NationStates Jolt Archive

Sparked by another thread. Apparerntly, a very large number of Conservatives view Carter as the Worst President ever, while a group of Liberals view Dubya as the 666th incarnation of the Devil (thus making him UBER-evil)
So, I figured we could all use a thread where people can discuss and flame bait about the two Southern know-nothings. :p (No relation to the 19th century political party)

Background, courtesy Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

IMHO, the worst President will always be Harding.
However, if I had to choose between these two Christian fundamentalists (:)), I'd pick Carter. He was far too soft internationally, officially changed the anti-communist mantra of the government, and weakened the military. Domestically...well, what exactly did Carter accomplish? He strengthened enviormental regulations, which was fine given the horrible conditions of the 1970's, and founded the Department of Energy, but I'd rather take Bush's tax cuts and No Child Left Behind Act.

And, really.
Carter grew peanuts. You can't like a man who grows peanuts. :p

Sparked by another thread. Apparerntly, a very large number of Conservatives view Carter as the Worst President ever, while a group of Liberals view Dubya as the 666th incarnation of the Devil (thus making him UBER-evil)
So, I figured we could all use a thread where people can discuss and flame bait about the two Southern know-nothings. :p (No relation to the 19th century political party)

Background, courtesy Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

IMHO, the worst President will always be Harding.
However, if I had to choose between these two Christian fundamentalists (:)), I'd pick Carter. He was far too soft internationally, officially changed the anti-communist mantra of the government, and weakened the military. Domestically...well, what exactly did Carter accomplish? He strengthened enviormental regulations, which was fine given the horrible conditions of the 1970's, and founded the Department of Energy, but I'd rather take Bush's tax cuts and No Child Left Behind Act.

And, really.
Carter grew peanuts. You can't like a man who grows peanuts. :p

Don't forget, Carter thought the solution to our energy problems was to turn down the heat in our homes during the winter. :p He also did have a funny, drunk brother.

BTW:He was also against 1970's style car chases set to bongo music, as they are very wasteful.

Don't forget, Carter thought the solution to our energy problems was to turn down the heat in our homes during the winter. :p

BTW:He was also against 1970's style car chases set to bongo music, as they are very wasteful.



He could have shared his peanuts as an energy source :D

Aye, Harding is the worst, with Grant in a close second. I'd rank both Bush and Carter somewhere in midrange. Perhaps both below average, but still midrange.

All things bein equal, both men pick capabile assistants. Bush's policies seem likely not to embarrass us years down the road.

Domestically...

Carter:

Stagflation (Stagnant growth plus inflation rates in the double digits), double-digit Interest rates, Energy policy was half-arsed, including Executive order to end research into closing the Nuclear fuel-cycle.

Bush:
The 'Patriot' act.


Internationally:

Carter:
showed weakness and indecision to our enemies, walked out on the 1980 Olympics. Hostage Crisis, Afghanistan, Nicaragua falls to cuban and Soviet-backed Communists. Carter's policies emboldened anti-western militants and enabled Soviet attempts in the Middle East, Central and South America, Africa, and Europe. Carter was and is loved by everyone outside the U.S.

Bush:
Afghanistan (the American version), Iraq (ongoing).
Bush is hated worldwide, because he's a very scary man.

My view: Four years of Carter hurt the U.S. in ways we still haven't recovered from more than a quarter-century later, Carter-Era economic policies brought on the recessions and layoffs of the 1979 through 1983 period, and his environmental policies brought on a loto f the "Rust Belt" situation. His energy policy left U.S. producers twenty to thirty years behind the rest of the world technologically and forced the country to continue paying to keep obselete plants running well past their due date.

Bush: got us in a couple wars we would have probably been in anyway. Worst thing he's done, is Patriot Act.

I remember the Carter Years, I lived through them. They weren't good years. Jimmy Carter was the sole reason Ronald Reagan was elected, Twice (in '84, the Democrat nominee was Carter's number-two man, Mondale, who only picked up like three states in an electoral blowout of massive proportions.)

Domestically...

Carter:

Stagflation (Stagnant growth plus inflation rates in the double digits), double-digit Interest rates, Energy policy was half-arsed, including Executive order to end research into closing the Nuclear fuel-cycle.



Well said. The first business loan I took was during the Carter years. Seventeen percent at the local bank. Try and make money at that rate!

Carter did permanent harm to this country. He and his bright young reformer staff dressed in blue jeans, going to make a bright new America.

I have no doubt in my mind that 30 years from now, the present will be considered a dark time in American history.

I have no doubt in my mind that 30 years from now, the present will be considered a dark time in American history.
Elaborate. You can’t just make a statement like that and expect to be taken seriously.

Anyway, Johnson was the worst president ever. Carter may have ruined the economy, but Johnson elevated our involvement in Vietnam and caused the greatest tragedy thus far in this nation’s history. He turned that “police action” into his only little game of tactics. He wasn’t very good at it by the way.

Out of the two, Carter is worse. Though, Bush isn’t great either.

Anyway, Johnson was the worst president ever.
That spot is reserved for Warren G. Harding. As for Carter ruining the economy, you might want to think about how America is going to get out of the climbing $7.8 trillion debt Bush has given us.

That spot is reserved for Warren G. Harding. As for Carter ruining the economy, you might want to think about how America is going to get out of the climbing $7.8 trillion debt Bush has given us.

You are aware that over 5.5 trillion of that came from before Bush's term?

Furthermore, national debt is meaningless unless the rate of deficit growth is faster than the growth of the economy.

You are aware that over 5.5 trillion of that came from before Bush's term?

Furthermore, national debt is meaningless unless the rate of deficit growth is faster than the growth of the economy.

Okay, first 200+ years of USA = 5.5 trillion

Last 5 years = 2.3 trillion

think about that...

Okay, first 200+ years of USA = 5.5 trillion

Last 5 years = 2.3 trillion

think about that...

That's somewhat unimportant, because the actual dollar value doesn't mean anything. What's important is debt as % GDP.

The national debt ballooned to over 120% during the early 1940's and up until the end of the war. That would be over 20 trillion dollars in current terms. Roosevelt would have increased the debt by 200% through his new deal.

The debt as %GDP is falling again now that growth outstrips the deficit, and will continue to fall barring any considerable rise in spending or economic slowdown.

Okay, first 200+ years of USA = 5.5 trillion

Last 5 years = 2.3 trillion

think about that...
And most of that is from the wasteful spending during the cold war (yep, what a great investment those tank armies turned out to be :rolleyes: )

You are aware that over 5.5 trillion of that came from before Bush's term?

Furthermore, national debt is meaningless unless the rate of deficit growth is faster than the growth of the economy.

really (http://readythinkvote.com/vote_deficit.html)?

Debt held by Public (In billions)
1990 2,412
1991 2,689
1992 3,000
1993 3,248
1994 3,433
1995 3,604
1996 3,734
1997 3,772
1998 3,721
1999 3,632

2000 3,410
2001 3,320
2002 3,540
2003 3,913
2004 4,296
(2005 7,500)

last time I checked, 3.320 != 5.5

And most of that is from the wasteful spending during the cold war (yep, what a great investment those tank armies turned out to be :rolleyes: )
They would be if they were used right. :mad:

Elaborate. You can’t just make a statement like that and expect to be taken seriously.

Anyway, Johnson was the worst president ever. Carter may have ruined the economy, but Johnson elevated our involvement in Vietnam and caused the greatest tragedy thus far in this nation’s history. He turned that “police action” into his only little game of tactics. He wasn’t very good at it by the way.

Out of the two, Carter is worse. Though, Bush isn’t great either.

The tone of the thread wasn't particularly evidence-heavy, unlike others I've seen. So I decided th make a declarative statement and move on. I'll amplify why below.

1. Patriot Act. 30 years from now, this bit of legislation will likely be seen as a knee-jerk reaction that unwisely jeopardized some of our freedoms and privacy.

2. Iraq War. With cooler heads, observers from the future will at least point to the Diplomatic failings, the carelessness with money and question the timing.

3. The Country divided. While Carter was admittedly wishy-washy, his time wasn't particularly divisive as compared to the current era. Notice I am not saying that Washington and the coutry were not fractuous in Carter's time. I am just saying it is to a lesser extent.

4. Environment. The weakening of the EPA and partisan politics trumping science will not be overlooked. Science marches on, and warnings now will be fact in the future.

They would be if they were used right. :mad:
Yeah, let's just roll right across the Russians (ignoring the fact that the US knew that they couldn't stop the russians and would most likely have to go nuclear to halt the soviet spearheads)

Yeah, let's just roll right across the Russians (ignoring the fact that the US knew that they couldn't stop the russians and would most likely have to go nuclear to halt the soviet spearheads)
Did I say I wanted to kill Russians? They did a good enough job of that themselves.

Tank divisions would be good for a deterrent. We keep them here, guarding our own boarders (letting almost anyone in of course, just need something intimidating to make sure that immigrants register somewhere so we know who is in the country) and defending our own people, not rusting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, or Japan.

Did I say I wanted to kill Russians? They did a good enough job of that themselves.

Tank divisions would be good for a deterrent. We keep them here, guarding our own boarders (letting almost anyone in of course, just need something intimidating to make sure that immigrants register somewhere so we know who is in the country) and defending our own people, not rusting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, or Japan.
Yep, let's deploy the second fucking armored to the borders. Never mind that the army can't be used as a police force without the explicit approval of the state. Never mind that they'd have no authority at all (that's what a border patrol is for...).

Yep, let's deploy the second fucking armored to the borders. Never mind that the army can't be used as a police force without the explicit approval of the state. Never mind that they'd have no authority at all (that's what a border patrol is for...).
Give them to the boarder patrol then. The army sure isn’t using them productively.

Those American armored divisions rolled over Iraq pretty darn well.

Give them to the boarder patrol then. The army sure isn’t using them productively.
I'd rather have the money back, thank you very much.

really (http://readythinkvote.com/vote_deficit.html)?

Debt held by Public (In billions)
1990 2,412
1991 2,689
1992 3,000
1993 3,248
1994 3,433
1995 3,604
1996 3,734
1997 3,772
1998 3,721
1999 3,632

2000 3,410
2001 3,320
2002 3,540
2003 3,913
2004 4,296
(2005 7,500)

last time I checked, 3.320 != 5.5


and last time i checked, budget deficit does not equal national debt...
Try here (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm) for debt by year since the 1950s... and sure enough, 5.6 trillion came from before 2000.

And here's one more for you conspiracy theorists who don't believe anything the government says: the debt clock. (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html)

I'd rather have the money back, thank you very much.
Don’t think that’s going to happen. No way we could get the same money back for used goods bought years ago, what with ware and tare, inflation, and the fact that nobody but dangerous dictates would want them. Might as well use them for something.
Fighting Ducaci anyone? (Futurerama reference)
Those American armored divisions rolled over Iraq pretty darn well.
I wouldn’t call that productive, but I’m just a crazy non-interventionist.

I wouldn’t call that productive, but I’m just a crazy non-interventionist.
While I am somewhat libertarian economically, I generally support a kick*** foreign policy. :p

Carter is by far the worst of these two presidents.

The military was in shambles and our foreign policy stunk. He did nothing economically and we became a joke.

Bush took the bull by the horns when we were attacked and took it right to the enemy. The Middle East does respect strength. We were losing our strength in the Middle East because we weren't doing anything there now we are doing something there and the Middle East (privately at least) is once again respecting us (as I said, privately)

Bush also helped the military out by giving us a pay raise that was desperately needed and he gave everyone tax cuts. Our economy is growing once again and is not in a recession nor a depression (Despite with the liberal wing of the democratic party tries to spew).

Bush also helped the military out by giving us a pay raise that was desperately needed and he gave everyone tax cuts. Our economy is growing once again and is not in a recession nor a depression (Despite with the liberal wing of the democratic party tries to spew).

The economic data has been outstanding recently. I'm looking forward to a great payroll report this Friday. The Nasdaq's at 4-year highs, and could make a run to 2,800-3,000 if tech continues to perform well.

Those American armored divisions rolled over Iraq pretty darn well.

What you mean the burned out husk left by the constant bombings? Those tanks did next to nothing when did you hear about the tanks doing any damage to anyone?

The economic data has been outstanding recently. I'm looking forward to a great payroll report this Friday. The Nasdaq's at 4-year highs, and could make a run to 2,800-3,000 if tech continues to perform well.

So I'm given to understand judging by all the reports that I've been hearing.

Bush took the bull by the horns when we were attacked and took it right to the enemy. The Middle East does respect strength. We were losing our strength in the Middle East because we weren't doing anything there now we are doing something there and the Middle East (privately at least) is once again respecting us (as I said, privately)

Bush also helped the military out by giving us a pay raise that was desperately needed and he gave everyone tax cuts. Our economy is growing once again and is not in a recession nor a depression (Despite with the liberal wing of the democratic party tries to spew).

First off, the Middle East is respecting us more for bombing the shit out of countries much weaker than us? Seems to me that they still think we suck just as much.

Also you will note that Bush both gave the military a pay raise while giving everybody a tax cut. If you are going to cut taxes you have to decreases, not increase spending.

So I'm given to understand judging by all the reports that I've been hearing.

It's been amazing. In March/April, oil was going to cause stagflation, the economy was slowing, and a new bear market was "inevitable". Now, it's turned around and stocks are at new highs, inflation is tame, and GDP booming (that 3.4% headline number was knocked down 2.6% by inventories). We'll see 4% plus growth next quarter as inventories refill.

First off, the Middle East is respecting us more for bombing the shit out of countries much weaker than us? Seems to me that they still think we suck just as much.

No because we showed them that we are no longer going to be pushed around by dictators and terrorists. We're actually going to do something about it and this we have done.

Also you will note that Bush both gave the military a pay raise while giving everybody a tax cut. If you are going to cut taxes you have to decreases, not increase spending.

Yes I know that Bush gave those in uniform a pay raise and they'll take home more of that thanks to the tax cuts. The more money people have, the more their going to spend and thus increase the economy! Jee what a novel idea.

Don't forget, Carter thought the solution to our energy problems was to turn down the heat in our homes during the winter. :p He also did have a funny, drunk brother.


Because, of course, conserving energy is such a horrible idea. Also if you want to talk about relatives I think your party is just as full as ours. Especially with Lincoln's wife having been abusive of him.

Also you will note that Bush both gave the military a pay raise while giving everybody a tax cut. If you are going to cut taxes you have to decreases, not increase spending.

Not if you can afford the deficits. Our economy is growing faster than the deficits, so we are in fact gaining ground on our national debt even as the number valuse increases.

That being said, we can't waste money. That Medicare benefit was nothing more than a big government disaster.

It's been amazing. In March/April, oil was going to cause stagflation, the economy was slowing, and a new bear market was "inevitable". Now, it's turned around and stocks are at new highs, inflation is tame, and GDP booming (that 3.4% headline number was knocked down 2.6% by inventories). We'll see 4% plus growth next quarter as inventories refill.

And thus we'll have more products to buy and increase our economy more :D

No because we showed them that we are no longer going to be pushed around by dictators and terrorists. We're actually going to do something about it and this we have done.



Yes I know that Bush gave those in uniform a pay raise and they'll take home more of that thanks to the tax cuts. The more money people have, the more their going to spend and thus increase the economy! Jee what a novel idea.

Nevermind all those dictators in Africa and the Vietnamese or the fact that Bush has been quoted saying that he isn't concerned about Bin Laden because now they know we'll attack! Like we didn't do that earlier.

Those tax dollars will really help the japanese when you buy a new television or dvd player that was made in Japan because it's such high quality

And thus we'll have more products to buy and increase our economy more :D

It's going to keep getting better. Companies are starting to spend again, pumping money in to the economy and hiring new workers, who spend their money on products and keep the economy moving. We'll see unemployment move below 5% by the end of the year at latest, and probaby by October.

Nevermind all those dictators in Africa and the Vietnamese or the fact that Bush has been quoted saying that he isn't concerned about Bin Laden because now they know we'll attack! Like we didn't do that earlier.

What? You call a petty ass cruise missile strike an attack? Please! That's nothing. This time though, we did do something and now they know we will no longer be pushed around by anyone.

Those tax dollars will really help the japanese when you buy a new television or dvd player that was made in Japan because it's such high quality

And the Japanese buy our products (tons of tech products like semiconductors and servers), our treasury bonds, and our equities. They hire people in the US to operate their US establishments and investments. We may buy more, but we get more in return outside of the trade deficit.

It's going to keep getting better. Companies are starting to spend again, pumping money in to the economy and hiring new workers, who spend their money on products and keep the economy moving. We'll see unemployment move below 5% by the end of the year at latest, and probaby by October.

Yep. So much for Bush is harmful to the economy crap that Im still hearing from the liberal elite.

That'll be headline news when we do dip below 5.0% and I'll be dancing in the streets when that happens.

What? You call a petty ass cruise missile strike an attack? Please! That's nothing. This time though, we did do something and now they know we will no longer be pushed around by anyone.

You see us attacking the Vietnamese like we did the Iraqis despite the fact we know they have WMDs? Of course not because we actually KNOW they ave them. Yeah we won't be pushed around by anuone unless they have nukes.

Yep. So much for Bush is harmful to the economy crap that Im still hearing from the liberal elite.

That'll be headline news when we do dip below 5.0% and I'll be dancing in the streets when that happens.

Just who pray tell is this "liberal elite" of which you speak?

From the civilised world's point of view,

Carter was the best possible

warden

for the all of 300

(or at the time just 240) million

indwellers of the Madhouse Yankistan,

a.k.a. the USofA.

Yep. So much for Bush is harmful to the economy crap that Im still hearing from the liberal elite.
That'll be headline news when we do dip below 5.0% and I'll be dancing in the streets when that happens.

Yes, those McDonald's jobs must be handing out raises all over; personal income grew by 0.5% last month, a solid performance to say the least.

Oh, and inflation's only 1.9% year over year.

And the Japanese buy our products (tons of tech products like semiconductors and servers), our treasury bonds, and our equities. They hire people in the US to operate their US establishments and investments. We may buy more, but we get more in return outside of the trade deficit.

Can you honestly say that the total amount of goods and services rendered to the Japanese to the US as compared to that of the US to Japan really has the US making money?

You see us attacking the Vietnamese like we did the Iraqis despite the fact we know they have WMDs? Of course not because we actually KNOW they ave them. Yeah we won't be pushed around by anuone unless they have nukes.

So I guess Hussein's constent violations of UN resolutions not to mention violating a cease-fire mean nothing to you? I guess the rape and torture rooms mean nothing to you? I guess the oppression of most of the Iraqi population means nothing to you?

No I thought not.

Can you honestly say that the total amount of goods and services rendered to the Japanese to the US as compared to that of the US to Japan really has the US making money?

One word:

YES

Just who pray tell is this "liberal elite" of which you speak?

Dean
Daschel
Kennedy
Reid
Gore
Kerry
Pelosi

There are more but this should suffice for now

Yes, those McDonald's jobs must be handing out raises all over; personal income grew by 0.5% last month, a solid performance to say the least.

I agree 100%

Oh, and inflation's only 1.9% year over year.

:eek:

So I guess Hussein's constent violations of UN resolutions not to mention violating a cease-fire mean nothing to you? I guess the rape and torture rooms mean nothing to you? I guess the oppression of most of the Iraqi population means nothing to you?

No I thought not.

Nevermind all those dictators in Africa and the Vietnamese or the fact that Bush has been quoted saying that he isn't concerned about Bin Laden because now they know we'll attack! Like we didn't do that earlier.


Do you know why the people of America really considered going to war with Hussein? WMDs. Saying the other things that happened is pointless because weare letting it happen other places without batting an eyelash. Nice Strawman though.

One word:

YES

I was asking Vetalia as he's the one with numbers, not you. Nice lack of proof by the way, the size of your words really makes up for it.

Dean
Daschel
Kennedy
Reid
Gore
Kerry
Pelosi

There are more but this should suffice for now

Wow you really can list those Democrats, but if you paid attention to what they actually care for instead of their party you would notcie that some of those names aren't exactly liberal.

Also since when did politician=elite? Does that mean that Trent Lott was one of the Republicans elite?

Do you know why the people of America really considered going to war with Hussein? WMDs. Saying the other things that happened is pointless because weare letting it happen other places without batting an eyelash. Nice Strawman though.

No strawman used. I know the reasons we were there. Primarily for WMD but also for humanitarian reasons as well. Something I guess you didn't hear when he made his speach to the assembly in September 2002 when he made his case on Iraq.

I was asking Vetalia as he's the one with numbers, not you. Nice lack of proof by the way, the size of your words really makes up for it.

The proof is in the reports that come out.

No strawman used. I know the reasons we were there. Primarily for WMD but also for humanitarian reasons as well. Something I guess you didn't hear when he made his speach to the assembly in September 2002 when he made his case on Iraq.



The proof is in the reports that come out.

No strawman? How about the fact that you ignored the fact that there are a number of dictators as evil, if not more so, than Saddam Hussein who America leaves alone? Don't try and say that I don't care about people when you ignore the fact that they exist in your hype over how good Bush is!

Also I say that reports have come out showing that the US has become Japan's econmic bitch, I won't provide any links but you better believe they exist.

Domestically...well, what exactly did Carter accomplish? He strengthened enviormental regulations, which was fine given the horrible conditions of the 1970's, and founded the Department of Energy, but I'd rather take Bush's tax cuts and No Child Left Behind Act.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you counting NCLB as a good thing? Try asking a teacher what he or she thinks of it and odds are you'll hear rather a different response. (Doubt me? I live in a red area of a red state and have talked to more than twenty teachers about it. They ALL hate it.)

No strawman? How about the fact that you ignored the fact that there are a number of dictators as evil, if not more so, than Saddam Hussein who America leaves alone?

Nope! I didn't ignore that fact. However, I do know that Saddam violated more UN Resolutions than the other ones have.

Don't try and say that I don't care about people when you ignore the fact that they exist in your hype over how good Bush is!

:rolleyes: Well you are opposed to the Iraq war so what makes me believe that you'll support action in another country?

Also I say that reports have come out showing that the US has become Japan's econmic bitch, I won't provide any links but you better believe they exist.

Since I haven't seen anything to that regard, I know your lying. Besides that, Japan is in an economic resession (but are coming out of it) so.....

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you counting NCLB as a good thing? Try asking a teacher what he or she thinks of it and odds are you'll hear rather a different response. (Doubt me? I live in a red area of a red state and have talked to more than twenty teachers about it. They ALL hate it.)

Yep, and most teachers (at least the ones I've ran into) are democrats. Alwell that they actually have to do their jobs and are finally being held accountable. That's a start. Now we need to begin to refine it.

What you mean the burned out husk left by the constant bombings? Those tanks did next to nothing when did you hear about the tanks doing any damage to anyone?
Prior to 1991, the Iraqi army was "respectable." And, after a few engagments which left Republican Guard T-72s in shambles, Iraqi commanders came to fear the M1A1 a lot more than the F-16.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you counting NCLB as a good thing? Try asking a teacher what he or she thinks of it and odds are you'll hear rather a different response. (Doubt me? I live in a red area of a red state and have talked to more than twenty teachers about it. They ALL hate it.)

I have also yet to meet a teacher who likes it. Many of the mandates are horribly underfunded, but I still view the bill as a good thing; as far as we know, achievement gaps are decreasing and minorities are doing better.
And, after all, we are talking about reforming an education system on a NATIONAL level after the States let their systems go to hell. Nothing proposed off the bat is going to be perfect, but at least Bush is doing SOMETHING.

I have also yet to meet a teacher who likes it. Many of the mandates are horribly underfunded, but I still view the bill as a good thing; as far as we know, achievement gaps are decreasing and minorities are doing better.
And, after all, we are talking about reforming an education system on a NATIONAL level after the States let their systems go to hell. Nothing proposed off the bat is going to be perfect, but at least Bush is doing SOMETHING.
The No Child Left Behind Act is a bad thing because the federal government has no constitutional right to be involved in education at all. If we start allowing the government to ignore the checks put upon it, what will they do next? Violate the rights given to us in the fourth amendment? Oh, wait a second, they already have.

The No Child Left Behind Act is a bad thing because the federal government has no constitutional right to be involved in education at all. If we start allowing the government to ignore the checks put upon it, what will they do next? Violate the rights given to us in the fourth amendment? Oh, wait a second, they already have.
Gah, I never realized why education was a State right to being with.
NCLB is a, AFAIK, very limited infringement upon State's rights. It doesn't dictate any method of teaching, it just requires a certain minimum standard for every school in the nation.

I have also yet to meet a teacher who likes it. Many of the mandates are horribly underfunded, but I still view the bill as a good thing; as far as we know, achievement gaps are decreasing and minorities are doing better.
And, after all, we are talking about reforming an education system on a NATIONAL level after the States let their systems go to hell. Nothing proposed off the bat is going to be perfect, but at least Bush is doing SOMETHING.
Except the fundamental problem with the NCLBA (almost like NAMBLA :D ) is that it focuses on the worst of all the students. The brightest American minds in most areas we should pwn are middle of the pack in places like India or Japan. I'm not saying that the worst students don't deserve attention, they deserve a lot of attention, but the smart kids being neglected and the huge potential for greatness goes uninspired. There are high standard schools and classes throughout the nation, but NCLBA gives them a pass and focuses on the stupid kids. Where the smart can get smarter, they stay the same, whereas the dumb kids stay the same as well because 1) Most lack motivation to achieve because of 2) Family is dysfunctional and they may need to take care of younger siblings and work instead of go to school 3) Some people just can't change.

And in thinking about it, I find it sort of hypocritical how Republicans focus on the poor students, and neglect the top of the class students, while they focus on top of the class income and neglect poor families. Just a random thought. :D

Gah, I never realized why education was a State right to being with.
NCLB is a, AFAIK, very limited infringement upon State's rights. It doesn't dictate any method of teaching, it just requires a certain minimum standard for every school in the nation.
But once you let them start violating the constitution they will only do it more and more, until the constitution is no longer the highest law in the land, but the rough rarely followed guideline of a semi-authoritarian government. Oh, wait a second…

*snip*
Aye. NCLB doesn't go NEARLY far enough in solving our educational woes(like the lack of motivation among the actually intelligent *grumble*), but, as Undelia pointed out, Bush, nor any other President, can legally solve them.

The way education is planned in America (local level planning, local level funding), we will need a massive grass roots effort to restore integrity to the school system.


Any volunteers? :D

But once you let them start violating the constitution they will only do it more and more, until the constitution is no longer the highest law in the land, but the rough rarely followed guideline of a semi-authoritarian government. Oh, wait a second…
Now, now. This isn't any more a police state than when Adams I left office.
And we can always add an amendment that allows for the federalization of the school system.
Maybe Bush can spend his second term doing that...

Yep, and most teachers (at least the ones I've ran into) are democrats. Alwell that they actually have to do their jobs and are finally being held accountable. That's a start. Now we need to begin to refine it.

Oh for heaven's sake.

You can't seriously believe that most teachers care more about whether an educational bill was put in place by someone of the opposite political party than about how it affects their ability to teach.

(And you might want to read the caveat on my post. Red area. Red state. Many of the teachers I've talked to think Bush is fabulous - but they ALL hate NCLB.)

The way education is planned in America (local level planning, local level funding), we will need a massive grass roots effort to restore integrity to the school system.
Or as dubya likes to say "let's man the grass roots!"

Nope! I didn't ignore that fact. However, I do know that Saddam violated more UN Resolutions than the other ones have.



:rolleyes: Well you are opposed to the Iraq war so what makes me believe that you'll support action in another country?



Since I haven't seen anything to that regard, I know your lying. Besides that, Japan is in an economic resession (but are coming out of it) so.....

You know if you are going to ignore the fact that the UN didn't okay the second invasion then you can't use their mandates as justification.

Who said I was opposed to the Iraq war? I am oppossed to the people who think Bush was right in starting it the way he did. Meaning that he wasn't patient enough to actually find out if Saddam had WMDs before invading and that was the primary reason for invading. Now apologists are saying that we deposed a dictator whichwas what it was about, nevermind the huge number of other dictatorships we haven't done anything about.

Just because a country is in a recession doesn't mean it is doing poorly, only that it isn't doing as well as it was. Also I havent seen any reports to back up what you are saying about the trade deficet, so I get to think you are lieing.

No strawman? How about the fact that you ignored the fact that there are a number of dictators as evil, if not more so, than Saddam Hussein who America leaves alone? Don't try and say that I don't care about people when you ignore the fact that they exist in your hype over how good Bush is!

Also I say that reports have come out showing that the US has become Japan's econmic bitch, I won't provide any links but you better believe they exist.
Touching most of africa is a dicey proposition at best. We would have been perfectly willing to go in with Nato to take out the janjaweed in Sudan but those damned French and chinese put a stop to that. Can you guess why, that's right, oil interests. As for the rest of africa, you'd bitch about imperialism if we did and it would be an extreme strain on our current resources. Really not worth the time or effort in the current political climate. As for the North Koreans(not the vietnamese) If we wanted to sacrifice anywhere between 500,000 to 2 million innocent South Korean civilians within the first 2 weeks of a confrontation sure we'd take them out. However that could probably be considered a BAD THING. Just a tad mind you.

Yep, and most teachers (at least the ones I've ran into) are democrats. Alwell that they actually have to do their jobs and are finally being held accountable. That's a start. Now we need to begin to refine it.

Have you ever thought that there is a reason for most teachers being democrats? You say that they should be held accountable for their teaching styles, but how can they change a student's living conditions/minds especally with the severe amount of underfunding and underpayment in the Education Department. Teachers arguably do the most important job in America but if one of their kids or a group of them decide they aren't going to do shit the teacher is powerless to do anything about it. I have only seen one teacher who didn't really care about his students and that is because he had a degree in physics or somesuch and yet he was teaching "advanced math" (AKA easy cop-out math course for seniors). So don't give me this "they will be held accountable" bullshit as they have been holding themselves accountable for a long time.

Touching most of africa is a dicey proposition at best. We would have been perfectly willing to go in with Nato to take out the janjaweed in Sudan but those damned French and chinese put a stop to that. Can you guess why, that's right, oil interests. As for the rest of africa, you'd bitch about imperialism if we did and it would be an extreme strain on our current resources. Really not worth the time or effort in the current political climate. As for the North Koreans(not the vietnamese) If we wanted to sacrifice anywhere between 500,000 to 2 million innocent South Korean civilians within the first 2 weeks of a confrontation sure we'd take them out. However that could probably be considered a BAD THING. Just a tad mind you.

Meh it is late and one communism looks much like the other. However you say that those dictators in Africa "weren't worth it" yet Saddam was! Why was he so much more important?

Edit: Since when has Amerca caredabout what the French wanted?

Meh it is late and one communism looks much like the other. However you say that those dictators in Africa "weren't worth it" yet Saddam was! Why was he so much more important?

Edit: Since when has Amerca caredabout what the French wanted?
# 1, french and chinese, #2 we are stretched rather tight and unless it is of the utmost importance, other military conflict is to be postponed at this point. As for the invasion of Iraq, technically it was perfectly legal under international law. Going into africa is a whole nother can of worms.

So don't give me this "they will be held accountable" bullshit as they have been holding themselves accountable for a long time.
No they haven't. 4 people in my family are teachers, one elementary, one middle school, and 2 high school. All agree that there is way to much overspending and bullshit projects put forth both by the schools themselves and the unions. The problem is that not enough parents are involved and active enough so there is no incentive for the elected school board to change and the Union has just become another big business rather than serving the individual teachers and the betterment of the students.

# 1, french and chinese, #2 we are streched rather tight and unless it is of the utmost importance, other military conflict is to be postponed at this point. As for the invasion of Iraq, technically it was perfectly legal under international law. Going into africa is a whole nother can of worms.

Since the Cold War ended how much have we cared about the Chinese also this is more about justification, or lack thereof, than about legality. America went to Iraq because of WMDs and only after we found out that they don't exist is there a "we overthrew an evil dictator" spin to this. That spin is clearly a false justification given that we didn't invade those other countries. Am I saying we should have? No. However we can't say "we overthrew an evil dictator" as a reason for this war. Also, since when have we cared what the world thought of us?

While discussions about geopolitical relations in Africa are important, I'd really like it if you guys stayed on topic in my first thread. :p At the very least, make a comparsion to Carter's foreign policy in your posts.

No they haven't. 4 people in my family are teachers, one elementary, one middle school, and 2 high school. All agree that there is way to much overspending and bullshit projects put forth both by the schools themselves and the unions. The problem is that not enough parents are involved and active enough so there is no incentive for the elected school board to change and the Union has just become another big business rather than serving the individual teachers and the betterment of the students.

However NCLB puts greater pressure on individual teachers while not offering any sort of rewards. don't know about where you are from, but over here some of the departments have to do fundraisers to get supplies. The only wastes of money I've really seen are they new schools they've been building that can't hold all the students on the year they open due to the architect being an idiot.

While discussions about geopolitical relations in Africa are important, I'd really like it if you guys stayed on topic in my first thread. :p At the very least, make a comparsion to Carter's foreign policy in your posts.

Sorry about the off-topicness of all that but it happens. As far as Carter goes, he brought humanitarian idealism to the office which showed in his foreign policy, but which wasn't very effective. Let's face it the Soviets didn't care all that much about the Olympics.

You know if you are going to ignore the fact that the UN didn't okay the second invasion then you can't use their mandates as justification.

I guess you forgot the part of a violation of an approved cease-fire being violated? Yes we can use their past mandates as our case against Iraq because Iraq didn't comply with UN Resolutions as well as not complying with the Cease-Fire.

Who said I was opposed to the Iraq war? I am oppossed to the people who think Bush was right in starting it the way he did.

Samething. Are you for or against the Iraq war?

Meaning that he wasn't patient enough to actually find out if Saddam had WMDs before invading and that was the primary reason for invading. Now apologists are saying that we deposed a dictator whichwas what it was about, nevermind the huge number of other dictatorships we haven't done anything about.

Never mind the fact that Saddam was stonewalling inspection experts at every turn.

Just because a country is in a recession doesn't mean it is doing poorly, only that it isn't doing as well as it was. Also I havent seen any reports to back up what you are saying about the trade deficet, so I get to think you are lieing.

I didn't say anything about the trade deficit! I said our economy was growing at a rate not seen since the Reagan Administration. You have me confused with someone else.

Sorry about the off-topicness of all that but it happens. As far as Carter goes, he brought humanitarian idealism to the office which showed in his foreign policy, but which wasn't very effective. Let's face it the Soviets didn't care all that much about the Olympics.

Now would that be the 1980 Winter Games or the 1980 Summer Games? Sorry couldn't resist :p

I guess you forgot the part of a violation of an approved cease-fire being violated? Yes we can use their past mandates as our case against Iraq because Iraq didn't comply with UN Resolutions as well as not complying with the Cease-Fire.

Ooooh, he violated a ceasfire. Yeah like America was going to go to war over that. However since the UN is such a corrupt organization their Resolutions must be corrupt as well. The cease-fire had little to nothing to do with us going to war and you know it.

Samething. Are you for or against the Iraq war?

As we are in it I say we get it over with, but it is my belief that we shouldn't have started it.

Never mind the fact that Saddam was stonewalling inspection experts at every turn.

I remember Saddam doing that a few times before and him always giving in eventually.


I didn't say anything about the trade deficit! I said our economy was growing at a rate not seen since the Reagan Administration. You have me confused with someone else.

I asked if the Us was profiting off Japan or if Japan was profitting off the US and you said the US was profiting off of Japan by refering to some reports, either you misunderstood my original question or you are backing off from what you said earlier

I asked if the Us was profiting off Japan or if Japan was profitting off the US and you said the US was profiting off of Japan by refering to some reports, either you misunderstood my original question or you are backing off from what you said earlier

The US is profiting off of Japan, because they are increasingly preferring to establish manufacturing facilities and administrative offices in the US, where the labor costs are lower than those in Japan (outsourcing to the US).

We also sell them many of the components for their finished products (semiconductors, silicon wafers, computer peripherals, etc.) and provide the programming and assembly of these high tech components, which helps the US tech sector (at the expense of US auto manufacturing, a forward-thinking move)

Lastly, the products we import from Japan are usually of a higher quality and lower price, and so consumers can spend more money more efficently, which has a ripple effect on the other sectors of the economy. These products also increase worker productivity which in turn increases living standards, which leads to higher consumption.

Also, Japan has been economically in the tank ever since the Nikkei bubble burst and the insanely overpriced real estate market collapsed. Their economy is drug down by their incredible budget deficits, and their trade surplus is almost meaningless.

One more thing: Trade surpluses in developed economies can be a sign of economic weakness as well; the US had a surplus during the Great Depression.

Ooooh, he violated a ceasfire. Yeah like America was going to go to war over that. However since the UN is such a corrupt organization their Resolutions must be corrupt as well. The cease-fire had little to nothing to do with us going to war and you know it.

Actually, no your wrong there. It was even mentioned in the Joint Resolution of Congress that authorized the war. Ooops. I guess it did have something to do with that after all. Please..... And yes, the UN is a corrupt organization that has no respect for the oppression of other people. If it did, the UN would do something about it. I guess they don't since they're not doing anything at all.

As we are in it I say we get it over with, but it is my belief that we shouldn't have started it.

So you don't care that Saddam violated International Law? You don't care about the Mass Murders? The Torture Chambers? The Rape Rooms? No I guess not.

I remember Saddam doing that a few times before and him always giving in eventually.

And stonewalled again. You can't negotiate with an idiot like Hussein. It is impossible.

I asked if the Us was profiting off Japan or if Japan was profitting off the US and you said the US was profiting off of Japan by refering to some reports, either you misunderstood my original question or you are backing off from what you said earlier

Didn't do either. I guess you didn't understand the answer.

Actually, no your wrong there. It was even mentioned in the Joint Resolution of Congress that authorized the war. Ooops. I guess it did have something to do with that after all. Please..... And yes, the UN is a corrupt organization that has no respect for the oppression of other people. If it did, the UN would do something about it. I guess they don't since they're not doing anything at all.

You know what's funny about this country we live in? We only seem to be able to go to war when the people believe we should go to war, look at WW2 as an example, and the people wanted to go to war because of WMDs all other charges were just fluff until more recently when we found out those charges were bullshit.

So you don't care that Saddam violated International Law? You don't care about the Mass Murders? The Torture Chambers? The Rape Rooms? No I guess not.

We've already been down this road and you have yet to justify the fact that we don't do jack shit about the other dictators who do this to their people. So don't try foolish emotional/moral attacks because they are full of shit.

And stonewalled again. You can't negotiate with an idiot like Hussein. It is impossible.

You'll notice that Saddam has never been all there, maybe he just liked fucking with us? You say we can't negotiate yet that's just what we, and a number of oil companies, have been doing for years.

Didn't do either. I guess you didn't understand the answer.


Can you honestly say that the total amount of goods and services rendered to the Japanese to the US as compared to that of the US to Japan really has the US making money?


One word:

YES

What could be misunderstood on my part? You misunderstood the question, apparently.

You know what's funny about this country we live in? We only seem to be able to go to war when the people believe we should go to war, look at WW2 as an example, and the people wanted to go to war because of WMDs all other charges were just fluff until more recently when we found out those charges were bullshit.

With me, it was the humanitarian side was why I supported the war and not the WMD. With World War II, it took an attack on this country to galvanize the people to war otherwise, we wouldn't have gotten involved until much much later. Why? The people didn't want to go to war.

We've already been down this road and you have yet to justify the fact that we don't do jack shit about the other dictators who do this to their people. So don't try foolish emotional/moral attacks because they are full of shit.

So you don't care that Saddam violated International Law? You don't care about the Mass Murders? The Torture Chambers? The Rape Rooms? No I guess not. So I take it your not going to answer these questions?

You'll notice that Saddam has never been all there, maybe he just liked fucking with us?

Don't screw with the USA. Your going to get burned.

You say we can't negotiate yet that's just what we, and a number of oil companies, have been doing for years.

Oh? What US oil companies violated the oil embargo on Iraq? Tell me so I can boycott them.

What could be misunderstood on my part? You misunderstood the question, apparently.

Nope, You misunderstood that I have actually read the economic reports so my answer remains.

The US is profiting off of Japan, because they are increasingly preferring to establish manufacturing facilities and administrative offices in the US, where the labor costs are lower than those in Japan (outsourcing to the US).

We also sell them many of the components for their finished products (semiconductors, silicon wafers, computer peripherals, etc.) and provide the programming and assembly of these high tech components, which helps the US tech sector (at the expense of US auto manufacturing, a forward-thinking move)

Lastly, the products we import from Japan are usually of a higher quality and lower price, and so consumers can spend more money more efficently, which has a ripple effect on the other sectors of the economy. These products also increase worker productivity which in turn increases living standards, which leads to higher consumption.

Also, Japan has been economically in the tank ever since the Nikkei bubble burst and the insanely overpriced real estate market collapsed. Their economy is drug down by their incredible budget deficits, and their trade surplus is almost meaningless.

One more thing: Trade surpluses in developed economies can be a sign of economic weakness as well; the US had a surplus during the Great Depression.

I'm a little surprised that labor costs are lower in the US than in Japan given our abundance of Unions and what-not, but I can accept that.

However there is what appears to be an inconsistancy in your argument as we sell the Japanese parts for their products and they sell the finished products back to us, but these are of lower price than those we make at home despite our lower labor cost and less travel expense? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

And you can't really use the Great Depression as a measure for economies as pretty much everyone's economy sucked back then and we had those loans to the Europeans to consider.

With me, it was the humanitarian side was why I supported the war and not the WMD. With World War II, it took an attack on this country to galvanize the people to war otherwise, we wouldn't have gotten involved until much much later. Why? The people didn't want to go to war


So you don't care that Saddam violated International Law? You don't care about the Mass Murders? The Torture Chambers? The Rape Rooms? No I guess not. So I take it your not going to answer these questions?.

You wanted us to fight for Humanitarian reasons yet you don't want us to go after the other dictators who violate the human rights of their subjects? I am against all of these things as are most liberals, thus the "bleeding-heart" liberal label used by some conservatives, but if we are going to go after one guy for doing them we should go after them all.

Don't screw with the USA. Your going to get burned.

You say that shit and claim you are for humanitarian aid? Also it would seem to me that it was the UN not the US that was supposed to be investigating.



Oh? What US oil companies violated the oil embargo on Iraq? Tell me so I can boycott them.

I said the US and oil companies not necessarilly US oil companies, though it wouldn't surprise me if they did. The US oil embargo was a form of negotiation. Also how would you know if you are boycotting a certain company or not?



Nope, You misunderstood that I have actually read the economic reports so my answer remains.

And those reports can be found where? Again I say that that particular question wasn't even directed at you as Vetalia seems to have a greater access to/understanding of the actual numbers than you do.

You wanted us to fight for Humanitarian reasons yet you don't want us to go after the other dictators who violate the human rights of their subjects?

Care to show me where I've said that? Oh wait, I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say ok?

I am against all of these things as are most liberals, thus the "bleeding-heart" liberal label used by some conservatives, but if we are going to go after one guy for doing them we should go after them all.

Answer my question and stop giving me rhetoric. I guess you can't answer it since this is the third time I've asked and the third time you dodged.

You say that shit and claim you are for humanitarian aid? Also it would seem to me that it was the UN not the US that was supposed to be investigating.

And the UN have been stonewalled so many times and they did nothing that they made themselves a worthless organization. Now they are doing it again with Sudan. What are they doing in Sudan? Nothing! What did they do in Bosnia? Nothing. Why should the UN handle the world's problems when they don't even bother trying to solve the worlds problems?

I said the US and oil companies not necessarilly US oil companies, though it wouldn't surprise me if they did. The US oil embargo was a form of negotiation. Also how would you know if you are boycotting a certain company or not?

Ahh a small case of revisionist history. You do know that most people had an oil embargo on Iraq right? Until the UN decided in their ultimate wisdom to do oil for food and we saw how that turned out didn't we?

And those reports can be found where? Again I say that that particular question wasn't even directed at you as Vetalia seems to have a greater access to/understanding of the actual numbers than you do.

All you have to do is watch the news my brother. The reports are all over the daily news.

Care to show me where I've said that? Oh wait, I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say ok?



Answer my question and stop giving me rhetoric. I guess you can't answer it since this is the third time I've asked and the third time you dodged.

I don't see you clamoring for us to invade the Sudan or other places but you seem to want to defend our invasion because of the fact that we overthrew Saddam's oppression. Also I actually answered your questions however I will do so again to make it even more clear. I
nternational Law: We have violated International law as much as Saddam has throughout the years, but it is still wrong.
Mass Murders: See Trail of Tears and do you know of anyone for mass murders besides those commiting them?
Torture Chambers: I'm against torture as torture is a bad thing, but then again there was a prisoner abuse scandal
Rape Rooms: Um, ever heard of the things going on in our prisons? Also you have made claims against the "liberal elite" yet "liberals" are the most likely to find all of the aforementioned items deplorable, myself included.


And the UN have been stonewalled so many times and they did nothing that they made themselves a worthless organization. Now they are doing it again with Sudan. What are they doing in Sudan? Nothing! What did they do in Bosnia? Nothing. Why should the UN handle the world's problems when they don't even bother trying to solve the worlds problems?

If you are going to call them a worthless organization then you can't use their Resolutions to justify this war. Also you will note that the First Gulf War was fought with their approval and what-not. You know what I didn't see though? The US going into Bosnia and I doubt we'll mess with Sudan either.



Ahh a small case of revisionist history. You do know that most people had an oil embargo on Iraq right? Until the UN decided in their ultimate wisdom to do oil for food and we saw how that turned out didn't we?

Better revisionist history than nationalist history and Oil for Food looks good on paper (we get oil and they don't starve!) but it lacked in execution. Seems to me that you are doing some revising yourself.



All you have to do is watch the news my brother. The reports are all over the daily news.

You know funnily enough the local news says very little about the US-Japan economic comparison as it is more focused on local issues and major world/national events.

You are aware that over 5.5 trillion of that came from before Bush's term?

Furthermore, national debt is meaningless unless the rate of deficit growth is faster than the growth of the economy.


You mean rate of debt growth is faster than the rate of growth of the economy. Which it is.

In terms of foreign policy, both have fucked up. Carter caused the Iran Hostage Crisis and played pointless games of diplomacy such as boycotting the Olympics. (which, might I mention, was solved by a Republican President (just like Vietnam, which was made worse by a Dem and fixed by a Rep)). Bush slightly less, because he was willing to go after people who threatened and attacked us. However, he did it the wrong way and with the wrong reasons.

Domestically, Carter was worse by far. As has been mentioned, stagflation, pointless energy regulations, etc. Bush has made many mistakes, no question, but they aren't nearly as bad as Carter. As was mentioned before, the economy is recovering under Bush, whereas the Carter economy was on a constant downslide.

And besides, oil makes cars go, and some people are allergic to peanuts. Therefore, there's another reason why peanuts are worse than oil. :)

Hehehe.
I looked at the first page...fine.
Then I looked at the last page...What the hell? Corneliu at it again. And always with Iraq...

Mr Carter is worse... he was a warmonger, he threatened my Motherland with his nucular missiles!

The head of all the imperialists! The head of all the racists!

I don't see you clamoring for us to invade the Sudan or other places but you seem to want to defend our invasion because of the fact that we overthrew Saddam's oppression.

Of Course I want something done about Sudan. I want the UN to do it. Call it a test of their ability to actually do something positive for a change. So far nothing yet. As for the other nations, yes I want something done about them as well but the question is with what?

Also I actually answered your questions however I will do so again to make it even more clear.

This should be good.

International Law: We have violated International law as much as Saddam has throughout the years, but it is still wrong.

Show me where we violated international law.

Mass Murders: See Trail of Tears and do you know of anyone for mass murders besides those commiting them?

Interesting! You've actually had to dig to find that one. Kudos on learning history. Notice that has never happened again here in the US?

Torture Chambers: I'm against torture as torture is a bad thing, but then again there was a prisoner abuse scandal

And the people are getting punished for that. Interesting concept. Violate the law, you get punished.

Rape Rooms: Um, ever heard of the things going on in our prisons?

Yes I have and they been trying to find ways to prevent that here in the States. Again, interesting concept isn't it?

We are trying to prevent it from happening and it isn't state institutionalized as it was in Iraq. Sorry, but I've seen those torture and rape rooms that Saddam had on the news and it makes me even happier that that S.O.B is no longer in power to continue his reign of terror. So are you glad that his state institutions of rape and torture and mass murder are gone?

Also you have made claims against the "liberal elite" yet "liberals" are the most likely to find all of the aforementioned items deplorable, myself included.

Considering they haven't said one good thing about the Iraq War since it started....

If you are going to call them a worthless organization then you can't use their Resolutions to justify this war.

Yes I can use their Resolutions as justification for our actions since it was supposed to be the UN Responsiblities to enforce those resolutions. Guess what? The US is a member of the United Nations and we decided to enforce those resolutions. To bad the UN doesn't have the balls to actually do something right for a change.

Also you will note that the First Gulf War was fought with their approval and what-not.

Yes I know it was. I also had a relative fight in the First Gulf War. Guess what? The military wanted to go into Baghdad right then and there.

You know what I didn't see though? The US going into Bosnia and I doubt we'll mess with Sudan either.

Now here's a false statement. The US sure as hell did go into Bosnia. My father was part of that campaign. :rolleyes: As for Sudan, we're letting the UN handle that. Maybe if the UN actually did something about it, it might start coming back to being a more respected organization.

Better revisionist history than nationalist history and Oil for Food looks good on paper (we get oil and they don't starve!) but it lacked in execution. Seems to me that you are doing some revising yourself.

HAHA! I hate revisionist history. Your right it did look good on paper but as for the lack of execution, oh there was execution alright, in the terms of the OIF Scandal that rocked it. Point stands.

You know funnily enough the local news says very little about the US-Japan economic comparison as it is more focused on local issues and major world/national events.

That is why we have this wonderful thing called economic news. Why don't you try and actually research something for a change?

You mean rate of debt growth is faster than the rate of growth of the economy. Which it is.

No its not! Rate of Growth is outdoing rate of debt.

snip



You want to test the UN with the Sudan? If you are going to test something you do so before using the secondary option, meaning going in without them like we did in Iraq. However now that we've taken out Iraq you decide it's time to test them. Why not test them with Iraq?! If you say that is because they had "failed" in Iraq then we shouldn't be testing them again! We should already be in the Sudan, but we're not.

As far as international law, I believe there was a statute or law after WW2 saying something about letting countries have self determination, however in a number of countries we, we being the US and NATO, set up a number of quasi-fascist "democracies" without letting them really determine what they wanted for themsleves. All to stop Communism, which stopped itself.

For mass murderings: See: Salem Witch Trials and the Civil War/War of Northern Agression

For torture: Please tell me what their punishments were, really I'd like to know.

For rape: How much effort do you really think they are putting into stopping it? Do you see each inmate having an individual cell? No and until such tmes as there is such a thing prison rape will still be easily accomplishable.

Also by not providing proper protection for those in its facilities it is the state's fault that these prisoners are being raped.

Also if you actually used reading comprehension you would notcie that I said that most "liberals" find the afformentioned items, meaning rape rooms mass murdering and what-not, deplorable. Meaning, through the use of logic, that I am glad that it has ceased. Also I have yet to hear anyone say that it was a good thing that Saddam was in power, but I have heard it said that it was not our place to go in, especially under false pretenses.

If you are going to go against an organizations policies then you shouldn't use the other things they do as justification to attack. Also if the UN isn't a "respected" organization, then why are you using their mandates? Could it be because it suits your purposes to say hey look they(the UN) said that he(Saddam) has done something wrong. However instead of going by their guidlines we'll just assume that we know what the fuck we are talking about and bypass them and then we'll say they are weak because we kicked the shit out of the little guy.

It's nice that you know the mind of the military force that fought in the first Gulf War even though are goal was only to put Saddam back in his place so invading Baghdad would have been overstepping the bounds those in charge had placed for the military.

Alright I'm sorry about the Bosnia thing, but we should follow through with that trend or we should not have started it. If you want the UN to intervene then we've got to stop jumping the gun, so to speak, OR we should stop listening to the UN altogether and just do what we've been doing without ther support, only this time we do it for EVERYBODY.

Plans that lacked in esecution like Star Wars perhaps? Or maybe you are just looking for scandals? We've got plenty of those as well, some of which don't even have anything other than corruption as their basis. However Food for Oil was an idealistic idea that was ruined by preexisting corruption. As such at least we tried to help them. Wow, trying, what a neat concept!

Also you said the reports were "all over the daily news". If this situation was "all over" the daily news I wouldn't have to do research on it. Make up your mind.

You want to test the UN with the Sudan? If you are going to test something you do so before using the secondary option, meaning going in without them like we did in Iraq. However now that we've taken out Iraq you decide it's time to test them. Why not test them with Iraq?! If you say that is because they had "failed" in Iraq then we shouldn't be testing them again! We should already be in the Sudan, but we're not.

Wanna make a bet that something is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about yet? We know of French and Chinese dealings inside Sudan. They already have blocked resolutions to do something about it. They did agree to send war criminals to the Court and I applaud that decision (unless of course Sudan didn't sign that particular treaty)

As far as international law, I believe there was a statute or law after WW2 saying something about letting countries have self determination, however in a number of countries we, we being the US and NATO, set up a number of quasi-fascist "democracies" without letting them really determine what they wanted for themsleves. All to stop Communism, which stopped itself.

Now we have the enjoyment of using 20/20 hindsight. We can look back and see what we did wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again. Then of course people railed upon the actions of the past even though it really doesn't do any good since the event is already over. However, learning history a must for those that are deciding to go into politics.

For mass murderings: See: Salem Witch Trials and the Civil War/War of Northern Agression

Oh I love this:

1) We were not a Country in 1692! We were a British colony at that point in our history.
2) Mass Murder=high casualty count on the field of battle or am I missing something?

For torture: Please tell me what their punishments were, really I'd like to know.

1) Loss of rank
2) Loss of Pension
3) Dishonorable Discharge
4) Tossed into the Brig

For rape: How much effort do you really think they are putting into stopping it? Do you see each inmate having an individual cell? No and until such tmes as there is such a thing prison rape will still be easily accomplishable.

I'm not up to date on the American Jail System but I do know that they are trying (see that word trying?) to reform it. Alot of it is done at the state level since the Federal Jails have their own set of rules.

Also by not providing proper protection for those in its facilities it is the state's fault that these prisoners are being raped.

Correct and states are taking steps to reform it. Sometimes reforms don't work and sometimes they do. Depends on the type of reform.

Also if you actually used reading comprehension you would notcie that I said that most "liberals" find the afformentioned items, meaning rape rooms mass murdering and what-not, deplorable.

Funny! I still see them saying that it was wrong to invade Iraq even after we uncovered all of that. So are you sure that they find deplorable? I'm not seeing it. If they found it deplorable they would be applauding the invasion as a good thing to put a stop to all of that. Human Rights groups would be too but so far they haven't said a damn thing about those either.

Meaning, through the use of logic, that I am glad that it has ceased. Also I have yet to hear anyone say that it was a good thing that Saddam was in power, but I have heard it said that it was not our place to go in, especially under false pretenses.

Why do people always seem to focus on ONE and ONLY ONE item? I guess people haven't bothered to look at the joint resolution by Congress that also listed Humanitarian Reasons as another reason to go in.

If you are going to go against an organizations policies then you shouldn't use the other things they do as justification to attack.

We're not the one's hitting civilian targets on purpose. That'll be your terrorists that are doing that. We have gone out of our to try and not kill them but in war, civilians do die no matter how much you try to prevent it.

Also if the UN isn't a "respected" organization, then why are you using their mandates?

Because it was their mess and they failed to clean it up (as usual)! They authorized the war in the first place (Persian Gulf War 1) and that ended in a cease-fire. It was violated and the UN did nothing about it. It was a respected organization but then they have failed their mandate to prevent wars, genocide, etc.

Could it be because it suits your purposes to say hey look they(the UN) said that he(Saddam) has done something wrong. However instead of going by their guidlines we'll just assume that we know what the fuck we are talking about and bypass them and then we'll say they are weak because we kicked the shit out of the little guy.

And we did go by their guidelines. We went with past UN Resolutions (most notably 687 which was the cease-fire resolution) and went in. So how can ya say that we didn't follow their guidelines when, in effect, we are following up on past UN Resolutions?

It's nice that you know the mind of the military force that fought in the first Gulf War even though are goal was only to put Saddam back in his place so invading Baghdad would have been overstepping the bounds those in charge had placed for the military.

Correct and I can tell you that the military wanted to oust him then. They weren't to pleased that they couldn't. They wanted to go right into Baghdad to take him out but were stopped by 1) President George H.W. Bush, 2) UN Resolution that authorized the war, and 3) Congressional Authorization for the use of Force.

Alright I'm sorry about the Bosnia thing, but we should follow through with that trend or we should not have started it. If you want the UN to intervene then we've got to stop jumping the gun, so to speak, OR we should stop listening to the UN altogether and just do what we've been doing without ther support, only this time we do it for EVERYBODY.

Waiting 12 years is not what I call Jumping the Gun. Also, it was Bosnia that didn't have UN Authorization. NATO went into that nation to do what? Prevent the muslims from getting slaughtered.

Plans that lacked in esecution like Star Wars perhaps? Or maybe you are just looking for scandals? We've got plenty of those as well, some of which don't even have anything other than corruption as their basis. However Food for Oil was an idealistic idea that was ruined by preexisting corruption. As such at least we tried to help them. Wow, trying, what a neat concept!

It was doomed to failure from the beginning and Saddam exploited it for all it was worth. I will give him credit there. Saddam was not an Idiot. Stupid but not an idiot. He was stupid for not complying with UN Resolutions and that precipitated his down fall.

Also you said the reports were "all over the daily news". If this situation was "all over" the daily news I wouldn't have to do research on it. Make up your mind.

You have to do the research because its old news.

One is a warmongering douchebag...
The other won a Nobel Peace prize, and was called back into political action by every President since him.

I dont think theres any comparison.

snip



We didn't wait for the UN for Iraq why should it be different for the Sudan?

You ask for related incidents and that one can't be ignored as it was caused by the forefathers of our country. Also there were at least two instances during the Civil War when the South killed captured black soldiers in large numbers.

Of those the only one comparable to civilian charges for such action is time in the brig, so how long would they be staying there?

Also you can't say that Food for Oil was "doomed from the start" and not say that this isn't as well. If it is only the fact that we are trying that matters then you should be applauding Food for Oil which is only known to be "doomed from the start" through use of hindsight (Though I don't believe that Hindsight is 20/20 as there are to many things that could have happened)

You are argueing against yourself by saying we were justified for going into Iraq because of these grievous problems because if that is the justification then we should be in the Sudan.

Just because there is a list of reasons to go to war doesnt mean that we would go to war if some of them were missing. Point in case is WW2 there were plenty of reasons to go to war, but we waited until Pearl Harbor because the American people needed a reason to fight. It was the with Iraq the people needed a reason to fight and that reason was WMDs.

Nevermind the civillian death tolls during the bombings...

You know this is getting sort of boring and neither of us are really changing our opinions so why don't we just agree to disagree?

We didn't wait for the UN for Iraq why should it be different for the Sudan?

Let the French deal with it. It was their colony I believe. Let them clean up the mess.

You ask for related incidents and that one can't be ignored as it was caused by the forefathers of our country.

Under British rule no less. We weren't even a country yet. We were barely a colony at that time point.

Also there were at least two instances during the Civil War when the South killed captured black soldiers in large numbers.

Yes and it was their right to as well. They were in military uniform and most of the time a fight between black northern units and white southern units normally don't end up with blacks surrendering. Really can't use that as an example because they were wearing military uniforms.

Of those the only one comparable to civilian charges for such action is time in the brig, so how long would they be staying there?

Depends on what the judge or the panal recommend. I'm not up to date on JAG punishment procedures since I don't know anyone in a JAG office.

Also you can't say that Food for Oil was "doomed from the start" and not say that this isn't as well. If it is only the fact that we are trying that matters then you should be applauding Food for Oil which is only known to be "doomed from the start" through use of hindsight (Though I don't believe that Hindsight is 20/20 as there are to many things that could have happened)

Saddam exploited it from day one so yes it was doomed from the start. Anyone with an once of sense can see that.

You are argueing against yourself by saying we were justified for going into Iraq because of these grievous problems because if that is the justification then we should be in the Sudan.

Because Sudan is a French problem. Let them deal with it. We should be dealing with Liberia since we sat up that nation.

Just because there is a list of reasons to go to war doesnt mean that we would go to war if some of them were missing.

If what is missing?

Point in case is WW2 there were plenty of reasons to go to war, but we waited until Pearl Harbor because the American people needed a reason to fight.

Not entirely correct. We didn't get involved because it wasn't our fight. Then Japan bombed us and we declared war on Japan, not Germany or Italy (not yet) It wasn't until December 10 that we get involved in Europe and that was when Hitler and Mussolini declared war on us and we in turned declared war on them.

It was the with Iraq the people needed a reason to fight and that reason was WMDs.

ANd that was just one of the reasons we used and one that is constently focused on. Yes its deserved now but everyone is overlooking the other reasons for war and that is unacceptable.

Nevermind the civillian death tolls during the bombings...

Now which bombings? Ours? Accidental. No missile is perfect. Terrorist bombings? Not our fault that they are targeting civilians and pissing them off and turning them against the terrorists instead of us.

You know this is getting sort of boring and neither of us are really changing our opinions so why don't we just agree to disagree?

Seems like the best way to handle this though it is fun :p

Wasn't Sudan actually British?


Either way, it'd be nice if we stopped the Sudanese government. Unfortunatley, there just isn't enough incentive for our policy makers.