Actually in my opinion, and quite a lot of others, Clinton was the second best president America has had in recent times. OK - he wasnt perfect, not by a long shot - but he was substantially better than other ones, who will remain nameles (yes both bushes - i wont mention ur name - oops). When i say recent times, i go back maybe 40 odd years or so, just after the infamous Kennedy era - he wouldve been a wonderful president. Everyone loved him....very sad. I just want to go back to something. Darkman, i respect your opinion and others and belive it is based on a lot of good knowledge. But, i think we're missing the reason for why there are bombs and terrorist attacks on the US. "What comes around goes around", plays a key role here. The bombings are a direct result of oppression, suppresion and other wrongful foreign policies. Instead of saying "Whay didnt Clinton go off and sort out terroris?", maybe the question shouldve been, "Why did the US stop hiding behind an allegiance with the Isreali's and prevent the Human Rights of thousands of Palestines from being infringed upon to strong degrees?" I know we are all for living for today and forgetting the past, but the past haunts those who were effected and their hatred will probably not faulter for some time. It's like taking a Jew to an ex-Nazi part member (highup member if still alive) and telling him he should forgive the NAZI. Should he? History certainly is littered with allies becoming enemies and enemies becoming allies. The problem is always related back to power struggles. War always starts over wanting something you cant have...
DarkmanX, one only turns a cheek after it has been struck. The Iraqis did nothing to us directly and it is been proved that they had no connection to 911 and that they had no weapons of mass destruction, so now our government uses the excuse that he was just a bad guy. I think we had a right to go into Afghanistan because there was a connection to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and that means that they chose us as their enemy first. In spite of that we expend more of our resources in Iraq then we do in Afghanistan. Why? Because Iraq may have as much as 40% of the world’s oil supply. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and because it is dwindling and in short supply it may one day be the determining factor in world power. We are a resilient and wealthy country and we should be able find a replacement for this dated energy source. This isn’t a conspiracy scenario, this is what’s happening. _X_X_X_X_X_[small]If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson [/small]
That right there is America's problem. They belive that they were attacked first. They belive that they are the victims. Its all incorrect. The American Governments are the instigators - the cause of the backlash (which is what it is).
I agree that Clinton was a very charismatic (sp?) president, but he was like a parent who wants to be the child's friend as opposed to being the parent. Sometimes, people aren't going to like the decisions the parents make, but they need to be made. Clinton never addressed any of the foreign affairs issues, he let them fester and now look at the cancer we hace that is spreading. "What comes around goes around, plays a key role here. The bombings are a direct result of oppression, suppresion and other wrongful foreign policies". I don't remember us directly attacking any countries before 9/11. Are we to turn our backs on allies if we don't agree with some of their policies? We don't always agree with the decisions our friends make, but we don't cut them out of our lives if they don't act as we would like them to. And yes there are incidents that have occurred in the past that are wrong, but should we leave America because the Indians were here first and wrongly treated? Should we pay African Americans money because of the oppression they endured for 400 years? Should we kill people who are of Nazi decent? The point I'm making is that we must acknowledge that things did occur, but other than to ensure that these things don't happen again, what else can we do? Again, Oil is part of the equation, but the rest of the world wanted nothing to do with helping us, and now they are all concerned about the oil and why they can't get a piece of the pie. Sophocles, there has been proof that he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. I think we want to put that term in the category of a nuke, but chemical agents can be classified as weapons of mass destruction too. It has been proven that Saddam had raw materials to produce nerve agents; besides, if these items didn't exist, why have troops found enemy soldiers wearing chem suits and stock piles of gas masks if they don't possess the stuff? Iraq is known to be a haven for terror training and camps, not to mention that Saddam put out a contract to assasinate the first prsident Bush. Just so we are clear Oriphus (luv the name!) what has America instigated? _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_[small]Silent Assasin[/small]
The people of the world can be told anything, by ANYONE to "smooth over" military action. If you constantly hear news stories from "one side" the "Truth" tends to wobble at times.
i love my country, despise my government.... nough said... i disagree w/our foreign policy and how we view our status in the world... but i do like our freedoms and all.. peace jimmy
DarkmanX, there has been [bold]absolutely[/bold] no proof of any kind (especially on the nuclear issue) that Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction since the 1st gulf war. We all know about his earlier use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and his own people, but if we couldn't find the moral ground to take him down when he was dangerous, then why do we now after we've pulled all of his teeth choose to attack him (oil). Sure we found a couple of old rockets lying around but that's all. The UN sanctions and inspectors had him contained because he knew that if he wnet to far he would have to face an internationally sanctioned coalition. Husseins not a young man and in a few short years he would have drifted away into memory and history. I would like anyone to show me where its been documented that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Clinton made a few mistakes in his personal life but he is George Bush's superior in every way. By the way Bush made mistake in his personal life too, such as a DUI. _X_X_X_X_X_[small]If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson [/small]
Good points, but I would hardly say that the U.N. had Hussein contained. If memory serves me, I believe he didn't even allow them free access, per the agreement from the Gulf War. I don't believe that he feared any reprisals from the U.N. at all. Look at all of the U.N. resolutions he violated! I am in NOOOO way a Bush fan! I do like the fact that he sticks to his guns and if he says he's going to do something, he does it. I hate that we think we have to bare the burden of "policing" the world, but we are in the thick of a hornets nest right now! Right or wrong, I believe we have to stay the course or it will only encourage more acts against us, because they believe Americans are all talk and no fight! I was involved in the first Gulf War and I have observed some of the living conditions that the middle eastern people deal with. I do agree that we get a little full of ourselves, because we try to push our way of thinking on other cultures.
It's true that the UN inspections were constantly be thwarted by Hussein but he was still in fact contained. Hans Blix's last report before he left Iraq was virtually disregarded by the Bush administration but in the end his final report turned out to be completely accurate, in that there were no weapons of mass destruction. If we want to look for weapons of mass destruction then why not go after the North Koreans who've confessed to the possession of nuclear weapons. Evem more terrifying, missiles that can travel more than the 135 mile range of Husseins missiles, they are intercontinental ballistic missiles, they can hit us directly. Why aren't we after them? Didn't Bush identify them as part of the "Axis of Evil" just as he did Hussein. Korea is of no long term economic interest to us like Iraq is. How are we ever going to continue to remain a free people if we buy into every political lie our leaders tell us? Trust me Dark, we aren't policing the world, only those nations that have what we want.
I am an American. I don't want anyone to underestimate or belittle our convictions as a people in what we are trying to do. You may not agree with the means in which we are going about it, but as a nation, we are determined and supportive of our course of action. This isn't a "powerplay for oil". We are determined to fight and defeat terrorism. Can we win this war? No, but we will continue and progress in diminishing its effects worldwide. I've read plenty of threads on this forum about Americans always using up such a high percentage of the world's resources, yet we are only a small percentage of the people worldwide. It's true. I hope to see our lifestyles change and become more efficient and economical. I also want to state that many Americans are dying abroad to better the lives of others. We consider our people our greatest resource and cherish life dearly. These lives are not given easily, but willingly. We are willing to die for our beliefs. Please don't flame me for my beliefs and convictions, but debate them in a possitive and productive way. I have such great respect for the people of this forum and the knowledge they share with others. Let's continue in learning from each other with dignity. Jim
Sophocles North Korea is being given a different kind of attention. Direct military action there would involve the ChiComs. Just as it did 50 years ago. Yes, the "Puk Hans" have ICBM's and maybe a few nukes. Not enough to bring the USA down militarily. Enough to harm the world. Just like the two towers had a ripple effect on the U.S. and the world economy. If we wanted to, we could end the threat from North Korea. Might take only a couple of MIRV's to do so. It is the aftermath and unsuing actions from other nations that we have to worry about. Hence the different tack. Now, as for OIL, we all (as a world community) want & need it. Without it we grind to a halt. The progress the world has made to date has been because of the utilization of "Fossil Fuels". Without them, we would not be having this conversation. We would be hunter/gather's. As for terrorism today. Much of it is being spawned by a religion that once was known for its enlighted status and a center of civilisation. That religion has imploded and seeks to drag us backwards technologically. Never mind the fact that the perps seek to use every technological advance made, to destroy those who developed the technology. If the technology was so bad and corrupted society, why use it your self? As far as I'm concerned this is a resumption of the muslim conquest of the world. Peaceful religion my ***. Bill Clinton turned me into a voting Republican. Proud to be an American (USAF Retired) TC PS: Flame me. What does not kill us only makes us stronger. Yee Haa
That was very well articulated and I couldn't agree with you more Jim! I am so greatful that this site exists, not just for the trivial ?'s but as a conduit to share ideas in a respectful manner with citizens of the world. As far as Korea goes, our forces are spread thin as it is. We still are dealing with Afghanistan as well as Iraq. We cannot address Korea until we finish what we've started in these regions. Besides, how come the U.N. isn't proactively addressing Korea in it's attempts to blackmail the world with nukes they aren't suppose to have? _ _X_X_X_X_X_[small]Silent Assasin[/small]
North Korea was used as an example but the truth is we will never send our military to North Korea because we would only end up infuriating the Chinese and isolate a major trading partner, South Korea. Suppose the North Koreans decide that they should have nuclear weapons and that we should give ours up? If you want to truly understand US policy then all you have to do is follow the dollar.
I think the fact that north korea has the worlds largest army, is nuclear cabable, and has no oil fields would have more of a deterrent than upsetting trading partners. Since when has america cared about that? Im australian and proud of it, weve just celebrated ANZAC day. My father was in Vietnam, americas war, and he marched yestersday, however even he beleives we shouldnt have gone there, shouldnt have gone to iraq now or before and that America in all honesty should open its eyes because its only going to get worse, and i agree. America actually believes it can win the war on terrorism? How? Fight everyone apart from england and australia??
During the first Gulf war Saddam Hussein also had one of the worlds largest armies, just under a half million and he was routed in very little time because like the Koreans the Iraqi army was under equipted. The North Koreans have a large body count but no way to transport them, and they have nuclear weapons, but not enough for an assault. The Chinese however are well equipted, have enoguh nuclear weapons for an assault, and able to transport an army and theirs is enormous. If the North Koreans had 40% of the worlds estimated remaining oil supply then they too might have something to worry about. Your point on fighting terroism is well stated. How can one fight an enemy one can't even identify. It could be a neighbor or a person that one passes while walking in the park, going to a concert, or taking a cruise there just isn't any clear way to know who the enemy is. Perhaps it's time to stop making enemies.
I see on the news that the U.S. will be sending food and medicine to North Korea to help in the tragedy that has befallen their people. See, we do contribute to some good in the world. As far as fighting a losing battle, it is true that the enemy could wear different faces, not just middle eastern, and we will never know what's in the hearts of people until they strike, but should we lay down and do nothing? Should we succumb to being black mailed like the Italian citizens who will be executed unless the Italian govenrment gives in to the demands of these animals! The war on terrorist is akin to the war against evil. We probably will never truly defeat evil, because it's a part of this world, but should we not strive to abolish it and be better individuals.
Yes Darkman we do some good. If we could just stay on that course we might find ourselves with fewer enemies and more allies. In spite of every economic and political wrong our country has committed against less fortunate nations, we've also done a lot of good and the world is overall a better place for it. My biggest fear isn't the terrorist lurking in the shadows waiting to strike, its blind patriotism that causes our people to agree with everything our government tells them. Our forefathers had more faith in us then that but we aren't rising to their expectations. we've been divided into two political camps, republicans and Democrats, and an election is seen as little more than another kind of super bowl. The concern to them isn't the importance of voting but who's team will win. If we gave every American voter a simple test before voting that asked them to name the three braches of the government, voter turnout would be even less than it is now. we aren't going to loose our freedom from terroist attacks we're going to loose it through ignorance.
The executive, judicial and legislative branchs. I guess I can vote! As far as the forefathers, I believe that we need to understand the spirit of the constitution as opposed to what's actually been interpreted! And the interpretation is based on what party has the power to select supreme court judges. The 1st amendment gave the right to speech, but has been interpreted not to give the freedom to yell bomb in an airport, or the second amendment which gave the right to have a well regulated militia, which was interpreted that citizens have the right to bear arms. Certainly the constitution was written when there were no policemen and you needed weapons to defend your home or to hunt for food. Our fore fathers could not fathom the types of weapons that exist today.... but I'm getting off of the topic!!!
Actually many if not most constituional interpretations are derived from the Federalist Notes. The notes were taken during the framing of the constitution and they are still used as a tool to try to understand the original intent of the framers (our forefathers)as well as detailing the complexities of a constitutional goverment. They are mostly the collected notes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, amd John Jay. Unfortunately the Judiciary has been given enourmous power in the interpretation of modern law expecially Bills that are written and ratified by the congress. Many including myself believe that it is time to stop the appointment of Supreme Court judges in favor of their being elected. It's nuts to give that much power to an unelected branch of the government. Many of my student often view freedom of speech to broadly and I use the "yelling fire," in a theater analogy to help them realize that freedom of speech just as bearing arms comes with responsiblity. _X_X_X_X_X_[small]If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson [/small]
Aaahhh, so you're a teacher! Actually, I never thought about electing Supreme Court Judges-what an interesting notion. Of course we're back to the selection pool being limited to the rich.
