DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Who watched good ole W last night?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 123, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/11/2007 09:07:35 PM · #26
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But at least I can come up with something that could be objectively counted as "success" for most of them.

Clinton: Budget Surplus
Bush 41: Persian Gulf War I went much better
Reagan: Won the Cold War
Carter: hmmm, that one's tougher, he did wear sweaters in the White House.

then I wasn't born and it gets foggier to me.


Carter's brother gave us Billy Beer!

And Reagan, while influential, mostly happened to be the president when the Cold War ended.
01/11/2007 09:33:37 PM · #27
More troops won't make any difference. We should have gone in and either taken the oilfields outright or else stationed ourselves to protect it and get it pumping. That's it. There is no other argument to be made for what interests of our nation are served by us invading Iraq - except for being in a position to invade Iran. They've blown their whole wad already, I really doubt Tehran is the next stop.

Freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator, even if what came afterwards was all sunshine and roses, provides very little benefit to the US. They have nothing to offer the world but oil. Is it a nice thing to do? Yeah. It's very noble. I personally believe bush is motivated by a feeling of moral obligation/divine mission. He calls democracy and liberty divine rights. He's done so many times. While those around him may be motivated by greed and the other usual concepts that fuel every single person in Washington, I really do believe Bush thinks he is doing God's work and that it will ultimately make the world a better place.

Worst president in history? No. But men of conviction either get written about as heroes or fools and it isn't looking like history is going to hand him a cape.

01/11/2007 09:42:22 PM · #28
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But at least I can come up with something that could be objectively counted as "success" for most of them.

Clinton: Budget Surplus
Bush 41: Persian Gulf War I went much better
Reagan: Won the Cold War
Carter: hmmm, that one's tougher, he did wear sweaters in the White House.

then I wasn't born and it gets foggier to me.


Clinton : Oval Office Blow Jobs, Semolia
Bush 41 : Read my lips, No new taxes!
Reagan : Reaganomics, Iran Contra
Carter : Wore sweaters in the whitehouse

01/11/2007 09:46:52 PM · #29
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Are any war-time presidents ever popular?




I wonder how much of a hit he would have taken (as well as Truman) had they ran that little war in the internet age where everyone can debate ad nauseum the dropping of the two atom bombs, the Japanese civilian camps in America, the conspiracy involving Pearl Harbor, etc, etc.

Message edited by author 2007-01-11 21:47:33.
 01/11/2007 09:47:46 PM · #30
Yes Leroy, I certainly didn't say those prezzes didn't have their issues as well. They did, as probably all presidents. But at least I can come up with something substantially positive.

I think, Spazmo, that Reagan probably was an instrumental part in ending the Cold War. He basically spent the Russians to death. And although this did do harm to our country (defecit), it did more harm to the USSR and thus it fell. The Cold War, I believe, also "officially" ended when the Berlin Wall came down and that was in '89 so Bush 41 was the actual president for the "end" of the Cold War.

01/11/2007 09:52:30 PM · #31
I haven't figure out if the fall of the USSR is actually a good thing... at least then we mostly knew who our enemies were and that they were as scared of war with us as we were of them. Sometimes it's good to have big, powerful enemies.
 01/11/2007 09:58:58 PM · #32
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I haven't figure out if the fall of the USSR is actually a good thing... at least then we mostly knew who our enemies were and that they were as scared of war with us as we were of them. Sometimes it's good to have big, powerful enemies.


Don't we have one in Al Qaeda? Besides, fighting the Soviets indirectly wasn't exactly a picnic either. Heck, other than Grenada we've sucked at winning wars ever since WWII.

ETA: Well I guess Gulf War was a victory.

Message edited by author 2007-01-11 22:01:34.
 01/11/2007 10:20:25 PM · #33
Originally posted by yanko:

Don't we have one in Al Qaeda? Besides, fighting the Soviets indirectly wasn't exactly a picnic either.


As far as I know, we didn't train Russian pilots to fly Migs. But we did train several Al Qaeda just enough to fly planes into buildings.
 01/12/2007 12:16:28 AM · #34
The Brits gave the Soviets one of the first jet engines used in the Mig as I recall.
 01/12/2007 12:29:59 AM · #35
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Carter: hmmm, that one's tougher, he did wear sweaters in the White House.

then I wasn't born and it gets foggier to me.

Carter taught us that a president can pronounce "nuclear."

(I believe that besides being a peanut farmer he was an engineer on nuclear submarines in the Navy.)
 01/12/2007 12:31:51 AM · #36
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I haven't figure out if the fall of the USSR is actually a good thing... at least then we mostly knew who our enemies were and that they were as scared of war with us as we were of them. Sometimes it's good to have big, powerful enemies.


Don't we have one in Al Qaeda? Besides, fighting the Soviets indirectly wasn't exactly a picnic either.

I suppose that's why we paid/armed the Taliban and a certain Mr. bin Laden to fight them for us.
 01/12/2007 12:50:11 AM · #37
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I suppose that's why we paid/armed the Taliban and a certain Mr. bin Laden to fight them for us.


From Wikipedia
However, Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, refuted Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:
The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.
 01/12/2007 01:06:48 AM · #38
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I suppose that's why we paid/armed the Taliban and a certain Mr. bin Laden to fight them for us.


From Wikipedia
However, Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, refuted Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:
The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.


Reagrdless of being known by the CIA or not, bin Laden was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets and the US pumped billions of dollars into weaponry for the Afghans. Most of the training operations in Afghanistan itself were carried out by Pakistani operatives working with the US.

Given the amount of arms and ordinance the US flooded Afghanistan with to help the Afghans fight the Soviets, it's not at all unlikely that bin Laden used a weapon and ammunition supplied by the US and was trained by someone working with the US.
 01/12/2007 01:08:27 AM · #39
Originally posted by yanko:

I wonder how much of a hit he would have taken (as well as Truman) had they ran that little war in the internet age where everyone can debate ad nauseum the dropping of the two atom bombs, the Japanese civilian camps in America, the conspiracy involving Pearl Harbor, etc, etc.


(I took the chart out just for space, but that was there, in the quote, as well).

We were talking about this the other day. I know that it seems that politics are generally considered corrupt and dishonest, but I sincerely wonder if it was worse "back then" or better. We assume better because of history and reports, etc. Honestly, had Roosevelt been carrying on like Clinton, we probably never would have known about it.

Consider rationing in WWII. (and yes, this is an American-centric post). From accounts I've read and heard, the government said, "You need to give up X, Y, and Z for the cause." The people did and felt good about it.

Now, if they said that, there would be an uproar of unconceivable magnitude, because within minutes of the announcement, (or even before, see an earlier rant on "unauthorized announcements), thinktanks around the country would be posting on the Internet and other media about how there were ways around it, and it wasn't really necessary.

I read an article about how Bush spent Christmas at his ranch. When Clinton was having a procedure for his heart (I think that was it) not too long back, we were right there with him when he went in and when he came out. Heck, we almost know when Mr. President is constipated and irregular. There is that much information out there. (Okay, the the constipated part *might* be hyperbole).

If the two events were "switched" it would be interesting to see the different perceptions in the wars and politicians.
 01/12/2007 01:11:08 AM · #40
Well, luckily he's not my president, but because our Prime Minister loves the smell of his bum I guess in a way he is! What a mistake he made and now in my opinion he's making another one. But, how can he cut and run from the mess that is Iraq now? But from what I'm reading today he's stirring the pot with Iran and Syria again. Doesn't he ever learn?
01/12/2007 01:12:19 AM · #41
Hey, shouts out to our colony across the pond!
 01/12/2007 01:13:28 AM · #42
Originally posted by Makka:
Doesn't he ever learn?


That would require thought, and both of W's brain cells are busy.
 01/12/2007 01:27:29 AM · #43
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Makka:
Doesn't he ever learn?


That would require thought, and both of W's brain cells are busy.


Bwuhahahaha....he has that many?? I thought he just shared one with our Prime Minister! ;)
 01/12/2007 02:56:08 AM · #44
Anyway, they ALL have their ups and down of presidency. And has been pointed out, it is likely that Roosevelt would not fair so well in the Internet age.

I kinda think that the next "good" or popular president will be one that grew up "jacked-in" and knows how to handle it, much in the way that many people liked Kennedy because he was good on TV.

Remember, when Kennedy ran against Richard Nixon that he won America in the debates because he was good on TV, whereas Nixon seemed tense. Nixon did not wear make-up during the debate unlike Kennedy. The debates are considered a political landmark: the point at which the medium of television played an important role in politics.

I see history repeating itself ...and likely the internet will prove MORE valuable than television, because the power to publish is in the hands of the people.

Message edited by author 2007-01-12 02:58:14.
 01/12/2007 03:04:58 AM · #45
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Remember, when Kennedy ran against Richard Nixon that he won America in the debates because he was good on TV, whereas Nixon seemed tense.


You're 34 right? Wasn't that a bit before your time?
 01/12/2007 03:08:56 AM · #46
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Remember, when Kennedy ran against Richard Nixon that he won America in the debates because he was good on TV, whereas Nixon seemed tense.


You're 34 right? Wasn't that a bit before your time?


Yeah, but I have an obsession with any president that boinked Marylin Monroe :-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-12 03:09:18.
 01/12/2007 07:28:19 AM · #47
This is unusual. 45 posts and not one person talking about spreading freedom in the Middle East, or fighting the 'terrorists' in Iraq so you won't have to fight them in the US...
01/12/2007 09:40:29 AM · #48
the same threat of terrorism at home is here whether we fight a war in iraq or not. we are not safer today than we were before 9/11. Bush just uses that day to justify everything he wants to do. Bin laden and afganistan were responsible for 9/11 so we attacked Iraq.

Bush is not doing "god's work" he is doing work to make his friends and family rich and powerful. He has no altruistic motives whatsoever. He can't bring peace to the middle east, no one can. They have been living in tribal/sectarian war for a long time. This is what they believe and how they live. You cannot change the ideology of a region by accupying it with troops. Besides that, the only thing everyone involved w/ the violence agrees on is that the US shouldn't be there.

Can you imagine what would happen if an occupying nation came to the US to change our constitution and political structure? Do you think we would lay down and give up our way of life?
01/12/2007 09:59:11 AM · #49
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Can you imagine what would happen if an occupying nation came to the US to change our constitution and political structure? Do you think we would lay down and give up our way of life?


Pretty weak argument. What correlation is there between US society and Iraq under Sadaam?
 01/12/2007 10:24:19 AM · #50
exact similarities, none.

What I am trying to get at is that bush is attempting to change the way people think in that region. he is trying to get them to accept our type of democracy. Changing peoples beliefs is no easy task, and who is he to even attempt something like that.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 06:17:14 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 06:17:14 PM EDT.