Worst President in history ?

[Raistlin]

The Redneck makes some good points - global warming is not fact, yet. Scientists, according to an article I read about the subject, claim to have discovered the threshold concerning global warming, whereby if we cross that threshold, there is no turning back. However, they don't know whether we will ever reach that state, or if the recent(past couple of decades) changes have merely been a temporary trend which will peak and drop off. It is still largely unknown.
To the issue of revamping our comapnies: no, I don't think we should completely change all of our companies. Yes, I think we should work towards alternative fuels. No, that won't happen anytime soon due to the oil monopolies having a strong hold on Congress. No, I don't think we should to "clean up the air" or any higher good like that, but purely in rational self-interest: oil won't last forever. We have the ability, the monetary means, and the equipment to research cheaper, more cost-effective alternative fuels. It's a slow process. If we make a law right now limiting the CO2 output of all factories, many will have to be shut down(at least temporarily), which would severely impact the economy.

Now, to the Patriot Act. Most of the Act does nothing against the Constitution. However, some parts of it(I can look up the sections if this is disputed) limit the necessity of a warrant - which goes directly against the 4th and 14th Amendments(most violations of the Bill of Rights also goes against the 14th, though - it merely states that the law applies equally to everybody).

Most people also don't realize that the Homeland Security Act that Bush signed(which was different than the one first proposed by the Democrats) invalidates the Whistleblower Act - which protected federal whistleblowers from retaliation. What possible good could that do? Beats me.

Now, to the UN. This is where I agree with The Redneck again. The UN lost its right to voice its objections after Rwanda in 1994. However, the US and all other countries that could've stopped that genocide were equally responsible for it, as well(which is the biggest thing I have against Clinton). The UN definitely requires some sort of overhaul. It is a great idea, but it hasn't been working according to its ideals.


EDIT: And I still stand by what I said - that Andrew Jackson was the worst President in history.

[Sasquatch]

It's said that we didn't really mean to grant peace to Iraq, but who cares? This is almost as bad as saying any action a man takes is "immoral" if he derives pleasure out of it (it has no "moral import", I'm sure).

why not them?

They haven't been insistent that they wanted America destroyed.

I don't really agree with the War on Iraq, but not for the reasons that most people (Leftists) claim. I think it was irrational and foolish, but trying to undermine it by saying that Iraq wasn't THAT bad, and that we should focus on all of the other evils in the world is claiming that we're impotent against evil.

See, though I support the war, I really respect people who hold these types of opinions about it.

If you want to disagree with it, sure, say the motives may not have been right, but it's asenine to say it wasn't a good thing to do. The Iraqi people have tasted freedom for the first time in three decades, and the world is a safer place without a dictator with means, motive, and opportunity to pursue weapons of mass destruction and slaughter hundreds of his own people, not to mention the support of terrorist organizations that could cause extreme numbers of civilian deaths and financial costs. Say it's for oil, say it's to impress Bush Sr., say it's to get revenge, whatever (though they're all idiotically false), but it's ridiculous to say that Iraq (and the world) isn't (and won't be) better off since Saddam was ousted, which wouldn't have happened unless Bush made it happen.

[Lord Abortion]

The current idiot running the office. GWB, that guy who's leading us towards the apocalypse.

[nik0tine]

It's said that we didn't really mean to grant peace to Iraq, but who cares? This is almost as bad as saying any action a man takes is "immoral" if he derives pleasure out of it (it has no "moral import", I'm sure).

First of all, peace was not granted to Iraq. Iraq is the last place I would refer to as 'peaceful'. We didn't grant the Iraqi's "freedom" either. We are going to give them a "democratically elected" () lapdog government (Just like we have done with every other country we have tried to set up "democracy" in) Saddam was a bad man, yes, and I am glad he is gone, but does that justify murder on our part? We killed anywhere from 20,00-100,000 civilians alone. That doesn't take into account all of the Iraqi soldiers that we killed. (They were fighting for thier country in the same way that any American soldier did) And that still doesn't factor in all of the American soldiers who have been killed (our own people have been killed, and for what?) and that still doesn't factor in all of the wounded people left over from the war. (Including civilians, enemy soldiers, and coalition soldiers) and these numbers will only continue to climb.

All of this destruction, and yet there is still a possibility that the "lapdog government" that will have control over Iraq will become another Saddam. If this happens (and it has happened in the past) the United States will do nothing about it. (Until that guy stops kissing American ass, like Saddam did.)

If you want to disagree with it, sure, say the motives may not have been right, but it's asenine to say it wasn't a good thing to do.

The only good that came out of this was the ousting of Hussein, and he is not going to be replaced by some god-send of a democracy. It'll be another American lap dog government (Which was what Saddam was to begin with)

The Iraqi people have tasted freedom for the first time in three decades

Although they are "free'er" than they once were (and thank god for that) they still aren't going to get the freedom that you and I recieve here in America. Our government doesn't give a damn about Iraqi freedom, and the leaders that Iraq will have will all be wearing the American leash.

Say it's for oil, say it's to impress Bush Sr., say it's to get revenge, whatever (though they're all idiotically false),

It was for none of these things (although Oil plays a part). It's about geopolitical dominance. To beleive otherwise is asanine.

[Raistlin]

If there's one thing I don't understand, it's the "end justifies the means" argument. "We got rid of Hussein, so whatever we did was okay." No, that's not true. It would only be true if you looked at the actions themselves, without the result, and could say the same thing. I don't think I could just look at the US actions and decisions and reasonings leading up to Iraq in and of themselves and say, "those were all good things." Actually, I know I couldn't.

[Gnostic Yevon]

It's said that we didn't really mean to grant peace to Iraq, but who cares? This is almost as bad as saying any action a man takes is "immoral" if he derives pleasure out of it (it has no "moral import", I'm sure).

First of all, peace was not granted to Iraq. Iraq is the last place I would refer to as 'peaceful'. We didn't grant the Iraqi's "freedom" either. We are going to give them a "democratically elected" () lapdog government (Just like we have done with every other country we have tried to set up "democracy" in) Saddam was a bad man, yes, and I am glad he is gone, but does that justify murder on our part? We killed anywhere from 20,00-100,000 civilians alone. That doesn't take into account all of the Iraqi soldiers that we killed. (They were fighting for thier country in the same way that any American soldier did) And that still doesn't factor in all of the American soldiers who have been killed (our own people have been killed, and for what?) and that still doesn't factor in all of the wounded people left over from the war. (Including civilians, enemy soldiers, and coalition soldiers) and these numbers will only continue to climb.

All of this destruction, and yet there is still a possibility that the "lapdog government" that will have control over Iraq will become another Saddam. If this happens (and it has happened in the past) the United States will do nothing about it. (Until that guy stops kissing American ass, like Saddam did.)

If you want to disagree with it, sure, say the motives may not have been right, but it's asenine to say it wasn't a good thing to do.

The only good that came out of this was the ousting of Hussein, and he is not going to be replaced by some god-send of a democracy. It'll be another American lap dog government (Which was what Saddam was to begin with)

The Iraqi people have tasted freedom for the first time in three decades

Although they are "free'er" than they once were (and thank god for that) they still aren't going to get the freedom that you and I recieve here in America. Our government doesn't give a damn about Iraqi freedom, and the leaders that Iraq will have will all be wearing the American leash.

Say it's for oil, say it's to impress Bush Sr., say it's to get revenge, whatever (though they're all idiotically false),

It was for none of these things (although Oil plays a part). It's about geopolitical dominance. To beleive otherwise is asanine.

I don't think that's true. For one thing the government of Iraq is much more religious than what Bush would want, being controlled by the Shiite coallition. Actually their probably much more like Iran than the secular democracy that most Americans would want in Iraq.

[Teek]

If there's one thing I don't understand, it's the "end justifies the means" argument. "We got rid of Hussein, so whatever we did was okay." No, that's not true. It would only be true if you looked at the actions themselves, without the result, and could say the same thing. I don't think I could just look at the US actions and decisions and reasonings leading up to Iraq in and of themselves and say, "those were all good things." Actually, I know I couldn't.

It's funny you bring this up.

When I wrote that, I was hoping that no one would take it that I was advocating that principle. I'm not. I'm claiming that while I am against the war, it is not because of the reasons a lot of people claim. Yes, I think we had every right to invade Iraq. No, I don't think we should have. We outsed Saddam, which is good, but we didn't use poor means.

The war was justified in the sense that Iraq was a rebel nation. Any nation that doesn't recognize that men are fundamentally free, and that they have certain inalienable rights (a doctrine that is sadly lost in almsot every nation across the globe) is a "criminal" nation and therefore has no "rights" (it is ridiculous to claim that Saddam had the "right" to murder people - because the people didn't stop him). It doesn't matter how fascism/collectivism is initiated. Saddam Hussein and his anti-human government had no right to enslave his people.

However, on the premise of rational self-interest (you've talked about that before, Raist), the war was pointless. It tore our nation up, sent millions off to die, and has not helped towards anything. And, nik0tine is right, even though I don't want to admit it - the only way it would work is if a puppet government was established, which is a use of indirect force, anyway.

It's in that vein that the war was morally sound if impractical and a waste of time. And, I can see the point others attempt to make: if we were going to attack Iraq, we'd have to go after the rest of the world (such is the world today). Very few countries are free and none are wholly free (not even America). That is what I referred to. I'm trying to keep positive, here, haha. At least we might as well get some good out of this.

[Cloud No.9]

so sadamme has no right to enslave his people but mugawbe does? whoever the hell runs sudan does? the burmese government? they all have lovely little right to be genocidal maniacs while sadamme didn't?

sadamme was not even guilty of conspiracy to attack america.

look at what happened in ethiopa this week? is that okay? what is going to be done about that? hee haw. america is too busy fighting a war which i started and is unable to finish.

hussein's connections to terrorism is a vaguery and doubtful. the war in iraq has seen an increase in terrorism in not only thst country but muslims who are sick, sorry and tired of watching other muslims getting the crap bombed out of them in every corner of the earth.

bush has proven that you cannot continue to kick a man without getting your ankles bitten.

the muslim world will no longer stand for illegal attacks on countries. iraq compared to other countries was a drop in the ocean. but the anger that it has caused will drown thousands.

[Teek]

so sadamme has no right to enslave his people but mugawbe does? whoever the hell runs sudan does? the burmese government? they all have lovely little right to be genocidal maniacs while sadamme didn't?

No, but we can't hit all countries. What, do you want to drop an atomic bomb on the entire region and call it a day? We have two options: either we stop fighting wars of this nature and let the countries rot as they will inevitably will, or we hit every country that is acting against its people. Seeing as how that would require to fix nearly every country, I don't see the point. And even if we did, as you're saying, we can't do it all at one time. Please, write to your senator to advocate hitting the next country. Shall we attack the Burmese, first?

(By the way: said "lovely little right" doesn't exist. Did you listen to a word I was saying?)

sadamme was not even guilty of conspiracy to attack america.

No, but he was a hell of a lot more open about his anti-American views. Technically, they all hate America (they have to, because we represent freedom and achievement, which goes against their credo), but Saddam openly talked poorly about America.

look at what happened in ethiopa this week? is that okay? what is going to be done about that? hee haw. america is too busy fighting a war which i started and is unable to finish.

What happened? And if it was violent, I'm almost certain it's not okay; why are you implying that I would think that? And granted, we got into the war so we are too busy. We should never have been a part of the war.

the muslim world will no longer stand for illegal attacks on countries. iraq compared to other countries was a drop in the ocean. but the anger that it has caused will drown thousands.

...how was the attack illegal?

And this isn't flaming, but I'm being serious: did you read anything I said at all? o_O

[nik0tine]

No, but he was a hell of a lot more open about his anti-American views. Technically, they all hate America (they have to, because we represent freedom and achievement, which goes against their credo), but Saddam openly talked poorly about America.

First of all, what's wrong with being anti american?

Secondly, freedom and achievment arent the reasons muslims hate america. Look at what the western world has done to Islam throughout history. There, you will find your answer.

[Teek]

First of all, what's wrong with being anti american?
Secondly, freedom and achievment arent the reasons muslims hate america. Look at what the western world has done to Islam throughout history. There, you will find your answer.

...you answered yourself. Hating the essence that America was based on (human worth, ability and production) means that if one hates America one hates humanity.

Of course, if you're taking about America's horrific foreign policy or the idiots in charge, well, hate away. But it's not what the United States was meant to represent. Capitalism is only a shadow of what it once was.

[Sasquatch]

So if we keep to ourselves and let the UN do its job around the world, then we're letting others be slaughtered and starve...but if we take action against our inevitable enemies because the UN is incompetent, we're overbearing and militaristic? Where's the middle ground?

Iraq was a continuing and growing threat--to the U.S., to its neighbors, and to its own people. Operation Iraqi Freedom alleviated that threat. It hasn't angered any more people than already hated America, only now they have an opportunity to kill infidels because we're closer.

How many terrorist training camps are there in Ethiopia? How much does the Burmese government spend toward providing weapons and training to people who wish to slaughter as many civilians as possible? How many of his own villages has Mugawbe cleaned out with the nerve gas and blistering agents he's sworn to use against the United States? Ever stop to realize that Saddam was a threat to everybody, and is no more?

Yes. Look at what the Western world has done to Islam throughout history. Look at the extended hands we've held out, hoping to bring them up to the level of the rest of the world. Look at the continued slaughter and mistreatment of Muslims by Muslims that the Western World apparently hasn't done enough to stop. Look at the Islamic nations which have driven themselves to nearly third-world standards because those eeeeeevil Western nations haven't submitted themselves to poverty so that the world is equal. Look at the millions of Israeli civilians who have died simply because they were Jewish.

nik0tine, there was one point in history when the conflict between the Western World, especially America, and the Muslim world became prominent. Look up the Battle of Tripolli...then look up how it started.

Cloud 9, not only was the war in Iraq far from illegal, but the Muslim world has been standing for truly illegal attacks against non-Muslim countries throughout history. It's not the legality that upsets them, it's the infidels meddling in the affairs of Islamic governments.

[Cloud No.9]

why the war in iraq was illegal. it was not in the defence of an ally who had been attack, it was not retaliation, there was not attack imminent, there was no genocide taking place. the un did not pass it. either one of these would have been enough to make the war legal........ but none were. which is a bugger really since it means that the war was llegal, the commanders and president war criminals and those follwing their orders also war criminals. we sentenced goering to detah for bombing civillians out with the rules of war.

how many terrorist camps were there in iraq? the burmese government spends a whole load of time and money using chemical weapons on it's on people, mugawbe instead o using nerve gas just bulldozes villages and starves his people, execustes a few, and commits a few humble slaughters every few months. but that aside all these countries are perfectly nice. and there is no exucse to let the darfur crisis continue. morality and law compels all countries to act in the case of genocide.

what happened in ethiopa....... people thought the election was rigged. so had a nice little protest. so they army rounded them up and took them to labour camps. that was jolly good fun.

human rights has never forced america to do anything to help people in the past. otherwise we would have had troops in sudan by now but we don't.

if you want to fight for humanity, fight for humanity. but do not pick and choose your wars based on their geographical location or resources. choose them by what needs done first. iraq should not have been top of the list if indeed bus has sent out to cleanse the world of all evil.

[ShunNakamura]

First thing first.

On any campaign you must take out the "key" targets first. You must attack the one that is an image to the rest. Etc. Iraq fits very nicely in there. I know none in my family have ever heard of what you mentioned in the places you mentioned. But mention Saddame and they call him that "evil Bas*ard". And this was how my whole area was. Saddame was known. He(not neccesarily Iraq) was a key target. Iraq just adds to the equation.


Second as to whether or not a war is legal/just I aggree with St. Thomas Aquinas who said-

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. ...
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."
"

I cut out part of the first one due to the fact that it sorta went off the topic matter that we were discusing.

I may not fully aggree with Aquinas but he does make some good arguments.

From Aquinas we have the soveirgn command it(the government), we have the just cause, Iraqi freedom, However the just intention may not be there. I don't know why Bush went into Iraq. But I am certian he didn't do it just to free them, that may have been the last thing on his mind. This doesn't really change that many soldiers ARE fighting for Iraqi freedom. The war is thus just or as I would put it legal.


However that doesn't mean we timed it perfectly.... we could have waited till we were finished in Afghanistan... of course Bush may have served both his terms before we were completed it there. But slow and steady is the way to win. We moved too fast, imo. Definately could have been better timed.. though waiting till long also would have been wise.

PS, Aquinas in that same article says that a war can't be made in pre-emption. and that is correct, or assumptions can be wrong. and a war kills people.. do we want to kill people on an assumption?

[Teek]

PS, Aquinas in that same article says that a war can't be made in pre-emption. and that is correct, or assumptions can be wrong. and a war kills people.. do we want to kill people on an assumption?

Nope. I entirely agree. It's why this war was so damned worthless. Not that action was necessary - striking first is not always the worst case - but rather had they even stated that they were going to attack America, that would have been enough. "Pre-emptive attacks" go against the principles of rational self-interest that America was founded on (and which has thus been thrown out the window).