George W. Bush - on par with Monroe and FDR?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Stokes Pennwalt, Feb 14, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 1 of 2
  1. Stokes Pennwalt

    Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm

    It's an op-ed, but an apt synopsis. I keep saying Dubya's greatest strength is people misunderestimating him as an aloof retard.
     
    Stokes Pennwalt, Feb 14, 2004
    #1

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Undecided

    Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Bush is an aloof retard, it is cabal around him that make the decisions. The real brains is Cheney.
     
    Undecided, Feb 14, 2004
    #2

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rappaccini

    Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    How can you tell?
     
    Rappaccini, Feb 14, 2004
    #3

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jagger

    Jagger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    315
    I must admit Bush just floored me with his brilliance and eloquence as Russert asked him a few simple questions.

    Then I look at the economy and the unending inconclusive wars and the tattered alliances and the hatred around the world and I just can't help but conclude Bush is another FDR....................duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
     
    Jagger, Feb 15, 2004
    #4
  8. Undecided

    Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    How can you tell?

    How can one tell? Listen to the man speak, he simply cannot comprehend issues like the tax cut and how disastrous it is. He has a cabal of men guiding his rule, Louis XIV, Reagan, Khrushchev are ppl who know who to pick as their advisors, and they are merely the figureheads, the squakbox for the real powers that be.
     
    Undecided, Feb 15, 2004
    #5
  9. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I'm not sure about Monroe, but I'd compare W to FDR and Wilson. And I don't mean that as a compliment.

    Wilson set the last Century off to a rocky start by lying to the American people and manipulating the USA into entering WWI, a war that was of no importance to us. Not only that, but he got us to enter on the side of England. That was amazing, since Americans had not yet forgiven England for the War of 1812, and since the 19th Century had filled the country with German immigrants who were well liked. (Perhaps it had something to do with their breweries.) As a result, Germany not only lost WWI but was utterly humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles. The result was ein Volk who were ready for ein Reich restored to its glory by ein Fuehrer. A Germany that was once again itching for war forced the USSR, which had been weathering the Great Depression rather well and might have proven whether or not communism was viable, to divert a huge chunk of its modest GNP into a war machine as it foresaw a repeat of Napoleon's valiant attempt to conquer Mother Russia.

    Then WWII began. Once again, the US had no really good reason to take sides. We had a lot of economic interests in Germany. (Remember that very few people had heard of the concentration camps and many of them found the reports so incredible that they discounted them as propaganda.) But FDR saw a war machine as a great way to pull the US out of the Great Depression. (Economists say it would have run its course by 1949, a few short years after the war ended, and without all those dead soldiers and relocated Japanese-Americans.)

    The USSR originally held to its peace treaty with Germany. They were no dummies, they could see which side was going to win. But they had no desire to be dragged into a fight against England, France, and the USA, so they changed sides. What a coup. They were now allies of the USA; FDR taught us to call Stalin "Uncle Joe." Who'd expect that as soon as the war ended we'd start persecuting our own communists?

    Japan had a grudge against us regarding the oil fields of Indonesia, but they were not about to attack us... until we suddenly were preoccupied on the European front. Bingo, thank Mr. Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor, and for making the USA the only country in history that ever deployed nuclear weapons in wartime -- against targets with collossal civilian populations.

    FDR died, the war ended. Truman was left holding the bag. He was more interested in ending segregation at home.

    With Japan defeated and no longer ruling China, and with Russian advisors ready to help, Mao seized power and turned China into the world's large communist, anti-American country. In just a few short years the balance of power had shifted and the Cold War, fueled by the nuclear arsenals that would not even exist were it not for the frantic research prompted by WWII, kept our white knuckles clenched for forty more years.

    During the Cold War, every country except the US, the USSR, and China, was nothing more than a pawn. We pushed them around like chess pieces and knocked them down when it suited us. The entire geography of the Mideast was redrawn by the Cold War as many of the Muslim nations accepted money and weapons from both sides, Israel was turned into a lone outpost of the US with enough arms to keep anybody from invading American soil, and India and Pakistan figured out how to make those keen nuclear weapons. The Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Taliban in Afghanistan were all put and kept in power with American support, to keep the Russians from expanding their sphere of influence. Which is political speak for "surrounding the USSR with American air bases while we won't even let them have tiny Cuba."

    Vietnam, which was still ruled by a France that had won WWI with Wilson's help, finally threw off the yoke, but after so many generations of European rule naturally turned to the model of Chinese communism for their future.

    Suddenly, as the 1980s drew to a close, communism collapsed. Some say Reagan had a lot to do with it and nominate him for greatness. I suppose adding a zero to the national debt and putting the country's entire future in jeopardy might have impressed the Soviet Bloc with our monomaniacal devotion to military spending, but their downfall was inevitable as their hospitals were running with no hot water, their citizens refused to bring children into such a depressing world, and a new generation of leaders seemed to pick up on our 1960s' slogan, "Question authority."

    At any rate the Cold War was over. Peace could rule the earth. China was still communist but seemed genuinely far more interested in economic growth than military adventures. Except of course for the Monster of the Mideast that the USA and the USSR had created during the Cold War. Many of the Muslim nations hated us. Israel had enough nukes to blow up the whole planet and didn't need any more of our help. Best thing to do was revert to the isolationist politics that had served us so well until we got crazy Woodrow Wilson in the White House, right?

    Right. Unfortunately the turn of the millennium saddled us with yet another President so overcome with hubris that he can't tell right from wrong. He thinks he can straighten out the Mideast. He thinks he can resolve ethnic and religious conflicts that were already ancient when our forefathers were stealing this country from its original inhabitants and repopulating it with slaves.

    We've got troops in Iraq, a country so strategically unimportant that it couldn't even beat Iran or even put a lid on its own brave Kurdish agitators. We've got military bases in Saudi Arabia: Christian armies in an area considered holy by Muslims. The same Saudi Arabia that financed and staffed 9/11. One third of the world's population is beginning to regard us as an imminent and powerful threat to its very way of life.

    This should have been the Century of Peace. Instead, we've got another President who is more interested in being remembered by history than in doing right by his constituents. This could be the Century of the Demise of the USA.

    Is this America's "Third Grand Strategy?" Gee, I suppose so, if you call Nazism "Germany's Grand Strategy" and communism "Russia's Grand Strategy."
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Feb 15, 2004
    #6
  10. 15ofthe19

    15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    Another ill-informed generalization. It gets tiresome, but I feel it's my duty to point out those that choose not to read.

    The most shocking part of your diatribe: The U.S. supported the Taliban? What sort of asshat statement is that?
     
    15ofthe19, Feb 15, 2004
    #7
  11. Tiassa

    Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,893
    Are ... are you serious?
     
    Tiassa, Feb 15, 2004
    #8
  12. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    During the Carter administration, the Soviet Union fomented unrest in Afghanistan by backing a collection of vaguely allied insurgent groups that eventually came to be known as the Northern Alliance. With plenty of weapons and advisors, it seemed likely that the N.A. would take control of Afghanistan and give the USSR one more buffer state.

    This was why Carter did something that the U.S. always bitches about when other countries do it: politicize the Olympics. Carter browbeat the U.S. athletes, who had put their souls into training for their chance at glory, into practicing bad sportsmanship and boycotting the Moscow Olympics. As a result when Los Angeles finally got to host the Olympics, the Kremlin browbeat all the Eastern Bloc athletes that everybody wanted to see (except Romania) into staying home and we were stuck with a multibillion dollar fizzle.

    In order to prevent a communist takeover of Afghanistan (gee, the Olympics boycott didn't seem to work, no wonder people say that Carter was no statesman), we cozied up to the fundamentalist movement, an easy way to win popular support in a Muslim Third World nation. With our weapons and advisors, this group, which eventually came to be known as the Taliban, routed the Northern Alliance and took control of the country.

    A "generalization"? Sure. How much detail can you cram into a SciForums post and expect anybody to read it?

    But "ill-informed?" Hardly. This is pretty recent history. Does everybody get their news from TV?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2004
    Fraggle Rocker, Feb 15, 2004
    #9
  13. otheadp

    otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    1) hindsite 20/20:
    US did not have that

    2) they had a more urgent threat on their hands which needed more attention (soviets)
     
    otheadp, Feb 15, 2004
    #10
  14. 15ofthe19

    15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    This is great stuff Fraggle. Next I suppose you'll tell us about the time Napoleon defeated Patton at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

    Dude. The Taliban didn't exist before 1994. The Soviets battle AGAINST the Northern Alliance. Ever heard of Massood?

    Geez man. You really should pick up a book from time to time.

    This is pretty hopeless.

    I'm thinking maybe T was right. This is a joke, right?
     
    15ofthe19, Feb 15, 2004
    #11
  15. Spyke

    Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    It's not that amazing that the US entered the war on the side of Britain and France. They were both considered friends of the US in the early 20th century. At that time most naval war plans were focusing on fighting the Japanese and Germans. In 1910 a senior American naval officer had embarassed the Taft administration, as well as angering the Kaiser, when he public stated that the US Navy would defend England, its friend, 'with its last drop of blood'. US-German relations had been troubled going back to the 1880s starting with the problems in the Samoan Islands, then the near conflict between Dewey and Diedrich in Manila Bay in 1898. Roosevelt had refused for several years to send US warships on port o' calls to Germany, while at the same time US warships were taking extended stops in British and French ports. The US was increasingly worried about German'y naval race with Britain, and its increasing imperialism under the Kaiser, mainly because it worried that Germany had a keen interest in establishing its presence in South America and the Caribbean, the US' backyard, and hands off to Europeans under the Monroe Doctrine, and because if Germany got a foothold there it would jeopardize the Panama Canal, which was under construction. Whether the US needed to get involved is one thing, but I don't think it can be said that the war was of no importance to the US. The US had plenty of reasons not to want Germany to be successful. And although it would have probably been very hard for Mexico, which was embroiled in its own problems, to have become involved against the US to get back the Southwest US, as Germany allegedly promised it if it would invade the US, it was still enough for Wilson to take serious and another reason not to want to see a German success.

    And honestly I don't really think that there is much merit to the idea that the US still held a grudge over the War of 1812 . There might be a few Americans here and there perhaps, but US-British relations had been pretty good since the end of that war. During Monroe's presidency the two nations established a commercial treaty, fixed the 49th Parallel as the permanent boundary with Canada, and set the joint rule of Oregon. The Monroe Doctrine could have been enforced unless the Royal Navy had not done it. There were certainly glitches in the relationship here and there over the century, as is the case with most international relationships, most notably Polk's threat of war over Oregon, but that was more for Northern consumption that British. But overall the relationship was pretty solid.
     
    Spyke, Feb 15, 2004
    #12
  16. Undecided

    Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    US support for the Taliban? LIES? No just routed in reality:

    Those same "founding fathers" are now known as Osama Bin Laden and other cadres of "freedom" that the US gave so much money too.

    Frontier Post -> US Promises Aid To Taliban For Anti-Drug Role:

    http://www.afghan-network.net/News/Archives/2001/a5.html

    http://verdade.no.sapo.pt/destruction/taliban_cia_opium.html

    Do enjoy....

    Oh we didn't see that coming...
     
    Undecided, Feb 15, 2004
    #13
  17. otheadp

    otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    Those same "founding fathers" are now known as Osama Bin Laden and other cadres of "freedom" that the US gave so much money too

    so the way you present it is that
    1) Raegan knew that this would happen (afghan mujahideen will cause 9/11 and other terror)
    2) he gave them support anyway
    3) america deserves what it's getting now because of the points above
    4) and therefore should not complain or try to stop al-Qaeda

    tell me if i'm getting this wrong
     
    otheadp, Feb 16, 2004
    #14
  18. 15ofthe19

    15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    This is too much.

    Even nico is getting in on the act. You might actually have a sense of humor after all nicky, what with those ridiculous links you posted.

    I'm working on a post that will suit you and FR. It's the story of how Davey Crockett was actually aiding the Mexican's. Great stuff. I call it "The Bizarro World History of Warfare".
     
    15ofthe19, Feb 16, 2004
    #15
  19. Undecided

    Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    so the way you present it is that

    I personally presented it as a "duh!" for the Reagan administration, and in the comic mode, because it was so damn funny. The US greatest faux Pas is the fact that she doesn’t look to the future, and is actually shocked when things like 9.11 happen.

    1) Raegan knew that this would happen (afghan mujahideen will cause 9/11 and other terror)

    Of course not, but maybe he did have psychics didn't he.

    2) he gave them support anyway

    ???

    3) america deserves what it's getting now because of the points above

    Karma mien friend, it's not nice.

    4) and therefore should not complain or try to stop al-Qaeda

    The US should pursue Al-Q all she wants, but she cannot win. The only way to win against them is not through war, but through dialogue (cliché?)

    tell me if i'm getting this wrong

    Would be shocking to tell you...yes?
     
    Undecided, Feb 16, 2004
    #16
  20. otheadp

    otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    The US greatest faux Pas is the fact that she doesn’t look to the future, and is actually shocked when things like 9.11 happen.
    nobody has the prophetic powers.
    the logic was that Afghans would be greatful for US aid -- as i'm sure they were. the Taliban does not represent Afghanistan's intentions.
    and the meaning of "Mujahideen" has been changed from "fighting the soviets" to "flying planes into buildings"

    she cannot win. The only way to win against them is not through war, but through dialogue
    dialogue with al-Qaeda :bugeye:
    what have you been putting into your peace pipe?
    have you read Osama's letter with the demands?


    america deserves what it's getting now because of the points above
    ----------
    Karma mien friend, it's not nice
    so you're basically saying yes...?
     
    otheadp, Feb 16, 2004
    #17
  21. Undecided

    Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    nobody has the prophetic powers.

    Well tell that to Nancy she sure thought ppl did.

    the logic was that Afghans would be greatful for US aid -- as i'm sure they were. the Taliban does not represent Afghanistan's intentions.

    Some Afghans were happy that the USSR was in there as well. Many of these "fighters" weren't even Afghani they were Fundi Arab's from the Arabian Peninsula. But of course the US didn't know right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    and the meaning of "Mujahideen" has been changed from "fighting the soviets" to "flying planes into buildings"

    Right...sadly you don't even know what the word means. Muhahideen means fighting against the enemies of Islam, at that time it was perceived as the USSR and the US agreed. Now it's the USA, and the US is shocked.

    dialogue with al-Qaeda :bugeye:

    With the people of the region, and having a pragmatic foreign policy in the region. Allow real freedom to reign not American dictatorships.

    so you're basically saying yes...?

    No what I said was Karma, that is if the US does wrong she has to expect wrong. Please go read...
     
    Undecided, Feb 16, 2004
    #18
  22. otheadp

    otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    dialogue with al-Qaeda
    -------
    With the people of the region
    you do realize al-Qaeda does not represent the Muslim street?
    the give the Muslim street a bad rap, but they do not represent it.

    No what I said was Karma, that is if the US does wrong she has to expect wrong
    don't be contradicting yourself.
    that's exactly what Karma means... "you get what you deserve"

    for fighting USSR, for helping afghanis resist soviet power, Karma would indicate that they deserve 9/11?

    u are a sick monkey man
     
    otheadp, Feb 16, 2004
    #19
  23. Undecided

    Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    you do realize al-Qaeda does not represent the Muslim street?

    WHAT! IS THIS TRUE! Obviously, you think you are smart or something? Anyways what dialogue does is it decreases support for Al Q and gives the US a better reputation of the streets. Not like the invading Viking look they sport today.

    the give the Muslim street a bad rap, but they do not represent it.

    But their hatred of the US does.


    don't be contradicting yourself.

    Where is the contradiction?

    that's exactly what Karma means... "you get what you deserve"

    Yes, and the US did not deserve 9.11?

    for fighting USSR, for helping afghanis resist soviet power, Karma would indicate that they deserve 9/11?

    For much more then just that, supporting Israel, supporting tyrannical dictatorships, and interfering in other countries affairs.

    u are a sick monkey man

    Who is the one who coined "monkey's" against Orthodox Jewry, or the one who calls Pals. Women "biological weapons?"
     
    Undecided, Feb 16, 2004
    #20
Page 1 of 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page