quote: (post)

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Everyone in the world loves to credit ot blame (mostly blame) the US President for major developments in the world.

Some classic examples are

Ronald Reagan is credited for winning the cold war when he was fortunate enough to be president at the end of a forty year period where the purpose of US policies was to undermine communism and world economic factors were set to speed the process along.

Bill Clinton is credited for the unprecidented economic expansion of the 90s yet he happened to be President during the peak of the technology boom which fueled said expansion and he largly had nothing to do with.

George W Bush is blamed or credited (depending on your point of view), for a costly quagmire in Iraq and a "war on terror" that is seemingly going nowhere yet he could have pulled off neither without the support of Congress which would likely have backed neither without the events of 09/11.

If you go back through history there are many such examples of world events, which would have happened no matter what, that the US President is either credited or blamed for and there is no doubt that the decisions this man makes do have a effect, the question is....how much of an effect?

Thoughts?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Gay Guy


As for your other arguments...

The claim that Reagan's administration is generally responsible for ending the Cold War is a somewhat accurate. Was his administration the only reason why it ended? Of course not. But his cabinet did effectively open up many doors of communication between the former USSR and the US during this time, which did indeed expedite the process of ending it.


As someone who lived through that era I have to respectively disagree. Reagan regularly referred to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" and started a massive military buildup because he felt war was inevitable. It was Gorbachev who extended an olive branch and opened up dialogue and it was the collapsing communist econimies along with growing global media outlets making it harder and harder for communist nations to remain their totalitatian grip. I voted for Reagan but don't believe he deserves credit for winning the cold war.




Clinton may have been president during the tech boom, but you forget
so was George Bush(Sr). Most of the policies that his administration had in place during this time, lead to the same type of sh*t we're currently going through right now during this Iraq war. (i.e., Skyrocketing deficits, another Iraq War, high gas prices, tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for the working/middle class, pandering to big business and making it an employer's job market, etc)

Bush SR was President in its very early stages. Clinton was president during it's peak years. Alan Greenspan, a man who had far more control over economic policy, was the Fed chairman for all of it. It may have been Bush Sr who advocated NAFTA and GATT but it was Clinton who made both reality and it was Clinton who gave China most favored Nation trading status giving us the economic situation we have today. All in all though, Clinton was President in the LATE 90s when the tech boom was at it's peak. What did he really have to do with it?




George W. Bush(Jr) is blamed for the current war in Iraq because he and his cabinet were the major initiators of it. They claimed they had a mountain of evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and many of the American people(including those in Congress) believed him, without thoroughly going over the evidence being presented. Congress is indeed somewhat at fault for not scrutinizing the evidence more, still they too were mislead by this so called 'evidence.' Whether we all were purposely or inadvertently mislead by this 'evidence' is another story, however, the bottom line is that most of the responsibility for starting the war falls on the Bush Administration.

Yes, it was the Bush Jr administration (for the record I hate Shrub) who really pushed for the Iraq war but go back to my original post. Bush co need congress to make it a reality. Had 09/11 not happened I firmly believe Saddam Hussein (who had nothing to do with 09/11) would still be president of Iraq.




I definitely understand what you're saying, but you've picked some poor arguments to support this position. The function of the President is a very important and very powerful one, and the policies executed by his branch do lay the foundation for the overall direction that the country moves in.


I don't think my arguments are bad at all if you really look at them closely. It's the corporations who are lobbying hard for the current and expanding state of globalization.....Bush is just a lapdog. While historically the President may have indeed have been a, if not the, most powerful person on earth I believe those days are past and he is, and will continue to be more and more, a symbolic figurehead as corporations cement their control and nations and governments become increasingly irrelevant

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Soleran
Anyone that's been in business and worked on big deals knows the process takes 6 to 18 months! So alot of the economic development of Term is set in motion by the preceding term.

I will be interested to see how Bush Jr's terms will be seen in coming years.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Soleran
I don't agree with his descisions or all his policies BUT since your crystal ball gives you such clarity continue to share your wisdom so I can invest in the proper stocks and leave my day job.