn’t even get a rocket to launch without it crashing into the ocean so Clinton’s brilliant idea to sell them missile technology so their ICBM’s can now accurately strike all over the US.
Thanks to Clinton’s foreign policy we have North Korean nukes which they are selling to Iran and every other dictator across the globe, and the ability of the Chinese to accurately target cities on the East Coast of the US with ICBM’s. Not to mention ignoring the Islamic extremist terrorist threat, which grew exponentially under his watch. Like I said every major foreign policy item we are dealing with today can be linked back to Clinton and his foreign policy (or lack thereof). Now who’s foreign policy was/is disastrous?
X
At last, a decent dust up in the forum :)
I have to say as an outsider looking in, I am not a Republican or Democrat (as I have mentioned before - I actually find the concept of being able to pigeonhole someones views into one of two brackets, laughable). I can honestly say that I can see good things and bad things about most of the ex US presidents in my lifetime.... with the notable exception of George W. Bush. About the only positive things I can say about him are:
1) He does give us all a good laugh when he talks
2) By crashing the US dollar he has made it really cheap for us to buy things from the states :)
Unfortunately, neither of these are any consolation when you look at the mess he has left of the US foreign policy. I doubt if it will be possible to recover much trust in the next 2 to 3 terms of office, regardless of who is in power. The best the US can hope to do is stick it's head down, apologise repeatedly, and promise not to elect another warmonger.
But alas, even that will not appease the likes of Russia. I suspect they have been rudely awakened to the fact, that there can never be peacefull co-existence with the US, as long as there is the threat of another George W. type individual being elected.
Point taken. It was lazy writing on my part, as I certainly know better than to equate Republican with conservative. They are not the same set, they just overlap in large areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
I've heard this view many times, and I don't fully disagree with it, but I'm actually a product of your concept of a "cool Dad", yet I don't drink, have never smoked, have never been in trouble with the law, have a graduate degree, perfect credit, etc. Those who believe that kids need iron discipline to turn out well have a hard time explaining me. There are plenty of other people out there like me. An authoritarian leader is only desirable if they are enforcing your particular belief system. Clinton was no authoritarian, but that was ok with me, since he wasn't actually enforcing my belief system all that well, either.Quote:
The problem with Clinton is he did what everyone wanted him to do. I liken him to the “Cool Dad” everyone thought they wanted. He would let you drink beer and smoke weed and party all you wanted at his house. On the surface everything was great but when you finally looked at everything you would see the son of the “Cool Dad” was an alcoholic loser who would die in a drunken driving accident a few years later, and the daughter of the “Cool Dad” would wind up pregnant with several kids on welfare in a trailer park somewhere. Everything looked great on the surface under Clinton but when you looked behind the scenes it told a different story.
I wasn't talking about applied research. Carter enacted support for basic research into lots of fundamental technology that could be built into other things, but was not directly marketable on its own. Reagan cut all that. The innovations came from the handful of companies that funded their own R&D departments. Many of those companies have since scaled back, cut off R&D, or even gone under. There have been a few notable replacements, though, and we keep on progressing.Quote:
I think the early 80’s were a remarkable drought for everything; after all it took some time to reverse the disastrous policies of Jimmy Carter. But I will have to disagree with you about the 80’s because from what I remember the personal computer, cell phones, and other high tech items were introduced in the 80’s.
Just depends on what economists you talk to. The 80's were great, the 80's were mediocre, or the 80's were bad. Are there two economists anywhere who actually agree? When it comes to the economy, you can use it to support your position whatever your position happens to be. For myself, I remember the 80's as having super high interest rates (do you remember the 5.25% intrest on basic savings accounts? It's been 0% for the last decade), one of the worst stock market crashes since the 20s, waves of unemployment, and unimpressive economic growth leading to the downturn that pretty well knocked Bush Sr. out of office (remember "it's the economy stupid"). Some people certainly did well, I just didn't know any of them.Quote:
Reagan’s free market policies and the cutting of the top rate of income taxes all spurred investment and innovation during the 1980’s. If you believed in the free market the 80’s were a breath of fresh air after the stagnation of the 70’s.
That's a very valid point. Some people have tried to attribute the 90's to Reaganomics, which ignores some fundamental mathematical principles, but the actual boost during this time can more reasonably be attributed to Bill Gates, not Bill Clinton. All that can be said about Clinton is that when he got a surplus, he didn't squander it.Quote:
Clinton’s time in office saw no major challenges so it’s no surprise that he was able to show fiscal restraint.
Bush's policy, both foreign and domestic, has been that of a golfer with a whole bag of clubs who evaluates every situation and chooses the same one. He starts off by taking a stick to the problem, and if it works he celebrates. Of course, it often doesn't work, and his follow-up is generally confused and dogmatic. Of course, he has also done his placating, by cozying up to dictators who were situationally necessary (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, for two). And Clinton didn't cozy up to everyone (Serbia, most notably).Quote:
Everyone says how disastrous Bush’s foreign policy is yet Clintons approach to foreign policy seemed to be if we ignore it, placate it with gifts the problems of the world would go away.
They had their reactor mothballed until W took a stick to them, at which point they started it back up and even detonated the most feeble nuke in history. W's response: Sell out, but bring in a few other parties to add window dressing while we try to get back to the same deal that existed before. Was that better? Make them go nuclear just because you want talking points?Quote:
Giving nuclear technology to the North Koreans and saying well you be sure to only use that only for power Ok? Didn’t seem to go too well did it?
Frankly, I don't know whether it is true that the Chinese couldn't create a missle that could reach the US, nor do I care. The chinese are not going to attack the US, but they might very well end up in war with Russia....again. Considering the economic might that China is beginning to demonstrate, and considering that a war between the US and China would be unwinable by either side, is it so bad to try not to create enemies? Wasn't it Churchill who said something like "Where dollars don't cross borders, armies will."Quote:
When Clinton took office the Chinese couldn’t even get a rocket to launch without it crashing into the ocean so Clinton’s brilliant idea to sell them missile technology so their ICBM’s can now accurately strike all over the US.
Actually, there is no evidence that they have sold any, and the technology probably came from Pakistan anyways. The nuke plant was shuttered under Clinton and reactivated due to the actions of the Bush administration. That was pretty well publicized, since they did it publicly.Quote:
Thanks to Clinton’s foreign policy we have North Korean nukes which they are selling to Iran and every other dictator across the globe
Actually, it predated him, as the threat was built up from American involvement with the resistance to the soviets in Afghanistan. All the major players today formed during that time period. Nor did anybody really have much to say about it. W flatly ignored it until 9/11, and then he used it as an excuse to go after the wrong target, which had nothing to do with the attack, and wasn't harboring any of the organization...until W let them in.Quote:
Not to mention ignoring the Islamic extremist terrorist threat, which grew exponentially under his watch.
I'd say that all of the links you have made are at odds with history.Quote:
Like I said every major foreign policy item we are dealing with today can be linked back to Clinton and his foreign policy (or lack thereof). Now who’s foreign policy was/is disastrous?
yet for some reason they are focusing on IRAN! Iran's had nuclear technology almost as long as we have and suddenly we're all about "STOP ENRICHING URANIUM!" which just happens to be a natural side effect of using it in a nuclear reactor. How exactly would they be enriching uranium when they don't actually have any reactors?Quote:
Giving nuclear technology to the North Koreans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
There's also other things i could say:
when a car cost $3,000 brand new in 1972 and $6,000 in 1975 and suddenly the country is in debt. But anyway here's a nice graphic that shows what happened as soon as bush took office. It's pretty self-explanitory
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ptsOutlays.gif
Clinton left us in great shape as a country for the first time in a long time.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html explains it pretty well. you're at war, you go into debt. Bush screwed us pretty good. We're still in afghanistan and yugoslavia (what's left of it) and have been there for decades. we're doomed.
I was only trying to show why people thought Clinton was so good for the country not make a statement about what type of parenting is best.Quote:
I've heard this view many times, and I don't fully disagree with it, but I'm actually a product of your concept of a "cool Dad", yet I don't drink, have never smoked, have never been in trouble with the law, have a graduate degree, perfect credit, etc. Those who believe that kids need iron discipline to turn out well have a hard time explaining me. There are plenty of other people out there like me. An authoritarian leader is only desirable if they are enforcing your particular belief system. Clinton was no authoritarian, but that was ok with me, since he wasn't actually enforcing my belief system all that well, either.
That’s where all of our major achievements have come from, the private sector, and that is where they should stay. Government funded research and development is usually money not well spent, like all government programs and funding a lot usually goes to waste. Cutting these government programs and letting the free market work is a good thing not a bad thing. Technology hardly stood still during the 80’s, it boomed.Quote:
I wasn't talking about applied research. Carter enacted support for basic research into lots of fundamental technology that could be built into other things, but was not directly marketable on its own. Reagan cut all that. The innovations came from the handful of companies that funded their own R&D departments. Many of those companies have since scaled back, cut off R&D, or even gone under. There have been a few notable replacements, though, and we keep on progressing.
When economies face high inflation it is typical for interest rates on saving accounts to be high. When Reagan took office we had double-digit inflation, hence the high yields on savings accounts and CD’s. The early 80’s I remember still not being that great, it took several years of Reagan being in office before the interest rates went down and employment got better. By the time Reagan was running for his 2nd term unemployment was dipping considerably from its highs, the economy has generally stabilized which is probably why Reagan won in a landslide victory in 1984. So you can say the 80’s were all things, bad in the beginning, mediocre in the middle, and great at the end.Quote:
Just depends on what economists you talk to. The 80's were great, the 80's were mediocre, or the 80's were bad. Are there two economists anywhere who actually agree? When it comes to the economy, you can use it to support your position whatever your position happens to be. For myself, I remember the 80's as having super high interest rates (do you remember the 5.25% intrest on basic savings accounts? It's been 0% for the last decade), one of the worst stock market crashes since the 20s, waves of unemployment, and unimpressive economic growth leading to the downturn that pretty well knocked Bush Sr. out of office (remember "it's the economy stupid"). Some people certainly did well, I just didn't know any of them.
Do you mean economic principles (not math)? The thing Reagan did was allow the free market to work that’s it. Presidents have little to do with how the economy does you are right it is up to individuals and the free market to rise or fall on its own, the only thing presidents can do is make it easier for people to succeed by getting out of the way of free enterprise.Quote:
That's a very valid point. Some people have tried to attribute the 90's to Reaganomics, which ignores some fundamental mathematical principles, but the actual boost during this time can more reasonably be attributed to Bill Gates, not Bill Clinton. All that can be said about Clinton is that when he got a surplus, he didn't squander it.
Clinton’s surplus can be attributed to the Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress in 1994. Remember the president cannot spend anything; it is the Congress that controls the purse strings. The Republicans and the Contract with America under Newt Gingrich is largely responsible for the surpluses enjoyed under Clinton, the Republicans had something to prove with their newfound power. My only regret is they soon forgot their fiscal restraint once they had a Republican in the White House.
I guess the Serbians didn’t contribute enough to his campaign like the Chinese did :) To be honest I don’t really mind the way Bush has handled some of his foreign policy. Of course there are failures along the way but if you notice no one is even talking about Iraq anymore (his supposed biggest failure). I don’t hear anything in the news; you generally have to dig around to find anything. This largely has to do with the newfound successes there.Quote:
Bush's policy, both foreign and domestic, has been that of a golfer with a whole bag of clubs who evaluates every situation and chooses the same one. He starts off by taking a stick to the problem, and if it works he celebrates. Of course, it often doesn't work, and his follow-up is generally confused and dogmatic. Of course, he has also done his placating, by cozying up to dictators who were situationally necessary (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, for two). And Clinton didn't cozy up to everyone (Serbia, most notably).
I do like the pro-active approach to things, mostly due to what I have learned from history (things get far worse if you ignore, placate, or appease). Clinton was the exact opposite to pro-active, easily likeable by people at the time because there are no ugly wars or entanglements, but looked down in history’s eyes because these are the kind of people that usually set up far worse things down the road due to lack of action (in Clintons case we have North Korea, Iraq, Radical Islamic Terrorism, etc..).
Last I heard they were shutting down their program with talks to continue. Also if you think they restarted their program just because Bush yelled at them I think you are being a little naive. Everything points to North Korea working on their nuclear program after the deal with the Clinton administration, they didn’t suddenly start it up again because the big bad US was picking on them. They were working on it all along.Quote:
They had their reactor mothballed until W took a stick to them, at which point they started it back up and even detonated the most feeble nuke in history. W's response: Sell out, but bring in a few other parties to add window dressing while we try to get back to the same deal that existed before. Was that better? Make them go nuclear just because you want talking points?
The Chinese pre-Clinton couldn’t get a rocket off the launch pad. Post Clinton they had a space program with plans to put someone on the moon. We already know the Chinese were given sophisticated missile technology by the Clinton administration and obviously they used this not only to further a space program but to develop long range ICBM’s to accurately reach the US.Quote:
Frankly, I don't know whether it is true that the Chinese couldn't create a missle that could reach the US, nor do I care. The chinese are not going to attack the US, but they might very well end up in war with Russia....again. Considering the economic might that China is beginning to demonstrate, and considering that a war between the US and China would be unwinable by either side, is it so bad to try not to create enemies? Wasn't it Churchill who said something like "Where dollars don't cross borders, armies will."
The Chinese are massively overhauling their military, modernizing and expanding. This includes their nuclear forces. I refuse to be one of those people who mistakenly bet on no war just due to economics or because “no one would win”. It’s foolish to think China is building a huge military for simple show purposes. China recently shot a ground based missile and successfully destroyed one of their own satellites. What use would the US and their military be if their satellites were all destroyed?
Yes it predated Clinton but Clinton failed to do anything about it. It’s like seeing a burning building with people inside and saying, well I didn’t start the fire why should I do anything? Bush was only in office 8 months when 9/11 happened, hardly enough time to implement any substantive anti-terror program (it could very well be that he wasn’t going to do anything like Clinton but we will never know). He could have done the same thing Clinton did after the first towers bombing, nothing, however we know differently.Quote:
Actually, it predated him, as the threat was built up from American involvement with the resistance to the soviets in Afghanistan. All the major players today formed during that time period. Nor did anybody really have much to say about it. W flatly ignored it until 9/11, and then he used it as an excuse to go after the wrong target, which had nothing to do with the attack, and wasn't harboring any of the organization...until W let them in.
I am not saying that Clinton caused all the problems we are facing today. What I am saying is that he didn’t do anything about those problems or his policies to deal with them on a large extent failed. When you look at what is happening now I can’t see how you could ignore those failures or claim that they are at “odds with history” when they are clearly not.Quote:
I'd say that all of the links you have made are at odds with history.
Wow long post sorry to anyone who read it :lol:
X
But you were suggesting that the "cool Dad" was somehow inferior to the authoritarian, yet the evidence doesn't support that. It's a cliche that authoritarian parents have rebellious kids, so if people saw Clinton as the cool dad, and if he was, then why is that a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
That's the conservative position, certainly. Every market is regulated, except in anarchic states. You can find some free markets, just look for societies that are melting down. Reagan just shifted the tax burden from the rich to the poor.Quote:
That’s where all of our major achievements have come from, the private sector, and that is where they should stay. Government funded research and development is usually money not well spent, like all government programs and funding a lot usually goes to waste. Cutting these government programs and letting the free market work is a good thing not a bad thing. Technology hardly stood still during the 80’s, it boomed.
I would say they were bad at the beginning, mediocre in the middle, and declining towards the end. The stock market crash happened in 87 (I think, It might have been 88), and the recession that removed Bush Sr. from office was getting going by the end of the 80's (Bush Sr. lost in 91, technically, though he didn't leave office until 92). So where is the "great"? Is it in the recession, or the market crash?Quote:
When economies face high inflation it is typical for interest rates on saving accounts to be high. When Reagan took office we had double-digit inflation, hence the high yields on savings accounts and CD’s. The early 80’s I remember still not being that great, it took several years of Reagan being in office before the interest rates went down and employment got better. By the time Reagan was running for his 2nd term unemployment was dipping considerably from its highs, the economy has generally stabilized which is probably why Reagan won in a landslide victory in 1984. So you can say the 80’s were all things, bad in the beginning, mediocre in the middle, and great at the end.
That's just a fantasy that is used to attribute good news to the party of your choice. The president has the single largest impact on how spending happens of anybody involved. He may not technically set the budget, but to pretend that it isn't his doing requires considerable deception.Quote:
Clinton’s surplus can be attributed to the Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress in 1994. Remember the president cannot spend anything; it is the Congress that controls the purse strings.
I killed off the first part of the quote about the Contract on America by accident. I've never heard anybody assert that before. Not in the conservative journals, not in the mainstream magazines, and I actually haven't read the liberal ones.Quote:
My only regret is they soon forgot their fiscal restraint once they had a Republican in the White House.
You must listen to Fox. I hear about Iraq every day. If you really haven't been hearing anything, here's a brief update: They are still killing people at a good clip. The surge appears to have reduced some of the violence in Iraq, but the violence in Afghanistan is rising just as fast, and the decrease in Iraq happened to coincide with a couple of confounding factors, so figuring out which part can be attributed to the surge is dependent on what answer you want.Quote:
Of course there are failures along the way but if you notice no one is even talking about Iraq anymore (his supposed biggest failure). I don’t hear anything in the news; you generally have to dig around to find anything.
A few more successes like that and we'll be broke, but it won't matter, because we'll also be dead.Quote:
This largely has to do with the newfound successes there.
You haven't read enough of history. Things like Chamberlain and Hitler are trotted out to justify rushing off to war whenever needed. There are FAR more examples where we just talked rather than taking a hard line, and many more examples of others doing the same. There isn't one solution, and the hard line is not just one alternative, it is often disastrous. Even in the case of Hitler, everyone assumes that if Chamberlain had taken a hard line right from the start that WWII would have been averted. Based on what? At the start of WWII, France had the greatest army in the world by everyones estimation. They had more tanks, better tanks, better aircraft, etc. When Hitler was finally given no choice, he attacked with the Panzer I and II, which were training tanks with fake armor....and he crushed France and threw the Brits into the sea. Why does everyone assume that he would have been reasonable a few years earlier? Why does anyone think the result would have been different? Hitler wasn't prepared for the fight when it did come. Those early training tanks were just used because the real tanks were just starting to be developed.Quote:
I do like the pro-active approach to things, mostly due to what I have learned from history (things get far worse if you ignore, placate, or appease).
The ugly wars and entanglements were created by W. N Korea is the same mess as it has been since the truce was declared, no better, no worse. Iraq was 100% neo-cons, and the first offensive war in the history of the US. RIT was the creation of Reagan, if anybody can be given the blame, because of the Afghanistan issue. So now we have action taken, and we are in a mess in Afghanistan, a mess of our own creation in Iraq, a growing mess in Pakistan, and a cooling status quo ante in N. Korea. Now everybody knows we wear no clothes.Quote:
Clinton was the exact opposite to pro-active, easily likeable by people at the time because there are no ugly wars or entanglements, but looked down in history’s eyes because these are the kind of people that usually set up far worse things down the road due to lack of action (in Clintons case we have North Korea, Iraq, Radical Islamic Terrorism, etc..).
Same here, and with the same deal as before: They get oil, they seal the nuke plant.Quote:
Last I heard they were shutting down their program with talks to continue.
The seals were on the reactor. They didn't restart that until Bush cut off oil shipments. He may have felt justified in doing so because they were not being nice, which is doubtless true, since they aren't nice, but the result was even worse.Quote:
Also if you think they restarted their program just because Bush yelled at them I think you are being a little naive. Everything points to North Korea working on their nuclear program after the deal with the Clinton administration, they didn’t suddenly start it up again because the big bad US was picking on them. They were working on it all along.
In the same time they put in place a program to go from a 3rd rate economy to one of the most powerful in the world, and they are on a pace to succeed. I wouldn't say that had anything to do with Clinton so much as American desire for cheap plastic crap. Give a creative people sufficient capital, as we are doing as fast as we can, and they can solve their technological problems on their own.Quote:
The Chinese pre-Clinton couldn’t get a rocket off the launch pad. Post Clinton they had a space program with plans to put someone on the moon.
The same use that they were against the Russians during the cold war pre-sattelites. MAD still exists, and always had. We can't beat the Chinese if they are willing to fight us, nor can they beat us. I'm not the slightest bit worried about them unless we attack them.Quote:
We already know the Chinese were given sophisticated missile technology by the Clinton administration and obviously they used this not only to further a space program but to develop long range ICBM’s to accurately reach the US.
The Chinese are massively overhauling their military, modernizing and expanding. This includes their nuclear forces. I refuse to be one of those people who mistakenly bet on no war just due to economics or because “no one would win”. It’s foolish to think China is building a huge military for simple show purposes. China recently shot a ground based missile and successfully destroyed one of their own satellites. What use would the US and their military be if their satellites were all destroyed?
Yeah, he attacked a country that wasn't involved with 9/11 in any way.Quote:
Bush was only in office 8 months when 9/11 happened, hardly enough time to implement any substantive anti-terror program (it could very well be that he wasn’t going to do anything like Clinton but we will never know). He could have done the same thing Clinton did after the first towers bombing, nothing, however we know differently.
Step away from the analogy you seem to be losing the point which is Clinton’s presidency looked good while it was going on, it took some time and a few years from when he was in office to figure out that things were not as good as we thought they were, especially in regards to foreign policy.Quote:
But you were suggesting that the "cool Dad" was somehow inferior to the authoritarian, yet the evidence doesn't support that. It's a cliche that authoritarian parents have rebellious kids, so if people saw Clinton as the cool dad, and if he was, then why is that a bad thing?
Come on now that is a bit cliché no? You might as well have added that he stole old peoples Social Security. The problem is you think being kind to the poor is giving them a whole bunch of money. In fact this is the worst thing you could possibly do as you create a cycle of dependency and no desire to get yourself out of being poor because the government is providing for everything. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime…Quote:
That's the conservative position, certainly. Every market is regulated, except in anarchic states. You can find some free markets, just look for societies that are melting down. Reagan just shifted the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
If you looked at the employment rate you will find that it steadily declined from a high in 1982 until several years after Reagan left office. And I do recall the stock market recovering rather fast after the crash; take a look at the DOW chart from when Reagan was in office vs. when Carter was in office. For Carter the Dow opened around 950 when he took office and it was 870 when he left. For Reagan it was 870 when he took office and 2000 when he left, even with the 500 point correction taken off (which by the way was recovered in less than a year). Kind of a different picture when you actually look at the facts, instead of simply saying the stock market crash huh.Quote:
I would say they were bad at the beginning, mediocre in the middle, and declining towards the end. The stock market crash happened in 87 (I think, It might have been 88), and the recession that removed Bush Sr. from office was getting going by the end of the 80's (Bush Sr. lost in 91, technically, though he didn't leave office until 92). So where is the "great"? Is it in the recession, or the market crash?
The recession you are talking about didn’t really take effect until mid-way in Bush Sr.’s term, which included higher unemployment. Recessions are a natural part of the economy, just as the collapse in the housing market which happens about every decade or so, it’s just the economy going through its natural cycles. However you cannot disregard the huge turn around following the late 70’s into the 1980 mostly due in part to reforms by the Reagan administration.
The president presents the budget which the congress has to pass, remember it is Congress that adds a lot of earmarks and appropriates the money for the budget which effects how much money will be spent. It is a combination of both the Executive branch and the Legislative to pass a balanced budget so saying the Republican congress had nothing to do with it is inaccurate and disingenuous.Quote:
That's just a fantasy that is used to attribute good news to the party of your choice. The president has the single largest impact on how spending happens of anybody involved. He may not technically set the budget, but to pretend that it isn't his doing requires considerable deception.
Most conservatives are unhappy with how the Republican controlled congress behaved post-Clinton. This is the main reason the Republicans lost control of both houses as people decided to go with Conservative Democrats instead of their Republican rivals. The same thing goes with Bush and his wild spending on everything from No Child Left Behind to his prescription drug program.Quote:
I killed off the first part of the quote about the Contract on America by accident. I've never heard anybody assert that before. Not in the conservative journals, not in the mainstream magazines, and I actually haven't read the liberal ones.
Violence is down in Baghdad 80% from its highs. Are people still dying? Sure they are but in not such an extreme clip as they once were. Reports on Iraq are down, not just on Fox but in the New York Times, the BBC, and every other publication. There is less to report in regards to violence and death therefore there are less reports out there, seems like simple logic to me rather than a plot by the Fox news channel. Iraq isn’t front page news anymore, hence my comment on having to dig around for it. If you want to find it its still there, but most people are just happier it’s a lot better there.Quote:
You must listen to Fox. I hear about Iraq every day. If you really haven't been hearing anything, here's a brief update: They are still killing people at a good clip. The surge appears to have reduced some of the violence in Iraq, but the violence in Afghanistan is rising just as fast, and the decrease in Iraq happened to coincide with a couple of confounding factors, so figuring out which part can be attributed to the surge is dependent on what answer you want.
Just so you know my father was a History teacher and had a library of thousands of history books which I read while I was growing up, so I do know my history, especially WWII. You obviously have read different books than I have and have gleaned different lessons from history than I have, that’s fine. Everything from the fall of the Roman Empire up until modern times if full of examples of how appeasement just doesn’t work when you have an enemy that is bent on conquest.Quote:
You haven't read enough of history. Things like Chamberlain and Hitler are trotted out to justify rushing off to war whenever needed. There are FAR more examples where we just talked rather than taking a hard line, and many more examples of others doing the same. There isn't one solution, and the hard line is not just one alternative, it is often disastrous. Even in the case of Hitler, everyone assumes that if Chamberlain had taken a hard line right from the start that WWII would have been averted. Based on what? At the start of WWII, France had the greatest army in the world by everyones estimation. They had more tanks, better tanks, better aircraft, etc. When Hitler was finally given no choice, he attacked with the Panzer I and II, which were training tanks with fake armor....and he crushed France and threw the Brits into the sea. Why does everyone assume that he would have been reasonable a few years earlier? Why does anyone think the result would have been different? Hitler wasn't prepared for the fight when it did come. Those early training tanks were just used because the real tanks were just starting to be developed.
From what I remember the Germans used both the Panzer III’s and the Panzer IV’s during the France invasion and went up against the Renault and Somua French tanks (as both were developed in the early to mid 1930’s). The Panzer I and II were used at the beginning of the invasion of France as well but were not equipped with “fake” armor as you put and were not training tanks, they were the main battle tank of the German army with many different variants entering service until they become obsolete somewhere in the middle of the war (1942) (later they became scout tanks before being complete decommissioned). I know a lot about the equipment used during the war, from reading and playing the Panzer General series (among other) computer games :).
Iraq was 100% Saddam Hussein created, the US or neo-cons as you put it didn’t invade Kuwait and try to corner the world’s oil market. You seem to be so informed as to North Korea’s cease fire yet you fail to remember Iraq was also under the same condition.Quote:
The ugly wars and entanglements were created by W. N Korea is the same mess as it has been since the truce was declared, no better, no worse. Iraq was 100% neo-cons, and the first offensive war in the history of the US. RIT was the creation of Reagan, if anybody can be given the blame, because of the Afghanistan issue. So now we have action taken, and we are in a mess in Afghanistan, a mess of our own creation in Iraq, a growing mess in Pakistan, and a cooling status quo ante in N. Korea. Now everybody knows we wear no clothes.
Afghanistan isn’t a mess, Iraq is a lot better than it was, and North Korea is at the table talking disarmament. Pakistan is in trouble but that is hardly our doing. I suppose blaming the US for everything is the easy way out, sort of like blaming the government for being unemployed when sitting around drinking beer all day instead of actually looking for a job.
What if they attack Taiwan? Are you willing to ignore China taking over a free and democratic nation or would you be willing to confront them? If you do nothing who is to say they stop at Taiwan and not move on to Japan, do we do something then? I don’t think there is any chance the US will strike China first. It is China that will make the first move, the thing is how do we react when they do.Quote:
The same use that they were against the Russians during the cold war pre-sattelites. MAD still exists, and always had. We can't beat the Chinese if they are willing to fight us, nor can they beat us. I'm not the slightest bit worried about them unless we attack them.
Afghanistan was attacked first they had everything to do with 9/11.Quote:
Yeah, he attacked a country that wasn't involved with 9/11 in any way.
X
that may be true, but all the knowledge in the world on how to fish won't help you if there aren't any fish. I have personally been VERY poor to the point that i didn't even know what bologna was until custody was awarded to grandparents. we were so poor that the hospital refused to accept my brother as a patient and he died. And my mom HAD a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
truth is that Alan Greenspan is the one who pretty well controls the economy. President can affect it, but Greenspan is the one controlling interest rates, etc.Quote:
If you looked at the employment rate you will find that it steadily declined from a high in 1982 until several years after Reagan left office. And I do recall the stock market recovering rather fast after the crash; take a look at the DOW chart from when Reagan was in office vs. when Carter was in office. For Carter the Dow opened around 950 when he took office and it was 870 when he left. For Reagan it was 870 when he took office and 2000 when he left, even with the 500 point correction taken off (which by the way was recovered in less than a year). Kind of a different picture when you actually look at the facts, instead of simply saying the stock market crash huh.
The recession you are talking about didn’t really take effect until mid-way in Bush Sr.’s term, which included higher unemployment. Recessions are a natural part of the economy, just as the collapse in the housing market which happens about every decade or so, it’s just the economy going through its natural cycles. However you cannot disregard the huge turn around following the late 70’s into the 1980 mostly due in part to reforms by the Reagan administration.
The president also is able to veto their earmarks. Bush has never vetoed anything. Clinton was a veto master and even did line-item vetoing for a long time, until it was overruled as unconstitutional as giving president too much power. This is why the budget clinton presented was actually not only balanced, but had a surplus. You know of any other presidents closing government offices when they claimed "we are out of money" instead of giving them more money? Bush gave us a 500,000,000 deficit then touted his ability to cut in half the deficit he created himself.Quote:
The president presents the budget which the congress has to pass, remember it is Congress that adds a lot of earmarks and appropriates the money for the budget which effects how much money will be spent. It is a combination of both the Executive branch and the Legislative to pass a balanced budget so saying the Republican congress had nothing to do with it is inaccurate and disingenuous.
A major reason they lost both houses is they were going along with every single little thing Bush wanted them to do. People hoped that Democrats would show more backbone. As for his spending on stuff is proven to not work, such as "no child left behind", his idea to fix a broken program is give it more money!Quote:
Most conservatives are unhappy with how the Republican controlled congress behaved post-Clinton. This is the main reason the Republicans lost control of both houses as people decided to go with Conservative Democrats instead of their Republican rivals. The same thing goes with Bush and his wild spending on everything from No Child Left Behind to his prescription drug program.
violence is down in baghdad because of the huge police force we have there. All we have done is have the radicals move somewhere else. On average, violence is up in Iraq, even though the camera-ready green-zone (arguably the safest place in Iraq) is lower. It is still dangerous though.Quote:
Violence is down in Baghdad 80% from its highs. Are people still dying? Sure they are but in not such an extreme clip as they once were. Reports on Iraq are down, not just on Fox but in the New York Times, the BBC, and every other publication. There is less to report in regards to violence and death therefore there are less reports out there, seems like simple logic to me rather than a plot by the Fox news channel. Iraq isn’t front page news anymore, hence my comment on having to dig around for it. If you want to find it its still there, but most people are just happier it’s a lot better there.
if you really read 1000s of history books, you would see how often they disagree with each other. Why don't you read a german history book of ww2 and see how well it matches ours. History is subjective. However, having lived through this part of history, i won't be fooled by the censors in the future that try to convince our children that Saddam Hussein (capable of keeping that nation at peace whereas we can't) caused 911.[/quote]Quote:
Just so you know my father was a History teacher...
having been unemployed as well, and forced to put in at least two applications a day, it still took me over a month to find a job, and i don't drink beer. Quit stereotyping. And i would have been out on the streets if i didn't have relatives willing to let me stay with them. I can tell you've never had it hard in your life.Quote:
Iraq was 100% Saddam Hussein created, the US or neo-cons as you put it didn’t invade Kuwait and try to corner the world’s oil market. You seem to be so informed as to North Korea’s cease fire yet you fail to remember Iraq was also under the same condition.
Afghanistan isn’t a mess, Iraq is a lot better than it was, and North Korea is at the table talking disarmament. Pakistan is in trouble but that is hardly our doing. I suppose blaming the US for everything is the easy way out, sort of like blaming the government for being unemployed when sitting around drinking beer all day instead of actually looking for a job.
i seem to remember that tiawan used to be part of china? What if, say, florida decided it didn't want to be part of the US any more? would you be upset if we sent troops in there?Quote:
What if they attack Taiwan? Are you willing to ignore China taking over a free and democratic nation or would you be willing to confront them? If you do nothing who is to say they stop at Taiwan and not move on to Japan, do we do something then? I don’t think there is any chance the US will strike China first. It is China that will make the first move, the thing is how do we react when they do.
Afghanistan was attacked first they had everything to do with 9/11.
X[/QUOTE]
To me, parts of Clinton's policy looked good, others only so-so. None looked bad, and it all looks much better when shown in comparison to W. It was statesmanship rather than ideological blindness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Except that Reagan raised taxes on the poor, so the saying becomes "Take a fish from a man and he stays hungry." Taking money from the poor is not exactly the same as not giving money to them. The tax burden on the lower sectors of society increased under Reagan, just as they decreased on the rich.Quote:
Come on now that is a bit cliché no? You might as well have added that he stole old peoples Social Security. The problem is you think being kind to the poor is giving them a whole bunch of money. In fact this is the worst thing you could possibly do as you create a cycle of dependency and no desire to get yourself out of being poor because the government is providing for everything. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime…
No, not really. It's kind a bizarre statement that Reagan boosted the DOW. Sure a crash was recovered from. Look at how the DOW is compared to the Depression. It recovered. So what? If you lost a bundle in that crash, you still lost a bundle.Quote:
If you looked at the employment rate you will find that it steadily declined from a high in 1982 until several years after Reagan left office. And I do recall the stock market recovering rather fast after the crash; take a look at the DOW chart from when Reagan was in office vs. when Carter was in office. For Carter the Dow opened around 950 when he took office and it was 870 when he left. For Reagan it was 870 when he took office and 2000 when he left, even with the 500 point correction taken off (which by the way was recovered in less than a year). Kind of a different picture when you actually look at the facts, instead of simply saying the stock market crash huh.
Technically, the rise in the 1980s was also due to me eating a cheeseburger back in 72. Under Chaos Theory, which you can actually study with Excel, you can see that the impact I had with the cheeseburger is the same as Reagan had, unless the strange attractor was shifted, which the recession in Bush Sr. administration proved not to be the case.Quote:
The recession you are talking about didn’t really take effect until mid-way in Bush Sr.’s term, which included higher unemployment. Recessions are a natural part of the economy, just as the collapse in the housing market which happens about every decade or so, it’s just the economy going through its natural cycles. However you cannot disregard the huge turn around following the late 70’s into the 1980 mostly due in part to reforms by the Reagan administration.
Saying that the Republican congress was responsible for it is even more innaccurate and disingenuous by your own argument.Quote:
The president presents the budget which the congress has to pass, remember it is Congress that adds a lot of earmarks and appropriates the money for the budget which effects how much money will be spent. It is a combination of both the Executive branch and the Legislative to pass a balanced budget so saying the Republican congress had nothing to do with it is inaccurate and disingenuous.
Most conservatives will vote R no matter what choices are put before them. It wasn't the conservatives who failed to re-elect Republicans, it was that the majority of the country doesn't fall squarely into either camp. In this case, they didn't like the job the Rs were doing, so they voted D.Quote:
Most conservatives are unhappy with how the Republican controlled congress behaved post-Clinton. This is the main reason the Republicans lost control of both houses as people decided to go with Conservative Democrats instead of their Republican rivals. The same thing goes with Bush and his wild spending on everything from No Child Left Behind to his prescription drug program.
Much of the violence was sectarian. How much of the decrease results from the several million Sunnis who have fled? Once a neighborhood has become ethnically cleansed due to all "others" having been killed or fled, does that count as success? If so, then just stand back and let the murders flow.Quote:
Violence is down in Baghdad 80% from its highs. Are people still dying? Sure they are but in not such an extreme clip as they once were.
I certainly haven't been counting. I only hear about Iraq every day. Whether the reports take five minutes or ten I have no idea.Quote:
Reports on Iraq are down, not just on Fox but in the New York Times, the BBC, and every other publication.
So if the media stops reporting on a problem, people will think that the problem has gone away, and therefore believe that things are better. The fact that most of US news is more interested in Britney's custody battles rather than depressing foreign messes leads to what?Quote:
Iraq isn’t front page news anymore, hence my comment on having to dig around for it. If you want to find it its still there, but most people are just happier it’s a lot better there.
I read those books now, too. I got thinking about this. Appeasement is almost impossible to identify, but beligerence isn't. However, I think it has a stronger history even in the US. Consider the terms Grant gave to Lee, which lead to the terms Sherman gave to Johnston, which went a long ways towards patching up the Civil War. Of course, when Andrew Johnson ratified the terms, he infuriated the hard line Republicans who wanted to punish the south, and he was impeached (and came within a single vote of being removed from office). Once he did leave office, the hardliners introduced a new term that is still with us: "Carpet baggers." Much the same argument could be made about the treaty at the end of WWI, which most historians blame as the direct cause of the rise of Hitler and WWII.Quote:
Just so you know my father was a History teacher and had a library of thousands of history books which I read while I was growing up, so I do know my history, especially WWII. You obviously have read different books than I have and have gleaned different lessons from history than I have, that’s fine. Everything from the fall of the Roman Empire up until modern times if full of examples of how appeasement just doesn’t work when you have an enemy that is bent on conquest.
However, nobody really knows what would happen if the alternative was chosen. If a difference is patched over, was it appeasement? If you bought off somebody who was going to attack you when you couldn't fight back (France in WWII), was it appeasement? I know of no clear cut example of appeasement other than the often cited Chamberlain-Hitler negotiation. Could you name a few others?
I was surprised to find that the IV was actually used in Poland, however, in Panzer Battles, Maj. Gen F.W. Von Mellenthin points out that there were very few of them (~10%), and the I and II were the main tanks. The percentage was a bit higher in France, though both Mellenthin and Panzerkrieg by McCarthy and Syron have the IV as being in a supporting role since it's gun was insufficient to penetrate allied armor. You also left out the best of the French tanks (Char B1) which was about as numerous as the Somua.Quote:
From what I remember the Germans used both the Panzer III’s and the Panzer IV’s during the France invasion and went up against the Renault and Somua French tanks (as both were developed in the early to mid 1930’s).
McCarthy and Syron disagree with pretty much everything you say there, except for the bit about fake armor. The armor on those tanks, which were developed for training purposes because the IIIs and IVs weren't available, was able to stop small arms fire only. The I had only machine guns (Von Mellenthin claimed that the II had only machine guns in Poland, but McCarthy and Syron state that the IIs were equipt with a pathetic 20mm gun by France). I was aware that many variants of the I and II came out, but what I said was correct. They were training tanks, and the armor was not designed to withstand anything stronger than small arms fire. They also had no effective guns, and made up the majority of all German armor in France. In contrast, the Char B1, the Somua, and the larger British tanks had armor that could stop all German tank cannons (since the III had the weak 37mm cannon that both sources disparage as being inadequate against any armor, and the IV had the low velocity 75mm which was ineffective against armor).Quote:
The Panzer I and II were used at the beginning of the invasion of France as well but were not equipped with “fake” armor as you put and were not training tanks, they were the main battle tank of the German army with many different variants entering service until they become obsolete somewhere in the middle of the war (1942) (later they became scout tanks before being complete decommissioned).
Good for you.Quote:
I know a lot about the equipment used during the war, from reading and playing the Panzer General series (among other) computer games :).
The neo cons put out their manifesto back in the early 90s, which called for Saddam to be replaced by a democracy that would serve as an example for other states in the region (which it certainly has). They consistently advocated the overthrow of the regime, and within two days of 9/11, a memo came out (which was very publicly leaked) asking how the attack could be used to attack Iraq, a course of action that was ultimately followed.Quote:
Iraq was 100% Saddam Hussein created, the US or neo-cons as you put it didn’t invade Kuwait and try to corner the world’s oil market.
Nope, I just note that we attacked Iraq, but are still just negotiating with N. Korea. It's hard not to be cynical.Quote:
You seem to be so informed as to North Korea’s cease fire yet you fail to remember Iraq was also under the same condition.
How do you figure this? Is that success? Heroin production is the surrogate for government in most of the north, we control a couple cities, and the Taliban pretty much controls the south. Violence is increasing there, US forces are attacked almost daily (and quite ineffectually), aid workers are being driven out of large parts of the country, and control is slipping steadily away from the government. What part of that is good?Quote:
Afghanistan isn’t a mess
Unless you happen to be either American or a Sunni.Quote:
Iraq is a lot better than it was
.Quote:
and North Korea is at the table talking disarmament
No they aren't, they are negotiating for more goods in exchange for a bit less bad behavior. They aren't talking about disarmament, they are just seeing how much they can get to stop rattling their saber. Since they never had any realistic chance at an offensive war, that's a sweet deal for them, but it's also the best deal for us, and it's a deal we already had until Bush cut off oil shipments. Sure he had a reason. He'll be given another one, too.
Yup.Quote:
Pakistan is in trouble but that is hardly our doing.
Beats me, I've never been unemployed, and I don't drink.Quote:
I suppose blaming the US for everything is the easy way out, sort of like blaming the government for being unemployed when sitting around drinking beer all day instead of actually looking for a job.
What would you suggest, waving our fists, or a full scale assault on a country far larger than our own?Quote:
What if they attack Taiwan? Are you willing to ignore China taking over a free and democratic nation or would you be willing to confront them?
The difference being that China claims Taiwan is part of China, a claim that is not actually disputed by the bulk of the Taiwanese. The Taiwan government was formed by the remains of the old Chinese goverment after the communist takeover.Quote:
If you do nothing who is to say they stop at Taiwan and not move on to Japan, do we do something then?
Actually, not many people on either side really want to find that one out. A war against China would make Iraq look like a party. No country has ever conquered one of the large land area countries of the world unless that country was too scattered to resist.Quote:
I don’t think there is any chance the US will strike China first. It is China that will make the first move, the thing is how do we react when they do.
True, but most of the people I have heard and read say that Afghanistan was attacked because W couldn't have gone to Iraq otherwise. The Afghan war was prosecuted mostly by the Northern Alliance with special forces and air support from the US. We had few boots on the ground, which allowed Osama and others to escape from Tora Bora.Quote:
Afghanistan was attacked first they had everything to do with 9/11.
sorry, i meant "alan greenspan WAS in power. he finally got so sick of George W Bush that he very publicly retired, and became an outspoken opponent of him.
As for Afghanistan being responsible for 9/11... Well, they were responsible to the extent that they allowed terrorists to base there. You will notice that mere days after 9/11 we were all over that country, but we weren't looking to overthrow the government. We were looking for a terrorist cell. But yet Iraq was due for an overthrow when they were publicly anti-terrorist? Now look at them since the so-called democrats took over.
When Reagan took over from Carter there was double-digit inflation and high unemployment (the prime interest rate was something like 20%!). Reagan’s polices created 20 million new jobs, reduced inflation (to around 4%) and unemployment. I don’t know about you but I never got a job from a poor person, reducing the top rate (on those rich people) created all those new jobs, which allowed the doubling of the income the government received from 500 billion to 1 trillion.Quote:
Except that Reagan raised taxes on the poor, so the saying becomes "Take a fish from a man and he stays hungry." Taking money from the poor is not exactly the same as not giving money to them. The tax burden on the lower sectors of society increased under Reagan, just as they decreased on the rich.
You are the one that brought up the crash in 1987 as an example of how the end of Reagan’s term was bad. Now you are saying Reagan had nothing to do with it and how “bizarre” it is. What’s bizarre is how you can attribute the crash to Reagan and his policies than dismiss the more than doubling of its value (even with the crash) under his presidency. So which is it?Quote:
No, not really. It's kind a bizarre statement that Reagan boosted the DOW. Sure a crash was recovered from. Look at how the DOW is compared to the Depression. It recovered. So what? If you lost a bundle in that crash, you still lost a bundle.
I voted for a D just recently for Senate. I would have voted for JFK if I was around to do so. However today’s Democrats really do leave no choice when it comes to voting for conservatives.Quote:
Most conservatives will vote R no matter what choices are put before them. It wasn't the conservatives who failed to re-elect Republicans, it was that the majority of the country doesn't fall squarely into either camp. In this case, they didn't like the job the Rs were doing, so they voted D.
Things are better! Most people realize that things are not perfect, but what is? I don’t think you need to be reminded about murder and strife every day to know it is there. Honestly you can look at the murders that occur every day in each American city to be reminded every US city has a problem, or about the death toll of wars currently raging on the continent of Africa. But most normal people don’t eat, breath, and sleep death and destruction on a daily basis to know that there is evil in the world.Quote:
So if the media stops reporting on a problem, people will think that the problem has gone away, and therefore believe that things are better. The fact that most of US news is more interested in Britney's custody battles rather than depressing foreign messes leads to what?
One of the top of my head was the fall of the Roman Empire and their appeasement of the Barbarian hordes, they attempted to placate them with offerings and attempted to keep them fighting among themselves all to no avail. Of course by this time this was probably the only option left up to the Romans as they didn’t have much of an army left. But again the attempt to appease didn’t prevent the fall of the Empire.Quote:
However, nobody really knows what would happen if the alternative was chosen. If a difference is patched over, was it appeasement? If you bought off somebody who was going to attack you when you couldn't fight back (France in WWII), was it appeasement? I know of no clear cut example of appeasement other than the often cited Chamberlain-Hitler negotiation. Could you name a few others?
In a sense you are correct if you look at it a different way. The I’s and the II’s were used in training but were not exclusively training tanks as they were used in theatre until about 1942, they were the main battle tank Germany used until the III’s and the IV versions of the Panzer were rotated in as their replacement. While you say fake armor I would say lightly armored. I think we are arguing semantics, we really mean the same thing but we are just saying it differently. I do love talking about the different Allied and German equipment of WWII, typing it all out you can’t seem to tell everything you want however without writing a super-long post.Quote:
McCarthy and Syron disagree with pretty much everything you say there, except for the bit about fake armor. The armor on those tanks, which were developed for training purposes because the IIIs and IVs weren't available, was able to stop small arms fire only. The I had only machine guns (Von Mellenthin claimed that the II had only machine guns in Poland, but McCarthy and Syron state that the IIs were equipt with a pathetic 20mm gun by France). I was aware that many variants of the I and II came out, but what I said was correct. They were training tanks, and the armor was not designed to withstand anything stronger than small arms fire. They also had no effective guns, and made up the majority of all German armor in France. In contrast, the Char B1, the Somua, and the larger British tanks had armor that could stop all German tank cannons (since the III had the weak 37mm cannon that both sources disparage as being inadequate against any armor, and the IV had the low velocity 75mm which was ineffective against armor).
You would be surprised what you can learn from a computer game they are really accurate as far as equipment and all of the different battles that were fought.Quote:
Good for you.
Regime change? Wasn’t that the stated policy of the Clinton administration for Iraq? Unless the Clinton administration was made up of these “neo-cons” as you put it, although they might be “neo-cons” as I thought they were democrats who left the party because of the Democrats weakness on foreign policy and were pro-Israel and pro-Strong US foreign policy no? Hmmm shouldn’t they be called neo-dems or neo-libs?Quote:
The neo cons put out their manifesto back in the early 90s, which called for Saddam to be replaced by a democracy that would serve as an example for other states in the region (which it certainly has). They consistently advocated the overthrow of the regime, and within two days of 9/11, a memo came out (which was very publicly leaked) asking how the attack could be used to attack Iraq, a course of action that was ultimately followed.
US combat deaths have been just about the same the last 3 years (around 100) in Afghanistan. If US forces are getting attacked more than perhaps the aim of the enemy is getting worse? I think there are problems and challenges in Afghanistan but there is hope there, maybe I’m just not an eternal pessimist and like to think things could get better. I am sure you probably said the same about Iraq before it got better as well. I wouldn’t give up just because things get hard for a stretch or two. I do know one thing, if we do give up things will get a lot worse than even you think they are now.Quote:
How do you figure this? Is that success? Heroin production is the surrogate for government in most of the north, we control a couple cities, and the Taliban pretty much controls the south. Violence is increasing there, US forces are attacked almost daily (and quite ineffectually), aid workers are being driven out of large parts of the country, and control is slipping steadily away from the government. What part of that is good?
Actually the last 4 months US casualties have declined dramatically (the same holds true for Iraqi casualties). So Ill still stand by my statement that things are better. Not to say they can’t get worse again but I am hopeful things will continue to get better, for everyone’s sake.Quote:
Unless you happen to be either American or a Sunni.
But you do seem to blame the US for a lot the worlds problems, maybe you could use a drink or two to loosen yourself up :)Quote:
Beats me, I've never been unemployed, and I don't drink.
I asked you first, what would you do if you had the power to do anything? I’m real interested in hearing what you have to say on this subject.Quote:
What would you suggest, waving our fists, or a full scale assault on a country far larger than our own?
Iraq claimed Kuwait as part of its own as well for their justification for their invasion. So are you saying let China have Taiwan? Or Taiwan and their sovereignty is not worth getting into an entanglement with China over because they are really Chinese anyway?Quote:
The difference being that China claims Taiwan is part of China, a claim that is not actually disputed by the bulk of the Taiwanese. The Taiwan government was formed by the remains of the old Chinese goverment after the communist takeover.
I thought Osama was pretty much a figure-head and I think I remember you saying that taking him out wouldn’t really mean much. Could have been someone else but I think it was you.Quote:
True, but most of the people I have heard and read say that Afghanistan was attacked because W couldn't have gone to Iraq otherwise. The Afghan war was prosecuted mostly by the Northern Alliance with special forces and air support from the US. We had few boots on the ground, which allowed Osama and others to escape from Tora Bora.
X
My only point was that there was as much negative as positive. The Reagan administration had good economic points, and bad ones. I don't remember it as being strong, but rather mediocre. The problem with that is that the economy is a chaotic system. Despite the best attempts of economists to claim otherwise, there are certain implications of a chaotic system. One of those implications is that claiming the improvement in the economy was caused by anyone in particular is a pure guess. If I had to guess, I would say any benefit was due to Fed policy, or Gates and Jobs, rather than any president or congress. However, I recognize that it is just a guess, and would only put money on it because nobody can prove me wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
When you get right down to it, I feel that way about the Rs. You only need to go back to Nixon to find a time when the Rs were much more progressive on the environment. I'm not thrilled with the Ds, but the Rs have taken a position of removing all limits and full speed exploitation.Quote:
I voted for a D just recently for Senate. I would have voted for JFK if I was around to do so. However today’s Democrats really do leave no choice when it comes to voting for conservatives.
They are better if you ignore the rationale, yet again. Bush never intended to invade Afghanistan, he wanted Osama. When Omar refused to give him up, we added Omar to the list. We failed to get either one, and the objective was changed to regime change in Afghanistan so that we could claim success. The stated reason for the surge in Iraq was to give the government time to organize. There has been less than no progress on that front, the government is becoming more corrupt, more dependent, more sectarian. The surge is meaningless if it has to be perpetuated forever. Deaths might be down, but the end hasn't gotten any closer because of it.Quote:
Things are better! Most people realize that things are not perfect, but what is?
But by your own admission they had no alternative. Furthermore, they had been doing the same thing all along. If your read Julius Ceasars "Conquest of Gaul", you will see that they were basically doing the same thing all along. As long as they had an army that could overwhelm opponents their borders remained inviolate, though their frontiers were in constant battle. He claims to have conquered Gaul, but he never actually stopped fighting, so their only hope was to maintain an army strong enough to win those constant battles. No appeasement there, once they lacked the force to impose their will, they were doomed, since the hordes were attacking them continually.Quote:
One of the top of my head was the fall of the Roman Empire and their appeasement of the Barbarian hordes, they attempted to placate them with offerings and attempted to keep them fighting among themselves all to no avail. Of course by this time this was probably the only option left up to the Romans as they didn’t have much of an army left. But again the attempt to appease didn’t prevent the fall of the Empire.
Fair enough. I called them training tanks because that's the reason they were developed according to the sources I cited. Since they were actually used extensively, it would be fair to say that they were more than training in fact, if not in intention.Quote:
In a sense you are correct if you look at it a different way. The I’s and the II’s were used in training but were not exclusively training tanks as they were used in theatre until about 1942, they were the main battle tank Germany used until the III’s and the IV versions of the Panzer were rotated in as their replacement. While you say fake armor I would say lightly armored. I think we are arguing semantics, we really mean the same thing but we are just saying it differently. I do love talking about the different Allied and German equipment of WWII, typing it all out you can’t seem to tell everything you want however without writing a super-long post.
Care to recommend one? The dated one that I liked won't run anymore, and the one I recently got kind of sucked (men could throw grenades almost as far as tanks could shoot).Quote:
You would be surprised what you can learn from a computer game they are really accurate as far as equipment and all of the different battles that were fought.
Not forcible regime change anyways.Quote:
Regime change? Wasn’t that the stated policy of the Clinton administration for Iraq?
The neo cons are headed up by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and a bunch of others whome I forget. If they were Dems...well, they're old enough.Quote:
Unless the Clinton administration was made up of these “neo-cons” as you put it, although they might be “neo-cons” as I thought they were democrats who left the party because of the Democrats weakness on foreign policy and were pro-Israel and pro-Strong US foreign policy no?
True, and they'll blame us.Quote:
I do know one thing, if we do give up things will get a lot worse than even you think they are now.
Again, there has been no improvement where it counts. We are further from a stable unified Iraq than we were at the time of the election (when there was still hope). Once the parties have all withdrawn to ethnic enclaves, violence will be reduced, which may well be all that is happening now, but only a stable, capable government is a worthwhile end, and nobody over there, military, civilian, or otherwise, feels there has been forward progress in that area (backwards progress, perhaps, just not forwards).Quote:
Actually the last 4 months US casualties have declined dramatically (the same holds true for Iraqi casualties). So Ill still stand by my statement that things are better. Not to say they can’t get worse again but I am hopeful things will continue to get better, for everyone’s sake.
The US has a long history of meddling in other countries then pretending that it's all in the past. I believe our actions should meet our rhetoric. We are far from blameless in the problems we currently face, but there is a sector of the public who equates love for country with denying bad actions.Quote:
But you do seem to blame the US for a lot the worlds problems, maybe you could use a drink or two to loosen yourself up :)
I'd think about long term consequences of any decisions alot longer than I care to for a post on a programming forum. I would need to hear the arguments against any position before I would accept the position. There will be trade-offs to any decision, but I'd want to know what they are. I'm too old to believe that I know everything, or every side of everything. If the decision is mine, I'd want the evidence for and against.Quote:
I asked you first, what would you do if you had the power to do anything? I’m real interested in hearing what you have to say on this subject.
Iraq was right. The borders of that state and Kuwait were decided by the British following WWII. There is no "historic" border to Iraq, so we were fighting to maintain an arbitrary line in the sand. We wouldn't have done that unless we stood to gain from it, and unless we had the power to fight for the position. Therefore, our argument was might makes right, just like everybody else's argument, we just couched it in stirring rhetoric. Others note that we only intervene when we have a dog in the fight, so they don't believe us when we say our position is righteous. If we are going to call ourselves righteous, shouldn't we act that way? We deposed one dictator while cozying up to another who was known for doing the same things (Uzbekistan, we needed them). We can ignore the hypocrisy, but it's asking alot to expect other to do the same.Quote:
Iraq claimed Kuwait as part of its own as well for their justification for their invasion.
You do realize that has nothing to do with what I said, right? You were suggesting that China might move on to Japan as if taking Taiwan would just be a first step. I was pointing out that the Chinese position regarding Taiwan is unlike their position regarding Japan.Quote:
So are you saying let China have Taiwan? Or Taiwan and their sovereignty is not worth getting into an entanglement with China over because they are really Chinese anyway?
That whole line started because you were replying to my quip about Bush's decisive action being that he attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Technically, neither did Afghanistan other than Osama. He is just a figurehead, but he was the reason for the attack on Afghanistan, yet that ball was dropped when we exchanged regime change for the actual objective.Quote:
I thought Osama was pretty much a figure-head and I think I remember you saying that taking him out wouldn’t really mean much. Could have been someone else but I think it was you.
X
if you look into modern-day tanks, you will discover that they are heavily-armored in the front. the sides could probably survive armor-piercing rounds, but the backs are designed only for small-arms fire. It is a trade-off: protection vs manueverability. The same has happened in the Naval fleet. We don't use battleships anymore even though they could survive direct missile hits in the sides. Having been in the Navy, i can tell you that our destroyers would be swiss-cheesed under anything over a 50-caliber round. The goal nowadays is "don't let them that close" just as the goal with the tanks is "don't let them behind you".Quote:
Fair enough. I called them training tanks because that's the reason they were developed according to the sources I cited. Since they were actually used extensively, it would be fair to say that they were more than training in fact, if not in intention.