NationStates Jolt Archive

You admire Teddy Roosevelt for his "carry a big stick and walk softly" policy so why don't you admire George Bush having the same policy?

More specifically; Bush hints at using force against Iran. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8933866/

No.

I admire Teddy for several things - his environmentalism, his progressiveness, his almost winning the Presidency as a third party, but I do not admire him for his foreign policy. He started this trend of America being interventionist, imperial and jingoist. But I still like his domestic policies generally.

And Bush is being idiotic when it comes to Iran. Under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the Islamic Republic of Iran(a signatory) is entitled to a "soverign right to pursue peaceful nuclear techology." See Article IV of that document.

Iran's operations are observed directly or indirectly 24/7 by the IAEA. They have conformed to ALL standards set by that agency. They have not ever claimed they wish a nuclear weapon.

Bush is overreacting in the extreme, and I don't respect him for it.

You admire Teddy Roosevelt for his "carry a big stick and walk softly" policy so why don't you admire George Bush having the same policy?

More specifically; Bush hints at using force against Iran. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8933866/
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." The thing is, even if Bush were "speaking softly" now (he certainly didn't before), I wouldn't find it acceptable to consider T. Roosevelt and Bush comparable because they behave the same in one aspect of their lives.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick." The thing is, even if Bush were "speaking softly" now (he certainly didn't before), I wouldn't find it acceptable to consider T. Roosevelt and Bush comparable because they behave the same in one aspect of their lives.

My error. Thank you for correcting the quote.

Bush is overreacting in the extreme, and I don't respect him for it.Considering that Bush is letting the Europeans handle things diplomatically and hasn't invaded Iran, I wouldn't say he's overreacting at all.

Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about admiring Teddy Roosevelt? The guy started the Spanish American war (arguably the start of America's entanglement in foreign wars) and then had the nerve to call it a "splendid little war." Before the war he complained that America was losing its manliness because Americans were running out of Indians to kill and that they needed to participate in a foriegn war in order to remain vigorous and manly. He did say the thing about walking quietly with a big stick, but he didn't seem to follow that idea in his policy, and furthermore, you seem to be claiming that Bush is following this same policy by invading Iraq and threatening to invade Iran. Bush's policy is more like carrying a big stick and shouting at the top of his lungs that certain people are going to get a good whacking.

what war did teddy roosevelt start?

My error. Thank you for correcting the quote.

That sort of invalidates the whole thread, doesn't it? Hinting at attacking Iran and that whole "axis of evil" silliness isn't exactly "speaking softly."

Considering that Bush is letting the Europeans handle things diplomatically and hasn't invaded Iran, I wouldn't say he's overreacting at all.

Perhaps. But his adament assertion that "all options are on the table" - a veiled threat of force on a nation that has done nothing they are not entirely entitled to do, is overreacting IMHO.

I also think Europe is overreacting too, but at least they aren't hinting about getting violent.

Isn't the point of the quote to act friendly to everyone, safe in the knowledge that you hold the power if you need to use it? I wouldn't call telling Iran that he'll do whatever is needed to stop them to be particularly friendly... though maybe I'm just off-base here.

No, comparing Teddy to Bush is like compairing a Mountain to a mole-hill.

Any Roosevelt was a Progressive who would have been against the vast majority of Bush's policices!

I also think Europe is overreacting too, but at least they aren't hinting about getting violent.

It has much to do with Europe knowing that the US wants to pick a fight with Iran, and preventing Iran from giving them a "reason". The US doesn't care what nations are entitled to do; "do as I say, not as I do."

Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about admiring Teddy Roosevelt? The guy started the Spanish American war (arguably the start of America's entanglement in foreign wars) and then had the nerve to call it a "splendid little war." Before the war he complained that America was losing its manliness because Americans were running out of Indians to kill and that they needed to participate in a foriegn war in order to remain vigorous and manly.

Damn, it sounds like he was trying to compensate for a "small stick," if ya know what I mean. ;) :D

Perhaps. But his adament assertion that "all options are on the table" - a veiled threat of force on a nation that has done nothing they are not entirely entitled to do, is overreacting IMHO.

I also think Europe is overreacting too, but at least they aren't hinting about getting violent.The Iranians are hinting at stirring up trouble within the Shia. I personally don't trust fundamentalist governments, so I don't see why not wanting to give the Iranians the ability to create nuclear weapons is so wrong. The Europeans are offering to produce the necessary uranium for the Iranians, thus allowing the Iranians access to nuclear power without them having the temptation of reopening their weapons creation center.

I don't think Bush is all bad, obviously some of his views (especially regarding the environment) could be a little more thoughtful but I'd rather have him in charge of my country than Tony Blair. In response to the title of the thread, yes. Yes I do.

It has much to do with Europe knowing that the US wants to pick a fight with Iran, and preventing Iran from giving them a "reason". The US doesn't care what nations are entitled to do; "do as I say, not as I do."

Sad but true.

I also think that since Europeans are human they have thier own agenda - Europe is grappling for more importance. By being the diplomat, nations that seemed unimportant during the Iraq issue are now in the headlines.

But at least they are doing the right thing.

Perhaps. But his adament assertion that "all options are on the table" - a veiled threat of force on a nation that has done nothing they are not entirely entitled to do, is overreacting IMHO.

I also think Europe is overreacting too, but at least they aren't hinting about getting violent.

Heck, they are not even taking it to the UN Security Council.

The Iranians are hinting at stirring up trouble within the Shia. I personally don't trust fundamentalist governments, so I don't see why not wanting to give the Iranians the ability to create nuclear weapons is so wrong. The Europeans are offering to produce the necessary uranium for the Iranians, thus allowing the Iranians access to nuclear power without them having the temptation of reopening their weapons creation center.

I think the Iranians also don't want to have to rely on the Europeans to give them the necessary uranium. How do you like relying on a foreign resource (oil)?

Teddy Roosevelt and George Bush in the same sentence. I haven't puked this hard since someone compared him to Churchill.

I don't think Bush is all bad, obviously some of his views (especially regarding the environment) could be a little more thoughtful but I'd rather have him in charge of my country than Tony Blair. In response to the title of the thread, yes. Yes I do.Can we trade? I've found Blair much more amiable than the dolt I have for one of my presidents :D

what war did teddy roosevelt start?

Hey.

Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt.

I can see where you can mistake the names. ;)

I think the Iranians also don't want to have to rely on the Europeans to give them the necessary uranium. How do you like relying on a foreign resource (oil)?That's why we call the current situation a "conflict". :D

But at least they are doing the right thing.In a way, Bush is too. He's shown how competent he's at handling diplomatic situations in the Iraq war, so by not getting directly involved, he's doing the best job he possibly could on the issue.

Teddy Roosevelt and George Bush in the same sentence. I haven't puked this hard since someone compared him to Churchill.

Comparing the shrub to Churchill? :eek:

Well they do have one thing in common so far. Churchill had Galipoli and the shrub has Iraq. Well the verdict is not in yet......

The Iranians are hinting at stirring up trouble within the Shia. I personally don't trust fundamentalist governments, so I don't see why not wanting to give the Iranians the ability to create nuclear weapons is so wrong. The Europeans are offering to produce the necessary uranium for the Iranians, thus allowing the Iranians access to nuclear power without them having the temptation of reopening their weapons creation center.

I don't know about Iran stirring up trouble among Shias... I guess you mean in Iraq? Iraq, as a neighbour or Iran is signfigant for that nation, and I don't see anything wrong with Iran supporting Shia religious parties peacefully. Besides the Insurgents are mostly Sunni, not Shia, so it is unlikely that Iran is knowingly funnelling weapons to the Insurgents. Sunnis and Shias are after all notorious for not getting along.

I may not like fundamentalist governments, but I respect thier right to be fundamentalist, and thier rights under the international accords they signed.

If Europe is offering Uranium that seems fair, but it doens't take into account Iranian pride. By saying Iran can't/shouldn't have an enrichment plant, it is treating Iran like a pariah, like an irresponsible child. I believe Iran wants the pride and satisfaction of doing it itself. She doesn't wish to be seen as a weak nation that will roll over and accept her label as irresponsible, as a child, which accepting anything but the most generous deal from Europe would do. We must remember that Iran/Persia has been treated like a virtual colony by the Western nations for a hundred years. Britain and the US have not been respectful at all to Persia. This conflict is a symbol for Iran IMO, a symbol of resistance to Imperialism, where they must decide - will they be Europe and the US's lapdog, or will they be thier own nation? The issue is by no means black and white, and there are very strong feelings on both sides.

It is my opinion that Iran should be allowed to refine Uranium by themselves, but under constant surveilance from start to finish. All thier nuclear work should be closely observed, and if there is a suggestion that Iran is building a bomb, then we do something. But as of now, I see no good reason to deny them anything.

I hope that made some sense. :)

In a way, Bush is too. He's shown how competent he's at handling diplomatic situations in the Iraq war, so by not getting directly involved, he's doing the best job he possibly could on the issue.

Nice one.

Have a cookie.

*hands you a cookie.*

Hey.

Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt.

I can see where you can mistake the names. ;)

no really, i know that teddy was IN a war but did he START one and ive forgotten about it?

I don't know about Iran stirring up trouble among Shias... I guess you mean in Iraq? Iraq, as a neighbour or Iran is signfigant for that nation, and I don't see anything wrong with Iran supporting Shia religious parties peacefully. Besides the Insurgents are mostly Sunni, not Shia, so it is unlikely that Iran is knowingly funnelling weapons to the Insurgents. Sunnis and Shias are after all notorious for not getting along.This is the only part of your statement that is not quite correct. I'm not mixing any of the groups up.
You were correct, the issue that that concerns is Iraq. As you have shown that you know, Iraq is predominately Shia. Iran is Shia too. The Shia population have been complacent while the insurgents are mainly Sunni Arabs.
The veiled threat that Iran has made is that it could cause problems by inciting the Shia to violence. That would cause major problems for the coalition forces in Iraq, as we can see how difficult it is for them to handle the minority violence...

Man, I bet somewhere, there are people kicking themselves in the asses for overthrowing Mossadegh in '53, eh?

Man, I bet somewhere, there are people kicking themselves in the asses for overthrowing Mossadegh in '53, eh?No they're not. Most Americans haven't got a clue who he was and why Iranians could be so pissed as to occupy an American Embassy and take the staff hostage.

This is the only part of your statement that is not quite correct. I'm not mixing any of the groups up.
You were correct, the issue that that concerns is Iraq. As you have shown that you know, Iraq is predominately Shia. Iran is Shia too. The Shia population have been complacent while the insurgents are mainly Sunni Arabs.
The veiled threat that Iran has made is that it could cause problems by inciting the Shia to violence. That would cause major problems for the coalition forces in Iraq, as we can see how difficult it is for them to handle the minority violence...

That could be a problem. If Iran chose to incite violence among the Shias, that could seriously hurt the coalition force and destroy the Iraqi government. I didn't know they had threataned to do that.

My guess is that this is thier version of "all options on the table," with regards to the uranium issue. I can't really see a good reason why Iran would antagonize the coalition like that, unless they feared the coalition might just move east.

Nice one.

Have a cookie.

*hands you a cookie.*Mmmm... Cookies... :p

That could be a problem. If Iran chose to incite violence among the Shias, that could seriously hurt the coalition force and destroy the Iraqi government. I didn't know they had threataned to do that.

My guess is that this is thier version of "all options on the table," with regards to the uranium issue. I can't really see a good reason why Iran would antagonize the coalition like that, unless they feared the coalition might just move east.It was a veiled threat. They said they'd be capable of helping keep the Shia peaceful, while hinting that they can really fuck things up.
They spoke softly and waved a big stick in the background... :D

It was a veiled threat. They said they'd be capable of helping keep the Shia peaceful, while hinting that they can really fuck things up.
They spoke softly and waved a big stick in the background... :D

Teddy Roosevelt spoke softly and carried a big stick.
Grand Ayahtollah Khomeini spoke softly and carried a big stick.
So then it must follow that Grand Ayahtollah Khomeini is Teddy Roosevelt.


It's all beginning to come together! :D

Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about admiring Teddy Roosevelt? The guy started the Spanish American war (arguably the start of America's entanglement in foreign wars) and then had the nerve to call it a "splendid little war." Before the war he complained that America was losing its manliness because Americans were running out of Indians to kill and that they needed to participate in a foriegn war in order to remain vigorous and manly. He did say the thing about walking quietly with a big stick, but he didn't seem to follow that idea in his policy, and furthermore, you seem to be claiming that Bush is following this same policy by invading Iraq and threatening to invade Iran. Bush's policy is more like carrying a big stick and shouting at the top of his lungs that certain people are going to get a good whacking.
How did Roosevelt start the Spanish American War which was begun in 1898 and he wasn't president until 1901? Years from now, we'll be talking about Clinton starting the Gulf War.

Teddy was nothing like Bush. The closest resemblence was their foreign policies, which I disagree with both's, but Teddy did far greater things than Bush. Such as National Parks, hist trust-busting to name a few. And it's "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

Guys, with only three pages of posts, you could have bothered reading the ones that said what you've just stated...

It is my opinion that Iran should be allowed to refine Uranium by themselves, but under constant surveilance from start to finish. All thier nuclear work should be closely observed, and if there is a suggestion that Iran is building a bomb, then we do something. But as of now, I see no good reason to deny them anything.

I hope that made some sense. :)

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. My question is; who should do the constant surveillance and if there is an indication they are building a bomb, what should be done and by whom?

That could be a problem. If Iran chose to incite violence among the Shias, that could seriously hurt the coalition force and destroy the Iraqi government. I didn't know they had threataned to do that.

My guess is that this is thier version of "all options on the table," with regards to the uranium issue. I can't really see a good reason why Iran would antagonize the coalition like that, unless they feared the coalition might just move east.

I don't think the coalition will move east. I think President Bush was very wise to let the Europeans take care of the situation. Now that Iran has rejected the European proposals, I think the President is just re-affirming his support for the European proposals and letting Iran know that.

Who said anything about liking Roosevelt?

'Big sticks' get in the way of walking, and have a habit of tripping people up. Best to use the 'big stick' to toast marshmallows, otherwise, someone's liable to poke an eye out.

Teddy Roosevelt spoke softly and carried a big stick.
Grand Ayahtollah Khomeini spoke softly and carried a big stick.
So then it must follow that Grand Ayahtollah Khomeini is Teddy Roosevelt.


It's all beginning to come together! :D

ROFL. I guess we shouldn't disregard reincarnation. :D

Hi. My name is Teddy Roosevelt.

I was famous for my love of nature and I celebrated my love of animals by trying to shoot as many of these majestic creatures as I could in as many continents as I could.

Yeah. He has Dubya's twisted way of thinking. That they DO share.

How did Roosevelt start the Spanish American War which was begun in 1898 and he wasn't president until 1901? Years from now, we'll be talking about Clinton starting the Gulf War.

The other person did not study his/her history. Teddy Roosevelt rode up San Juan hill during the Spanish Amreican war. Lest we forget or are lacking in our education try this link http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/spanam/bssjh/shbrt-bssjh.htm

Hi. My name is Teddy Roosevelt.

I was famous for my love of nature and I celebrated my love of animals by trying to shoot as many of these majestic creatures as I could in as many continents as I could.

Yeah. He has Dubya's twisted way of thinking. That they DO share.
JSPR! :D

How did Roosevelt start the Spanish American War which was begun in 1898 and he wasn't president until 1901? Years from now, we'll be talking about Clinton starting the Gulf War.

Don't worry. When Iraq II becomes a horrible failure the GOP will try to lay as much blame on Clinton as they possibly can.

JSPR! :D

???

Who said anything about liking Roosevelt?

'Big sticks' get in the way of walking, and have a habit of tripping people up. Best to use the 'big stick' to toast marshmallows, otherwise, someone's liable to poke an eye out.

I see you are not yet old enough to use a walking stick or a cane. Both are very useful to the older folks here both for walking softly and as a weapon. Walkers are good for the former but not so good for the latter. :D

Don't worry. When Iraq II becomes a horrible failure the GOP will try to lay as much blame on Clinton as they possibly can.
Now that I think about it, though... didn't Roosevelt blow up the Maine?

JSPR! :D

:confused: Please enlighten me I'm not familiar with JSPR.

Now that I think about it, though... didn't Roosevelt blow up the Maine?

Care to try again for a cookie?:D

Care to try again for a cookie?:D
Woof?

???It's something from the Francophone thread Dobbsworld started. It's short for je suis par-terre riant and is the closest possible translation to rofl

Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about admiring Teddy Roosevelt? The guy started the Spanish American war (arguably the start of America's entanglement in foreign wars)


Wow, he started it AND fought in it? What a badass.

Now that I think about it, though... didn't Roosevelt blow up the Maine?

I think that's one of the theories. Couldn't find much on it though through Google.

Something worthy of note was how the media back then fed the rush to war. A desire that really didn't exist at first. Yellow journalism at its finest and eerily mirrors what occured prior to Iraq II.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml

Historians say the outbreak of war had three principal sources: popular hostility to autocratic Spanish rule in Cuba; American sympathy with demands for Cuban independence (no doubt influenced by a desire for stability in the region); and a new spirit of national assertiveness in the United States, stimulated in part by a "jingoistic" or nationalistic and sensationalist press.1

EDIT

About a third way down this article it goes into detail about what happened. The explosion that sunk the Maine was likely on board and not a torpedo which was the garbage the media decided to report.

Long ass article but informative.

I think that's one of the theories. Couldn't find much on it though through Google.

Something worthy of note was how the media back then fed the rush to war. A desire that really didn't exist at first. Yellow journalism at its finest and eerily mirrors what occured prior to Iraq II.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml

Historians say the outbreak of war had three principal sources: popular hostility to autocratic Spanish rule in Cuba; American sympathy with demands for Cuban independence (no doubt influenced by a desire for stability in the region); and a new spirit of national assertiveness in the United States, stimulated in part by a "jingoistic" or nationalistic and sensationalist press.1

EDIT

About a third way down this article it goes into detail about what happened. The explosion that sunk the Maine was likely on board and not a torpedo which was the garbage the media decided to report.

Long ass article but informative.
Yeah, I know Hearst was all about the war but really... I was only joking about Roosevelt blowing up the Maine. I mean... just to be sure I'm clear on that.

Yeah, I know Hearst was all about the war but really... I was only joking about Roosevelt blowing up the Maine. I mean... just to be sure I'm clear on that.

That explains the lack of Google results. :D

I'm not even sure where Roosevelt was at the time. (McKinley was Pres, right?)

JSPR! :D

Je suis par terre riant? You're missing a "T".

Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about admiring Teddy Roosevelt? The guy started the Spanish American war (arguably the start of America's entanglement in foreign wars) and then had the nerve to call it a "splendid little war." Before the war he complained that America was losing its manliness because Americans were running out of Indians to kill and that they needed to participate in a foriegn war in order to remain vigorous and manly. He did say the thing about walking quietly with a big stick, but he didn't seem to follow that idea in his policy, and furthermore, you seem to be claiming that Bush is following this same policy by invading Iraq and threatening to invade Iran. Bush's policy is more like carrying a big stick and shouting at the top of his lungs that certain people are going to get a good whacking.

1. Uh, maybe because it was a splendid little war? I mean, it was rather short, we didn't suffer too many casualties, generally civil, and we benifited somewhat from it. It's quite a splendid little war.

2. Bush didn't threaten to invade Iran. He just stated the obvious, that any country would use their millitary as their last choice.

3. Do you think I want the War In Iraq? No. But it's still neccesary. We had to free the Iraqi people from the brutal Iraq Regime, and we can't leave, or any governmetn disappears, anarchy reigns, and the Terrorists take control. It's a totally justified war.

Je suis par terre riant? You're missing a "T".
Your missing a "-" between the "par" and the "terre", Fass...

2. Bush didn't threaten to invade Iran. He just stated the obvious, that any country would use their millitary as their last choice.If it was so obvious, why did it take Bush a whole war and a bunch of dead American soldiers to figure it out?
3. Do you think I want the War In Iraq? No. But it's still neccesary. We had to free the Iraqi people from the brutal Iraq Regime, and we can't leave, or any governmetn disappears, anarchy reigns, and the Terrorists take control. It's a totally justified war.We "had" to free them? Who told us to? I mean Bush says God told him, but no one bothered to tell *me*. As for the can't leave, I totally agree with you.

If it was so obvious, why did it take Bush a whole war and a bunch of dead American soldiers to figure it out?

Mostly because Saddam Hussien wasn't going to stop massacring his own population.

We "had" to free them? Who told us to? I mean Bush says God told him, but no one bothered to tell *me*. As for the can't leave, I totally agree with you.

Well, then that's your problem. I was meaning to tell me, but then I had to play Rome: Total War. Oh well.

Your missing a "-" between the "par" and the "terre", Fass...

"Par terre," meaning "on the ground," is not a hyphenate.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick." The thing is, even if Bush were "speaking softly" now (he certainly didn't before), I wouldn't find it acceptable to consider T. Roosevelt and Bush comparable because they behave the same in one aspect of their lives.

Actually, I think it was, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Then again, I'm getting hits as what he said typing it both ways, but I vaguely remember it being "Walk" in my high school history books. Then again, I could be completely wrong.

Bush does not talk softly. He throws out blatantly hostile threats and ultimatums.

Bush does not talk softly. He throws out blatantly hostile threats and ultimatums.

Good point. I think the most effective way to deal with countries that seek to become nuclear powers is by sending them letters and giving them money if they promise to stop. Hey, it worked for North Korea.

3. Do you think I want the War In Iraq? No. But it's still neccesary. We had to free the Iraqi people from the brutal Iraq Regime, and we can't leave, or any governmetn disappears, anarchy reigns, and the Terrorists take control. It's a totally justified war.

http://archive.parade.com/2005/0213/0213_dictator.html

1. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan.
Age 61. In power since 1989.
Last year’s rank: 7

A colossal humanitarian tragedy in western Sudan’s Darfur region has uprooted 2 million people and killed 70,000, mostly through the activities of government-supported militias. This is nothing new in Sudan, where Omar al-Bashir, its dictator, has engaged in ethnic and religious persecution since seizing power in a military coup. Sudan has 6 million internally displaced persons—more than any other nation. In southern Sudan, where Christianity and traditional religions are practiced, Bashir tried to impose Islamic law in a campaign that included aerial bombing of villages and enslavement of women and children. His forces met with armed resistance, escalating to what some called a civil war between Muslims and Christians. (In Darfur, meanwhile, he has been killing Muslims.) Last month, Bashir signed a cease-fire with rebels in the south. It allows government troops to remain in southern Sudan and prohibits southerners from voting for independence for six years.

2. Kim Jong Il, North Korea.
Age 62. In power since 1994.
Last year’s rank: 1

Kim Jong Il slipped from first place, but not for want of trying. North Korea still ranks last in Reporters Without Borders’ international index of press freedom, and it earned Freedom House’s worst score for political rights and civil liberties for the 33rd straight year (a world record). The Ministry of People’s Security places spies in workplaces and neighborhoods to inform on anyone who criticizes the regime, even at home. All radios and TV sets are fixed to receive only government stations. Disloyalty to Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung, is a punishable crime: Offenses include allowing pictures of either leader to gather dust or be torn or folded. The population is divided into “loyalty groups.” One-third belong to the “hostile class.” These people receive the worst jobs and housing and may not live in the capital, Pyongyang. Below the hostiles are the estimated 250,000 held in prison camps, some for crimes allegedly committed by relatives. Executions often are performed in public.

3. Than Shwe, Burma.
Age 72. In power since 1992.
Last year’s rank: 2

In response to world opinion, Gen. Than Shwe freed 9000 prisoners, but hopes for a new liberalism faded when only 40 were political detainees (among more than 1000 still being held). The rest were common criminals. Than Shwe extended the house arrest of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party won 80% of the vote in the last open election (1990). The arrest of opposition members resumed. Freedom of expression is not allowed; unlicensed possession of a fax machine or modem is punishable by 15 years in prison. To relocate ethnic minorities, the army destroyed 3000 villages and drove 1.2 million Burmese from their homes. In a landmark case, Unocal Corp. of California agreed to pay damages to Burmese villagers who said the military used torture, rape or murder to force them to work on the company’s pipeline.

4. Hu Jintao, China.
Age 62. In power since 2002.
Last year’s rank: 3

Despite China’s economic liberalization, President Hu Jintao’s government remains one of the most repressive. Some 250,000 Chinese are serving sentences in “re-education and labor camps.” China executes more people than all other nations combined, often for nonviolent crimes. The death penalty can be given for burglary, embezzlement, counterfeiting, bribery or killing a panda. Hu’s government controls all media and Internet use. Defense lawyers who argue too vigorously for clients’ rights may be disbarred or imprisoned. And if minorities (such as Tibetans) speak out for autonomy, they’re labeled “terrorists,” imprisoned and tortured.

5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia.
Age 81. In power since 1995.
Last year’s rank: 5

Bending under strong international pressure, Crown Prince Abdullah and his family, who have absolute power, are holding Saudi Arabia’s first elections in 40 years—municipal elections, that is. Women may not vote or run for office, owing to “technical difficulties”: Most Saudi women don’t have the photo IDs needed to register; there aren’t enough female officials to register those who do; and men may not register women, because the sexes are forbidden to mingle in public. Worldwide, the royal family promotes an extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, which considers all followers of other religions—even other Muslims—“infidels.” In 2004, the U.S. State Department added Saudi Arabia to its list of nations in which religious liberty is severely violated.

6. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya.
Age 62. In power since 1969.
Last year’s rank:
Dishonorable mention

Increasingly annoyed by other Arab leaders, Qaddafi—once considered a supporter of terrorism —has gone to great lengths to re-establish links with the West. He turned over a perpetrator of the 1988 terrorist bombing of an American commercial flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and made substantial payments to families of the victims of both the Lockerbie bombing and that of a French plane. He gave up his nuclear weapons program and is opening his nation’s economy to foreign investment. Yet at home he continues to run a brutal dictatorship, maintaining total control over all aspects of Libyan life. Freedom of speech, assembly and religion are harshly restricted. Entire families, tribes and even towns can be punished for “collective guilt.” Political opposition and damaging public or private property are considered “crimes against the state.”

7. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan.
Age 61. In power since 1999.
Last year’s rank: Not mentioned

Two years after seizing power in a military coup that overthrew an elected government, Gen. Pervez Musharraf appointed himself president of Pakistan. He recently agreed to step down as head of the military, then reversed his decision, claiming that he was best suited to unite Pakistan’s contentious political and military elements. “The country is more important than democracy,” he said. Pakistan has endangered the world by spreading nuclear technology. Last year, it was discovered that Abdul Qadeer Khan, head of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, had been selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. As for civil liberties in Pakistan, a woman who has been raped may present her case only if she can produce four Muslim men who witnessed the attack.

8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan.
Age 64. In power since 1990.
Last year’s rank: 8

Niyazov has developed an overbearing personality cult that crushes dissent and invades all aspects of life in Turkmenistan, no matter how trivial. He controls his one-party state with torture, disappearances, detentions, house demolitions, forced labor and exile. He muzzles all media, and it is illegal to criticize any of his policies. Statues of Niyazov appear everywhere, and his picture is on all denominations of money. His “moral guide,” Rukhnama (Book of the Soul), is required reading for students, married couples and even applicants for a driver’s license. Female newscasters may not wear makeup, nor may young men wear beards, long hair or gold teeth.

9. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe.
Age 80. In power since 1980.
Last year’s rank: 4

After leading an anti-colonial war of liberation, Mugabe was elected Zimbabwe’s first prime minister, raising hopes for a new era of democracy. But he has turned increasingly dictatorial and run his country into the ground. Average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is 33 years—among the lowest in the world. One of Mugabe’s many repressive laws deems it a crime “to make an abusive, indecent or obscene statement” about him. He continues to hold elections, but opposition is discouraged. Looking toward a vote in March, the parliament passed a law banning from Zimbabwe any human-rights or civil-liberties group that receives money from abroad. In other words, independent election monitors will not be allowed.

10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema,
Equatorial Guinea. Age 62.
In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 6

Since major oil reserves were discovered there in 1995, U.S. oil companies have poured $5 billion into this tiny West African nation. Most of the oil income goes to President Obiang and his family, while the majority of the people live on less than $1 a day. Some American oil companies are being investigated for improprieties involving Obiang. The U.S. State Department has accused Obiang’s government of committing torture. In November, 20 people—including 11 foreign nationals —were sentenced to prison for an alleged coup attempt. The only evidence against them, says Amnesty International, were confessions extracted through torture.

Do you mean we're going to go after all these guys? Because by your standards, it's necessary.

Do you mean we're going to go after all these guys? Because by your standards, it's necessary.

We probably won't, but we probably should - or at least a few of them. Some of them are too far along, and messing with them now is not possible, because we hesitated and let them grow beyond our control instead of having a more proactive military policy, such as North Korea. And some are relatively necessary to put up with, like Saudi Arabia and China.

Good point. I think the most effective way to deal with countries that seek to become nuclear powers is by sending them letters and giving them money if they promise to stop. Hey, it worked for North Korea.

Do I detect a small bit of sarcasm here? :D Welcome to Nation States General forum.

We probably won't, but we probably should - or at least a few of them. Some of them are too far along, and messing with them now is not possible, because we hesitated and let them grow beyond our control instead of having a more proactive military policy, such as North Korea. And some are relatively necessary to put up with, like Saudi Arabia and China.
Yeah. China can basically do what it wants.
"Though hardly anyone acknowledges this publicly, China and Japan already hold so much American debt that, theoretically, each could exert enormous leverage on American foreign policy. So far, the economic dependence of these countries on American consumers has kept them from exercising such power. But what would happen if, for instance, Washington changed its one-China policy and officially recognized Taiwan? Or if the Bush Administration threatened to invade North Korea? Simply by dumping U.S. Treasury bills and other dollar-denominated assets, China—which holds more federal U.S. debt than any other country—could cause the value of the dollar to plummet, leading to a major crisis for the U.S. economy." http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200401/schwenninger

no really, i know that teddy was IN a war but did he START one and ive forgotten about it?
He helped engineer a coup in Panama.

He helped engineer a coup in Panama.
Don't forget that it was bloodless.

Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about admiring Teddy Roosevelt? The guy started the Spanish American war (arguably the start of America's entanglement in foreign wars) and then had the nerve to call it a "splendid little war." Before the war he complained that America was losing its manliness because Americans were running out of Indians to kill and that they needed to participate in a foriegn war in order to remain vigorous and manly. He did say the thing about walking quietly with a big stick, but he didn't seem to follow that idea in his policy, and furthermore, you seem to be claiming that Bush is following this same policy by invading Iraq and threatening to invade Iran. Bush's policy is more like carrying a big stick and shouting at the top of his lungs that certain people are going to get a good whacking.


Whoa Whoa Whoa indeed! Since when did Roosevelt start the war? According to this handy dandy chronological website, McKinley started said war when he asked for permission to do so from Congress.

Just for reference, here is that website.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/chronology.html - This being a silly thing called the Library Of Congress.

And just cuz' it seemed proper to have at least one back-up source, I present this.
http://www.zpub.com/cpp/saw.html - Oh snaps!

And for fun, a quote from Wikipedia.

In 1897 President William McKinley appointed him Assistant Secretary of the Navy. He loved the job, and was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the coming conflict with Spain. In 1898 Roosevelt resigned from the Navy Department and, with the aid of a U.S. Army colonel, Leonard Wood, organized the First U.S. National Cavalry out of a motley crew ranging from cowboys, Indians and outlaws from the Western territories and Ivy League chums from New York. The newspapers, being the primary medium at the time, billed the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry as the "Rough Riders". Originally Roosevelt held the rank of lieutenant colonel and served under Col. Wood, but after Wood was promoted to Brigadier General of Volunteer Forces, Roosevelt was promoted to full colonel and put in control of the Rough Riders. Under his direct command, the Rough Riders became famous for their dual charges up Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill in July 1898, the battle being named after the latter hill.

Upon his return from Cuba, Roosevelt re-entered New York State politics and, using his military record to great advantage, was elected governor of New York. He made such a concerted effort to root out corruption and "machine politics" that, it is said, Republican leaders in New York advanced him as a running mate for William McKinley in the 1900 election simply to get rid of him (at the time becoming Vice President generally marked the end of a political career). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

Now granted, he was Secretary of the Navy for what, a year? He may have helped our Navy out a lot with improvements, but he didnt exactly bomb the U.S.S. Maine in Manila Harbor. Nor did he actually have ANY power to declare war on Spain. That is alllllllll Congress, buddy. So to say he started the war would seem to me to be terribly incorrect. It seems more like he was IN the war, rather than being The Guy who started it.


Please correct me folks, if I am wrong or I missed some aspect in this.


EDIT = Sorry folks, I didnt notice that other people had already done versions of my reply. That is what I get for reading while I was writing it.

I happen to be a republican, [as you can probably tell by reading about my nation] and support Bush full heartedly. As a matter of fact, I support every president full heartedly, Republican or Democrat, for they probably know things concerning the diplomacy of the United States that the public will never know.
So, it should come as no surprise when it comes to the war in Iraq that I still support Bush, the troops, and their mission. I was watching the history channel lately, and came across a show titled "The Horrors of Hussein"
The brutality showed by the History Channel showed a president of a country acting the way some terrorists never would.
Not only did it show his personal involvement in the murder of people he believed [key word: believed. Neither trials nor courts were involved whatsoever] betrayed him, but also the pure hatred and manipulation of the people around him, and many other horrors.

Many people ask why the United States got involved in a war that has no consequence to our lives today, why we spend so much money and 1,000s of lives in a country whose government we helped to create. To you, I point to the inhumanity and terror of Saddam Hussein. A man worse than Hitler. A man with no sense of compassion, guilt, or humanity.

If you still ask why the United States went to war on terror in Iraq, knowing the horrors caused by Saddam and his regime-you too are as evil and inhumane as Saddam himself. If you can look into the eyes of the people that are being saved from his evil ways and tell them that you do not believe in what our government is doing to save them, I say, how could you call yourself a citizen of the United States? You may as well be a terrorist. There are two types of evil in the world: Those who do evil, and those who see it and do nothing. I for one, am glad that the United States did SOMETHING.

To learn more about "The Horrors of Hussein" watch the history channel, or read the article on Newsmax.com - follow the link here: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/6/231427.shtml

*snip*

/Signed.



p.s. I like Teddy and George.

http://archive.parade.com/2005/0213/0213_dictator.html

1. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan.
Age 61. In power since 1989.
Last year’s rank: 7

A colossal humanitarian tragedy in western Sudan’s Darfur region has uprooted 2 million people and killed 70,000, mostly through the activities of government-supported militias. This is nothing new in Sudan, where Omar al-Bashir, its dictator, has engaged in ethnic and religious persecution since seizing power in a military coup. Sudan has 6 million internally displaced persons—more than any other nation. In southern Sudan, where Christianity and traditional religions are practiced, Bashir tried to impose Islamic law in a campaign that included aerial bombing of villages and enslavement of women and children. His forces met with armed resistance, escalating to what some called a civil war between Muslims and Christians. (In Darfur, meanwhile, he has been killing Muslims.) Last month, Bashir signed a cease-fire with rebels in the south. It allows government troops to remain in southern Sudan and prohibits southerners from voting for independence for six years.

2. Kim Jong Il, North Korea.
Age 62. In power since 1994.
Last year’s rank: 1

Kim Jong Il slipped from first place, but not for want of trying. North Korea still ranks last in Reporters Without Borders’ international index of press freedom, and it earned Freedom House’s worst score for political rights and civil liberties for the 33rd straight year (a world record). The Ministry of People’s Security places spies in workplaces and neighborhoods to inform on anyone who criticizes the regime, even at home. All radios and TV sets are fixed to receive only government stations. Disloyalty to Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung, is a punishable crime: Offenses include allowing pictures of either leader to gather dust or be torn or folded. The population is divided into “loyalty groups.” One-third belong to the “hostile class.” These people receive the worst jobs and housing and may not live in the capital, Pyongyang. Below the hostiles are the estimated 250,000 held in prison camps, some for crimes allegedly committed by relatives. Executions often are performed in public.

3. Than Shwe, Burma.
Age 72. In power since 1992.
Last year’s rank: 2

In response to world opinion, Gen. Than Shwe freed 9000 prisoners, but hopes for a new liberalism faded when only 40 were political detainees (among more than 1000 still being held). The rest were common criminals. Than Shwe extended the house arrest of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party won 80% of the vote in the last open election (1990). The arrest of opposition members resumed. Freedom of expression is not allowed; unlicensed possession of a fax machine or modem is punishable by 15 years in prison. To relocate ethnic minorities, the army destroyed 3000 villages and drove 1.2 million Burmese from their homes. In a landmark case, Unocal Corp. of California agreed to pay damages to Burmese villagers who said the military used torture, rape or murder to force them to work on the company’s pipeline.

4. Hu Jintao, China.
Age 62. In power since 2002.
Last year’s rank: 3

Despite China’s economic liberalization, President Hu Jintao’s government remains one of the most repressive. Some 250,000 Chinese are serving sentences in “re-education and labor camps.” China executes more people than all other nations combined, often for nonviolent crimes. The death penalty can be given for burglary, embezzlement, counterfeiting, bribery or killing a panda. Hu’s government controls all media and Internet use. Defense lawyers who argue too vigorously for clients’ rights may be disbarred or imprisoned. And if minorities (such as Tibetans) speak out for autonomy, they’re labeled “terrorists,” imprisoned and tortured.

5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia.
Age 81. In power since 1995.
Last year’s rank: 5

Bending under strong international pressure, Crown Prince Abdullah and his family, who have absolute power, are holding Saudi Arabia’s first elections in 40 years—municipal elections, that is. Women may not vote or run for office, owing to “technical difficulties”: Most Saudi women don’t have the photo IDs needed to register; there aren’t enough female officials to register those who do; and men may not register women, because the sexes are forbidden to mingle in public. Worldwide, the royal family promotes an extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, which considers all followers of other religions—even other Muslims—“infidels.” In 2004, the U.S. State Department added Saudi Arabia to its list of nations in which religious liberty is severely violated.

6. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya.
Age 62. In power since 1969.
Last year’s rank:
Dishonorable mention

Increasingly annoyed by other Arab leaders, Qaddafi—once considered a supporter of terrorism —has gone to great lengths to re-establish links with the West. He turned over a perpetrator of the 1988 terrorist bombing of an American commercial flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and made substantial payments to families of the victims of both the Lockerbie bombing and that of a French plane. He gave up his nuclear weapons program and is opening his nation’s economy to foreign investment. Yet at home he continues to run a brutal dictatorship, maintaining total control over all aspects of Libyan life. Freedom of speech, assembly and religion are harshly restricted. Entire families, tribes and even towns can be punished for “collective guilt.” Political opposition and damaging public or private property are considered “crimes against the state.”

7. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan.
Age 61. In power since 1999.
Last year’s rank: Not mentioned

Two years after seizing power in a military coup that overthrew an elected government, Gen. Pervez Musharraf appointed himself president of Pakistan. He recently agreed to step down as head of the military, then reversed his decision, claiming that he was best suited to unite Pakistan’s contentious political and military elements. “The country is more important than democracy,” he said. Pakistan has endangered the world by spreading nuclear technology. Last year, it was discovered that Abdul Qadeer Khan, head of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, had been selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. As for civil liberties in Pakistan, a woman who has been raped may present her case only if she can produce four Muslim men who witnessed the attack.

8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan.
Age 64. In power since 1990.
Last year’s rank: 8

Niyazov has developed an overbearing personality cult that crushes dissent and invades all aspects of life in Turkmenistan, no matter how trivial. He controls his one-party state with torture, disappearances, detentions, house demolitions, forced labor and exile. He muzzles all media, and it is illegal to criticize any of his policies. Statues of Niyazov appear everywhere, and his picture is on all denominations of money. His “moral guide,” Rukhnama (Book of the Soul), is required reading for students, married couples and even applicants for a driver’s license. Female newscasters may not wear makeup, nor may young men wear beards, long hair or gold teeth.

9. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe.
Age 80. In power since 1980.
Last year’s rank: 4

After leading an anti-colonial war of liberation, Mugabe was elected Zimbabwe’s first prime minister, raising hopes for a new era of democracy. But he has turned increasingly dictatorial and run his country into the ground. Average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is 33 years—among the lowest in the world. One of Mugabe’s many repressive laws deems it a crime “to make an abusive, indecent or obscene statement” about him. He continues to hold elections, but opposition is discouraged. Looking toward a vote in March, the parliament passed a law banning from Zimbabwe any human-rights or civil-liberties group that receives money from abroad. In other words, independent election monitors will not be allowed.

10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema,
Equatorial Guinea. Age 62.
In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 6

Since major oil reserves were discovered there in 1995, U.S. oil companies have poured $5 billion into this tiny West African nation. Most of the oil income goes to President Obiang and his family, while the majority of the people live on less than $1 a day. Some American oil companies are being investigated for improprieties involving Obiang. The U.S. State Department has accused Obiang’s government of committing torture. In November, 20 people—including 11 foreign nationals —were sentenced to prison for an alleged coup attempt. The only evidence against them, says Amnesty International, were confessions extracted through torture.

Do you mean we're going to go after all these guys? Because by your standards, it's necessary.


Hey, none of these even compared to Rwanda, which we should have intervened in. That killed 800,000+ people. China just has a strict justice system. Nothing to worry about. Not Genocide. The rest could probably be negotiated with limiited millitary interventionism, and mostly with diplomacy.

Hi. My name is Teddy Roosevelt.

I was famous for my love of nature and I celebrated my love of animals by trying to shoot as many of these majestic creatures as I could in as many continents as I could.

Yeah. He has Dubya's twisted way of thinking. That they DO share.

And yet he set up the national park system. What's the shrub going to do?

He may have helped our Navy out a lot with improvements, but he didnt exactly bomb the U.S.S. Maine in Manila Harbor.

Manila harbor? Manila harbor? Did you get that from wickopedia or some other unreliable source?

To learn more about "The Horrors of Hussein" watch the history channel, or read the article on Newsmax.com - follow the link here: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/6/231427.shtml

You are in the wrong thread. This is not about Hussein or the Iraq war. :(

The comparison is just simply wrong.

The Bush administration is screaming loudly and carrying a rotten stick.

The military suffered "peace dividend" gutting. A lot of programs were cancelled (necessarily though - but the funding should have been reallocated), force levels were halfed, and a general shortsighted outlook (the world will be more peaceful) was common. Congress has yet to see fit to return the military to a state necessitated by the current state of world affairs. The Bush adminiatration's policy echoes that, as seen by Rummy's undermanned and unconsidered approach to the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, the over-dependance on reserve and NG units, and a myopic focus on technological issues at the expense of personnel. The successes of the 1991 Gulf War, Afghanistan, and the initial sucesses in Iraq are hiding a potential for disaster - either through meeting an enemy tougher than we expected or though collapse due to overstretch.

Furthermore, the two don't begin to match up in regards to: general policies (corporate ethics and the environment), personal life (volunteer for combat duty vs AWOL borderline draft dodger), education ( Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude at Harvard vs C+ GPA at Yale), and careers.

Finally, compare the number of books each has written. Roosevelt wrote over 200 IIRC, on a wide variety of subjects, one of which (The Naval War of 1812, written in 1889 and on a subject the author staerted without much knowledge of) is still used as a textbook at the US Naval Academy (AFAIK). Has bush actually authored any?

(And, just to add to the smackdown on ignorance.)

Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about admiring Teddy Roosevelt? The guy started the Spanish American war (arguably the start of America's entanglement in foreign wars) and then had the nerve to call it a "splendid little war."

An ex-Assistant Secretary of the Navy has the power to start wars? Have you read the US constitution?

Hey, none of these even compared to Rwanda, which we should have intervened in. That killed 800,000+ people. China just has a strict justice system. Nothing to worry about. Not Genocide. The rest could probably be negotiated with limiited millitary interventionism, and mostly with diplomacy.
Uh. Yeah. I agree about Rwanda but I was responding to ousting Hussein as a dictator. Dictatorships exist. They shouldn't. But we can't go to war with all of them. There are other ways.
Right, Bush? Right???

You admire Teddy Roosevelt for his "carry a big stick and walk softly" policy so why don't you admire George Bush having the same policy?
Who are you talking to?

I admire Bush more.

And Bush is being idiotic when it comes to Iran. Under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the Islamic Republic of Iran(a signatory) is entitled to a "soverign right to pursue peaceful nuclear techology." See Article IV of that document.

Iran's operations are observed directly or indirectly 24/7 by the IAEA. They have conformed to ALL standards set by that agency. They have not ever claimed they wish a nuclear weapon.

Soo, would you care to bet your life savings that they are not planning on making nukes? Somehow, I'd doubt it. Iran has plenty of other sources of cheap power and it does not make sense for them to pursue nuclear power production as it is much more expensive for them and a complete waste of time currently. Since I seriously doubt the mad mullahs are going to throw away money on that, this leaves them pursuing nukes as the reason for their uranium enrichment. BTW, I remember people making the same argument you just used in favor of North Korea being able to have nuclear reactors and we see how well that one turned out.

You admire Teddy Roosevelt for his "carry a big stick and walk softly" policy so why don't you admire George Bush having the same policy?

More specifically; Bush hints at using force against Iran. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8933866/

ROTFLASTC

Teddy Roosevelt:Totally awesome dude::George W. Bush:Just some dude