[ironknee]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

You mean grave site? Careful. Your stupidity is showing a little.

wow.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I guess calling Edwards a meatball ia 10X more hurtful than calling Bush Hitler, or a Chirsto Facist for that matter. Oh sorry did I mispeak? It was the bloggers on his website that said that.

Congratulations. You are officially the most retarded person on MacNN. I'd never thought I'd see one who's mental capacity was lower than this guy, but you've trumped him with that defence.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The idea that he is the worst in history is laughable, and it shows an incredible lack of historical perspective.

Actually, what you are saying is true. Only with the blessing of hindsight and historical perspective the majority will realise that he was one of the worst presidents. The fact that hindsight is not even needed for a lot of people right now to decide that he is, with the aid of historical perspective, isn't really working in his favour.

A lot of people were defending Nixon for a long while too.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Actually, what you are saying is true. Only with the blessing of hindsight and historical perspective the majority will realise that he was one of the worst presidents. The fact that hindsight is not even needed for a lot of people right now to decide that he is, with the aid of historical perspective, isn't really working in his favour.

A lot of people were defending Nixon for a long while too.

Nixon wasn't a terrible leader. He was one of our better foreign policy Presidents. He was just nuts. That's enough to land him in the worse list right there.

There wasn't that much that Nixon did that other administrations didn't do though- but Nixon had John Deane and his escort service wife and the others didn't so Nixon got caught. Nixon had nothing to do with the break-in at the Watergate, and the cover-up would have worked if not for Deane's self serving attempts to try to keep himself out of trouble for his primary role in the break-in itself. Nixon didn't know at the time that the guy he was trusting to manage the affair was the guy who started the affair in the first place. It would be like Ron Brown surviving the crash and then spilling the beans on everything that went on at the Commerce Department, though at least Clinton would have known that Ron was involved and knew where all the "bodies" were buried.

Only people with a lack of intelligence and/or an inability to see past their biases would rate Bush as one of the worst. Granted, he'll likely never go down as one of the best (nor will Clinton) but the idea that he's done anything to make him one of the "worse" is laughable. We heard the same thing about Reagan 15 years or so ago. It's comical at best, sad at worse.

[Nicko]

When the US goes into recession at the end of this year/beginning of next year it should confirm Bush's status of worst ever.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nixon wasn't a terrible leader. He was one of our better foreign policy Presidents. He was just nuts. That's enough to land him in the worse list right there.

I know. That's why I know that with hindsight it will come to light just how much worse GWB was. He's a terrible foreign policy leader, a terrible economic leader and he just doesn't handle crisis well. At all.

Whether the crisis was thrust upon him unfairly or not, he just couldn't handle it. He failed internationally and dragged the domestics down with it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

When the US goes into recession at the end of this year/beginning of next year it should confirm Bush's status of worst ever.

Recessions have been happening every every 3-6 years for the last 30. That's seven Presidents.

Again, lack of perspective.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

A terrible economic leader

I've heard lots of complaints about Bush's economic policies, and I think that there are places which I would like to see thing done differently, but in what way does the word "terrible" apply?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I know. That's why I know that with hindsight it will come to light just how much worse GWB was. He's a terrible foreign policy leader, a terrible economic leader and he just doesn't handle crisis well. At all.

See...reading just this, I can pretty much dismiss your opinion.

There have been MANY worse foriegn policy leaders. MANY. And it can be argued that not cowing to other countries or getting along is not "bad" foreign policy. I remember the crowing the left did about what a terrible foreign policy President Reagan was, and he was arguably one of best. The economy is in great shape. And crisis? When was the last terrorist attack we've had? I can buy that other presidents may have been able to handle some of these things a little better to varying degrees, but there's really no "list" that Bush falls into the "worse" category unless you're simply going on sheer bias. Not the best? Sure. Worst. I doubt it.

I'm not buying it from any objective viewpoint.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I've heard lots of complaints about Bush's economic policies, and I think that there are places which I would like to see thing done differently, but in what way does the word "terrible" apply?

Exactly. If Bush is "terrible" than so have been most other Presidents based on all the evidence and numbers. Clinton's first several years and last several where mediocre at best. After the we got over the recession Bush inherited, things have been somewhere between good and steady. It's when I hear things like "worse economy", I know I'm dealing with someone not looking at things objectively.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The economy is in great shape. And crisis? When was the last terrorist attack we've had?

Your economy is tanking. Crisis?... What more crisis do you need than the daily disaster of Iraq and Afghanistan...soon to add Iran to that list. But I forgot, its all part of the PLAN.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

See...reading just this, I can pretty much dismiss your opinion.

The economy is in great shape. And crisis? When was the last terrorist attack we've had? .

See....reading just this, I can pretty much dismiss your opinion. Obviously, you don't live in America, because if you do, the economy is in great shape, if you're one of 10% who hold 80% of the wealth. If you're a working class person who's wages have stagnated for almost two decades, and who goes to work everyday, wondering if they'll have a job at the end of the day, while their boss goes home to a McMansion, the economy isn't in such great shape. If you're one of the 48 million uninsured, and you file for bankruptcy because you used your credit card to cover your medical needs (which is approximately 50% of bankruptcies), the economy isn't in such great shape. If you're a senior citizen and you have to decide which is more important, food or medicine, the economy isn't in such great shape. If your country borrows untold billions to invade a sovereign nation that was no threat to it, yet dispatches the very vets who fought in that war to a shameful, despicable, and embarrasing place like Walter Reed Medical Center, because the leaders of your country cut veterans benefits to pay for that war, our economy isn't in such great shape.

We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 because we've been lucky. It has absolutely nothing to do with security enhancements, as Homeland Security has been consistently underfunded, and as I've pointed out before, but which you'll no doubt ignore, as you did the last time I pointed this out to you, we are still sitting ducks, and if someone wanted to attack us, there are numerous ways and places where we're extremely vulnerable.

It's when I hear things like, "The economy's in great shape," and "When was the last terrorist attack we had?" I know I'm dealing with someone not looking at things objectively.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Your economy is tanking.

Indeed. And the sky is falling as well!
BREITBART.COM - Unemployment Rate Drops to 4.5 Percent

Crisis?... What more crisis do you need than the daily disaster of Iraq and Afghanistan...soon to add Iran to that list. But I forgot, its all part of the PLAN.

Never forget.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

See....reading just this, I can pretty much dismiss your opinion. Obviously, you don't live in America, because if you do, the economy is in great shape, if you're one of 10% who hold 80% of the wealth.

BZZZT. I'm middle class. The economy is better than when Bush took over and not all that different than when Clinton was in charge. Well..except that now there is no artificial "irrational exhuberance" uplifting a new market. If you want to play from the class warfare handbook, you've got to realize that the situation isn't limited to Bush - if that's the game you want to play.

We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 because we've been lucky.

..and the attacks where just an example of a lack of luck?

Sorry, I don't buy. Why? Because I know that the bad guys are having a hard enough time peaking out of the underground bunkers long enough to plant roadside explosives then to be planning any in-depth overseas maneuvers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if they are OVER THERE fighting, it leaves then less of an opportunity to do it over here, especially with heightened security here.

Success all around on the war on terror!

It's when I hear things like, "The economy's in great shape," and "When was the last terrorist attack we had?" I know I'm dealing with someone not looking at things objectively.

It's absolutely objective, with a comparison from what we had before. Sorry.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

See....reading just this, I can pretty much dismiss your opinion. Obviously, you don't live in America, because if you do, the economy is in great shape, if you're one of 10% who hold 80% of the wealth. If you're a working class person who's wages have stagnated for almost two decades, and who goes to work everyday, wondering if they'll have a job at the end of the day, while their boss goes home to a McMansion, the economy isn't in such great shape. If you're one of the 48 million uninsured, and you file for bankruptcy because you used your credit card to cover your medical needs (which is approximately 50% of bankruptcies), the economy isn't in such great shape. If you're a senior citizen and you have to decide which is more important, food or medicine, the economy isn't in such great shape. If your country borrows untold billions to invade a sovereign nation that was no threat to it, yet dispatches the very vets who fought in that war to a shameful, despicable, and embarrasing place like Walter Reed Medical Center, because the leaders of your country cut veterans benefits to pay for that war, our economy isn't in such great shape.

We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 because we've been lucky. It has absolutely nothing to do with security enhancements, as Homeland Security has been consistently underfunded, and as I've pointed out before, but which you'll no doubt ignore, as you did the last time I pointed this out to you, we are still sitting ducks, and if someone wanted to attack us, there are numerous ways and places where we're extremely vulnerable.

It's when I hear things like, "The economy's in great shape," and "When was the last terrorist attack we had?" I know I'm dealing with someone not looking at things objectively.

KARLG: You complain about Global Warming, defending every anthropocentric cause coming down the pike. You complain about the economy and those going without in your view. Well here is another perspective which puts you KarlG right on top of the elitist heap and yet, despite being at least among the top 10% in terms of wealth on the planet, you continue to whine and complain. You're a class act. How much more do you want?

The two most asset rich countries in 2000, were Japan and the United States. In the US, average wealth amounted to £144,000 per person, and $182,000 in Japan. In comparison with India, the figure was $1000, China on $2200. The amounts also varied considerably between developed nations, with Britain at $128,000 per person and New Zealand at just $37,000 per person. At the bottom was The Democratic Republic of Congo with just $180 per person. Off course since 2000, both China and India have grown significantly and the figures are probably some 40% higher now, but still well behind the developed countries.

Those in the richest 10 per cent of adults had assets of $60,000 or more, while those in the top 1 per cent - who now number 37 million - had at least $500,000. Some 37 percent of the wealthiest 1 percent live in the United States, 27 percent in Japan, and 6 percent in the UK, followed by 5 percent in France. Among the wealthiest 10 percent, 25 percent live in the U.S., 20 percent in Japan, 8 percent in Germany, and 7 percent in Italy. France and Spain claim 4 percent, followed by 2 percent in South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and Canada.

For a person in 2000, to join the top net wealth clubs, then they would need -
$2,161 to be a member of the top 50% wealthiest individuals on the planet.
$61,000 to be a member of the top 10% wealthiest individuals on the planet.
$500,000 to be a member of the top 1% wealthiest individuals on the planet.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article152.html

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and the attacks where just an example of a lack of luck?

Sorry, I don't buy. Why? Because I know that the bad guys are having a hard enough time peaking out of the underground bunkers long enough to plant roadside explosives then to be planning any in-depth overseas maneuvers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if they are OVER THERE fighting, it leaves then less of an opportunity to do it over here, especially with heightened security here.

Success all around on the war on terror!



It's absolutely objective, with a comparison from what we had before. Sorry.

So the bad guys are having a hard time peaking out of bunkers, eh? If you're talking about Iraq, then you are definitely wrong. Once again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism affecting the U. S. How many times do you have to be told that? What we're fighting in Iraq isn't terrorists; it's the Iraqis who want us out of their country, which we had no business invading in the first place. We're in the middle of a civil war! The Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Mushareff is dancing on the head of a pin, trying to appease his people and the U. S. at the same time, which is very tough. You statement that there's success in the war on terror shows exactly how little you understand about what's going on there. You can't fight a war against an ideology. You don't understand, just like the people who planned this invasion that you can't go into someone else's country and tell them they're going to take democracy, when that country is a fractured region that was held together by bailing wire under the guise of Saddam Hussein. This region has a long history of tribal and religious conflicts, and it would have exploded on its own at some point in time in any event; Saddam Hussein wasn't going to live forever.

If you really believe that a consistently underfunded Homeland Security department is keeping foreign terrorists from attacking our wide open shipyards, railyards, chemical facilities, sports stadiums, and bringing in materials in ports in which less than 5% of hundreds of thousands of containers are ever checked, and on and on, and you refuse to accept that we can't even keep Mexicans from illegally coming into the U. S., by the thousands, yet somehow we can keep terrorists out, then there is nothing further to discuss with you. For some bizarre reason, you seem to need to believe in fairy tales, when all evidence clearly shows they don't exist. Fortunately, more and more Americans are realizing they've been bamboozled; unfortunately, there will always be those who hang on to their fantasies until the end. Several of those are in the White House, and it's quite obvious there are a few here as well.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So the bad guys are having a hard time peaking out of bunkers, eh? If you're talking about Iraq, then you are definitely wrong. Once again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism affecting the U. S. How many times do you have to be told that?

You don't know anything about this stuff, do you? Who do you think it is that is fueling the resistance in Iraq? I'll give you a clue. It isn't rank and file Iraqis.

What we're fighting in Iraq isn't terrorists; it's the Iraqis who want us out of their country, which we had no business invading in the first place.

Tell that to the guy who couldn't follow the UN Mandates to either put up or face dire consequences.

We're in the middle of a civil war! The Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Mushareff is dancing on the head of a pin, trying to appease his people and the U. S. at the same time, which is very tough.

Again...if you think that the terrorist forces at work in Iraq are simply Iraqi citizens who don't want Americans in Iraq - you're hopelessly naive.

You statement that there's success in the war on terror shows exactly how little you understand about what's going on there. You can't fight a war against an ideology.

Of course you can't. But you can keep those kooks busy in their part of the world so that they aren't over HERE killing civilians as they did on 9/11. The crazies in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have to worry about things exploding around them right now. Their top priority is survival - not hard to achieve plans involving killing people in relatively secure places (at least these days) which require time and money. It's hard to do that from a cave with virtually no technology and limited supplies.

[OldManMac]

Nice of you to cherry pick which points you want to answer. Keep on believing, as you're becoming more and more of a minority. A lot of the rest of America has awakened, and seen how they've been bamboozled. Like I said earlier, some people will never admit they've been fooled, and you're one of them. I'm not going around in circles with you anymore; you're not going to change,and neither am I.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Nice of you to cherry pick which points you want to answer. Keep on believing, as you're becoming more and more of a minority. A lot of the rest of America has awakened, and seen how they've been bamboozled.

Most people aren't swayed by "appeals to the majority" logical fallacies. At least thinking people. The sheeple though will believe whatever it is that the left-wing media will tell them. They've told them since day 1 that Iraq was bad and they will never tell them any different. That's why you never hear about all the successes there. Only defeats.

Like I said earlier, some people will never admit they've been fooled, and you're one of them. I'm not going around in circles with you anymore; you're not going to change,and neither am I.

I'm not the guy looking at things through a distorted lens - trying to do all I can to make things look worse than they are - OR BETTER. I'm not denying that things couldn't be done better. I can see the positives and negatives and can decide objectively. I don't have a stake in one side doing bad. It's clear you do.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

years from now your grandchildren will ask, "daddy did you really support the worst president ever?" at the grave sight of another grandchild who came back dead from iraq

OOoh the drama..

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The difference is that once upon a time, people criticising the President still maintained some respect for the office. People who attack Bush today exhibit no such class.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The difference is that once upon a time, people criticising the President still maintained some respect for the office. People who attack Bush today exhibit no such class.

Well, since the days of Nixon, the office has been tarnished. Given that and the general attitude towards politicians nowadays, one really shouldn't be surprised.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Well, since the days of Nixon, the office has been tarnished. Given that and the general attitude towards politicians nowadays, one really shouldn't be surprised.

Respect has to be earned. It should not be given to someone just because they hold a certain office, and the inhabitant of that office will get exactly the respect he deserves. In the past few decades, we have gotten exactly the government we deserve. Now, back to breaking news on Anna Nicole Smith......

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Well, since the days of Nixon, the office has been tarnished. Given that and the general attitude towards politicians nowadays, one really shouldn't be surprised.

Interesting that you chose Nixon. Some people associate the assassination of JFK with the period in time where the presidency lost the respect of the populace.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Interesting that you chose Nixon.

Do tell.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Some people associate the assassination of JFK with the period in time where the presidency lost the respect of the populace.

I know Johnson was a major asshole, but I'm unaware of his illegal activities.

[vmarks]

Are you unfamiliar with Johnson's FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover? You want to tell me that Johnson's presidency had no illegal activities?

Or were his just the same as Bush's - none prosecuted for, none found guilty.

The reason people associate the diminished respect of the presidency with JFK's assassination is because of the way the government handled the events following the assassination. The people lost faith in the government to tell them the truth, regardless of whether or not the official story is the truth. (I am not a conspiracy theory believer.)

And we see that same mindset present itself again today, with the 9/11 truther movement.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The sheeple though will believe whatever it is that the right-wing media will tell them. They've told them since day 1 that Iraq was good and they will never tell them any different. That's why you never hear about all the bad things there. Only "successes."

There, I fixed it for you.

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/1,72774-1.html

Might want to read that. It explains quite nicely how your "logical fallacy" is precisely that, when it comes to homeland security.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Are you unfamiliar with Johnson's FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover? You want to tell me that Johnson's presidency had no illegal activities?

Ease up, chief. You're assuming intent where there is none. I'm familiar with Hoover, but I forgot about him, let alone who he worked for.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Or were his just the same as Bush's - none prosecuted for, none found guilty.

Once again, you're insinuating I'm trying to spin this.

Anyway, getting back to my original point -- the President has no reason to expect respect with the past 40 years of history.

[vmarks]

But shouldn't he- shouldn't the office be worthy of respect, by virtue of the office - and the holder gets respect (or not) separately?

[Dakar²]

I still like the earned argument -- ignoring what dirty career politics is.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

But shouldn't he- shouldn't the office be worthy of respect, by virtue of the office - and the holder gets respect (or not) separately?

That has already been answered many times.

No, respect is not given, it is earned.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You can't fight a war against an ideology.

Wrong, we are currently doing so.

You sure as hell can't WIN a war against an ideology though.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Wrong, we are currently doing so.

You sure as hell can't WIN a war against an ideology though.

You're correct. Poor wording on my part.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Wrong, we are currently doing so.

You sure as hell can't WIN a war against an ideology though.

Ronald Reagan won an Ideological war against the Soviets. Don't see a lot of them hanging around Eastern Europe much anymore.

[OldManMac]

The Soviet system collapsed on its own. Ronald Reagan did a lot of chest thumping and may have helped hasten it a minor amount, but it was an unsustainable system, based on a closed economy. Gorbachev realised that, and so did many of the citizens of their countrys, once information about how others lived outside their borders started to trickle in. It was just a matter of time. No country can live in isolation forever, as the North Koreans will someday find out, and as the Vietnamese are now starting to find out.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Ronald Reagan won an Ideological war against the Soviets. Don't see a lot of them hanging around Eastern Europe much anymore.

Soviets aren't an ideology big guy.

I hate to break it to ya but there are plenty of Communists left. The US public was duped into fearing the faceless evil of Communism, and now the same with Islamofacism.

Reagan may have "won" but it wasn't from invading the whole Soviet Empire and trying to set up a Democracy.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Soviets aren't an ideology big guy.

I hate to break it to ya but there are plenty of Communists left. The US public was duped into fearing the faceless evil of Communism, and now the same with Islamofacism.
Reagan may have "won" but it wasn't from invading the whole Soviet Empire and trying to set up a Democracy.

Tell the Eastern Europeans how we were duped into fearing the communists. And I would suggest they feel it is an ideology worth resisting.

[sek929]

Once again, we didn't do it with bombs or invasion.

We let a corrupt government crush under it's own weight. Hardly seems relevant to the current situation in the Middle-East.

[subego]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Once again, we didn't do it with bombs

This may be semantic, but we sure as hell did do it with bombs, we just didn't do it by dropping them.

I wonder if one of the reasons we're in this sticky wicket now is because people seem to like to talk smack about deterrence. Rumsfeld obviously thought deterrence was a **** idea.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Recessions have been happening every every 3-6 years for the last 30. That's seven Presidents.

Again, lack of perspective.

Proof? Link please. I need perspective.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by subego 

This may be semantic, but we sure as hell did do it with bombs, we just didn't do it by dropping them.

I wonder if one of the reasons we're in this sticky wicket now is because people seem to like to talk smack about deterrence. Rumsfeld obviously thought deterrence was a **** idea.

Yes of course, I meant bomb explosions but I certainly didn't word it correctly.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

This may be semantic, but we sure as hell did do it with bombs, we just didn't do it by dropping them.

I wonder if one of the reasons we're in this sticky wicket now is because people seem to like to talk smack about deterrence. Rumsfeld obviously thought deterrence was a **** idea.

Our having bombs had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. They had almost as many, if not just as many, bombs and nuclear warheads as we did, so why didn't we collapse? The Soviet Union collapsed because it was held together by chicken wire, in the form of a so-called Communist system. We have gazillions of bombs and nuclear weapons, and it's no deterrent to Iran and North Korea. China, which has been upgrading its military lately, doesn't care how many bombs we have; they're going to beat us economically, and so is India, which doesn't care how many bombs and weapons we have. By the time I turn 100, which will be in 40 years, the U. S. will no longer be the world's superpower, despite all of our bombs.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Our having bombs had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. They had almost as many, if not just as many, bombs and nuclear warheads as we did, so why didn't we collapse?

Because we were the stronger of the two nations.

In order for the to have "almost as many", they had bankrupt themselves. Had there been no "arms race" (which Reagan was criticized for) it's hard to tell how long the old guard could have held out.

It's like suggesting that someone who beats an old person over their head wouldn't be responsible for their death...because after all, they're old and were going to die soon anyways.

Reagan gets credit for the fall of the USSR, and for good reason.

[medicineman]

The cold war was as real and deadly as a heart attack. Make no mistake about that. The fall of the wall culminated with Reagan, but there were steps before that. You can start with Kennedy, who decided that a nuclear standoff was a no-win situation, and he decided to go to an overkill situation with the MAD program. You can add the steps of Pope John Paul on his visit to Poland and the emergence of the Solidarity Union led by Lech Walesa. Add to this mix Gorbachev, who was unlike his predecessors in putting down small insurrections within the USSR. The small Perestroika and Glasnot refoms also softened the wall by firming the resolve of those behind it. Thatcher's bond with Reagan showed Gorbachev a solid front. Try any book by Yale's John Lewis Gaddis for a fuller picture.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because we were the stronger of the two nations.

In order for the to have "almost as many", they had bankrupt themselves. Had there been no "arms race" (which Reagan was criticized for) it's hard to tell how long the old guard could have held out.

It's like suggesting that someone who beats an old person over their head wouldn't be responsible for their death...because after all, they're old and were going to die soon anyways.

Reagan gets credit for the fall of the USSR, and for good reason.

KarlG is correct. The Soviet Union was on its last breath, and this was because of the crappy government it had. The competition with the United States could have helped to speed up the decline of the Soviet Union, but that is not a forgone conclusion because it's also quite possible that it also helped to bolster the Soviet economy and get its people to rally behind a single cause.

The fact is that the USSR was destined to collapse on itself from incompetence and a poor form of government. What finally occurred, if you recall, is that a man called Boris Yeltsen stood on top of a Tank and declared the age of a new Russia. There was a coup and a new "democratic" Russia was born. All this happened inside of Russia for reasons internal to Russia.

The effects of the actions of the United States are unclear however, as they could have been both beneficial and detrimental. It was due to the instability of the Russian government, which began its decline long before Reagan became President, that my family was able to come here to the States.

[OldManMac]

My family and I came over in 1953, from Germany. That must mean that Eisenhower gets credit for us coming over.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

My family and I came over in 1953, from Germany. That must mean that Eisenhower gets credit for us coming over.

Actually, his helping defeat the regime that was in power just 7 years prior to your coming over, probably did have a lot to do with it.

Oh, and that was another wretched ideology that was defeated with guns and bombs, not pacifist bullcrap.

[OldManMac]

Who said anything about "pacifist bullcrap?" Of course it was defeated with guns and bombs. Hitler wasn't that far from taking over Europe, and we had justification for entering the war. Saddam Hussein was a despot and tyrant, but he posed absolutely no threat to the United States. We attacked on false pretenses and now we've made a mess that we don't know how to extricate ourselves from, and our president thinks we can keep sending the same soldiers back again and again, and eventually something's going to go right.


Lighten up, Francis; it was a joke.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Who said anything about "pacifist bullcrap?" Of course it was defeated with guns and bombs.

So gee, I guess your smug blather about you can't win a war against an ideology was just that, blather. Seemed to work quite well against fascism, Nazism, imperialism and to some extent, communism.

Saddam Hussein was a despot and tyrant, but he posed absolutely no threat to the United States.

Yes, so we should have just sat back and had Gulf War II, Gulf War III, Gulf War IV, Gulf War V... etc. etc. and kept coming up with nifty Operation Desert ___ names for 20 or so more years each time Saddam invaded his neighbors, funded terrorists, or launched missiles at Israel.

Then after each war, we could play "weapons inspector" tiddlywinks, with Saddam using the time (and money from the UN and nations he was in bed with) to actually fund and build more weapons. Then after that "OHHH SOOO MUCH BETTER" plan, we could have had even more fun dealing with his ruthless sons once they were in charge, with God only knows what kind of firepower at their disposal.

Sorry, but I think that taking out the whole rotten regime and executing its leaders was a far better idea.

We attacked on false pretenses and now we've made a mess that we don't know how to extricate ourselves from, and our president thinks we can keep sending the same soldiers back again and again, and eventually something's going to go right.

Once again, your "false pretenses" was the common belief of the entire world.

And since when do you care about anything "going right" when it comes to this country's efforts? Of all things, don't even try to pretend that that was ever your goal. And certainly, your business as usual "alternative" for Iraq wouldn't have ever led to anything "going right", unless that's defined as a dictator remaining enabled and continuing to get richer and more powerful from those that were still in business with him, as well as him passing the torch to his even more ruthless sons.

The "good ol' days' of Gulf Wars, and mass graves, and Operation Desert this and that and 'no fly zones' and terrorism sponsoring such that your ilk always pine away for, weren't actually all that great. You and your ilk just had your usual propensity to ignore what was actually happening in Iraq back before you bothered to pretend you gave a good crap how many people were killed there.

[OldManMac]

Wow! Such anger; you should see somebody for that. It's not good for your health.