you really think Dubya will be known as THE worst?
I guess it's hard to say now...but if democracy is established in places like Afghanistan and Iraq...isn't that a GOOD thing? Doesn't that DECREASE the threat of terrorism (as is the intention of these "wars"...or so we're told)?
No. Buchanan let the Union fall apart under his nose. GWB will not be the worst, I said he would be "close". I don't believe democratic governments are right for all countries, I think GWB is very insensative to the history of other areas. Invading a soveregin nation is never a good plan. I think in the long run it has made us more enemies than we can count on. I believe we have lost what little influence we had in the area.
I always liked Teddy Roosevelt. IMO he's the greatest president in presence. I never cared for the suit wearing, Ivy-league pencil pushers of the 20th century, and the Mexican War washouts of the 19th century never impressed me either. George Washington would be a good contestant for this spot.
Worst? Grant. Scandal in the house and I seem to remember him doing something pretty damn horrid concerning surpressing Jewish rights either during the war or during his presidency.
Still, to me, letting states secede from the Union is the worst thing that a President could ever allow. It doesn't matter if you're a bigot, violent, or crazy, your primary job is to preserve the Union.
So for some countries….ruthless dictatorship is the right path
And even so…if the president’s job is to preserve the Union…what if the Union I threatened by an outside force? Isn’t our leader not only responsible for internal stability, but also for stability abroad? Isn’t foreign policy just as important as internal stability?
Since when was Afghanistan a dictatorship? Any who are you to force your style of government upon other people? I believe that every nation has history and philosophy. I believe governments exist to serve the people. If a dictator serves his people, that his dictatorship is fine with me. Contries can choose the government of thier choice. It is not my place to decide for them. Besides the US has a history of supporting dictators, like Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein.
Anyway, I think internal stability is more important than external stability. If the presidents cannot effectively hold the Union together and keep the government functioning, it does nat matter where the threat is coming from, the Union is in danger. His first priority is to maintain the Union.
That being said, the President must make sure the US is prepared to face external threats. Forign policy is very important, but thats not necessarily defense and war. I would say that the president has a duty to make sure the US is prepared to deal with external threats.
First of all, I do agree with your points about internal stability being a priority for the President.
Secondly, I wasn’t talking about Afghanistan when I mentioned a ruthless dictator, I was talking about Iraq. And yes, we may have aided dictators in the past, but in the past those dictators weren’t a direct threat to us. I think most will agree that it would be better for Saddam Hussein not to be in power, but that’s not the whole point. I guess that what the debate comes down to really; was Iraq really a threat to the United States?
I think the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, considering the Taliban were harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Also, I know it’s important to preserve traditional cultures and their compatible governments, but what other choice did we have after ousting the Taliban? We had to establish SOME kind of government, and ours seemed like a logical choice. We’re beginning to see, however, that Western democracy (specifically American democracy) is not entirely compatible with Islam, so of course we’re seeing some problems. You say that “countries can choose the government of their choice”, but what if they can’t? Do you think the majority of Afghans wanted the Taliban in power (well, they might have…)? Do you think the majority of Iraqis wanted Hussein in power? And furthermore, even if these countries had a choice in their government, would it still be acceptable if the government they establish winds up being a direct threat to the United States and its allies?
Saddam came to power bcuz of america.america (supposedly in her conscience) 'allowed' him to take over n he was there fr like 40 yrs (i don't c y america kept her eyes closed so comfortably durin that period)
obv. u'll think that the invasion of Afghanistan was rite but it wasn't a compulsion n then u say 'v had to establish SOME kind of gov.' so democraqcy was an accident?
bein a threat to america wud b the last of any citizen's (of any country) concern.btw...y shud it b?
The US has an incredible knack for setting up dictators to control "communism" etc. The govenrment rarely thinks ahead. It doesn't matter if they are a direct threat to US or not. Saddam was CLEARLY not a threat. Regardless of whether Iraq was a threat or not, it is not the US's position to go arbitrarily go in and replace governments.
Afghanistan was semi-acceptable because only three countries recognized the Taliban as a legit government. Technically, we were taking out a militant group. We established a more democratic nation that what was there. The CIA classifies the government as an Islamic republic. If the government holds out, I think it will be historically considered to be a sucess by most nations.
I don't think that many Iraqi's wanted the Saddam in power, but I honestly don't know. However, I don't think the majority of Iraqis wanted the US to just sweep in and oust him out.
The main point is...the world is not United States land. We have every right to be prepared on every level to deal with threats. We do not have a right to be proactive about them militarily. Diplomacy is FINE, no ont gets hurt. Thinking that any one nation has a right to dominate others militarilty is absurd. If the US was so right in going into Iraq, why wasn't the UN behind us. THAT would have been ok. We don;t have the right to force every governement to like us. If they're a military threat??? Who cares? We're the superpower. Its simply enough to let them know that if they attack us, they're screwed. Offense is only justifiable when approved by the UN.
Now, a point many people bring up is September 11th. Should we take out military threats within our borders? Absolutely. Should we take out military threats abroad before they "materialize?" I say no. Defense is fine, shoot down the planes if they're hijacked, but don't take out foreign governments. It more than likely will simply breed hatred against the US (and generally has). If we get attacked, we have the credibility to attack. We were "the better man" so to speak. The people who die in the attack, if it occours, are innocents and heros becuase even in the face of death, they stood up, held true this nations ideals, international law, and common morality, and died as a symbol of this nation's freedom and international respect. No one can touch their status, and no one can argue against retaliation. If we attack first, if we stoop so low to their level, the government has caused the deaths of those people. Then, we are just as bad as the terrorists. THAT is unnaceptable. We are the United States, we founded the principles of modern democratic government, international cooperation, and world government. We are the superpower. Lets show we are more, lets show that we are the greatest nation in the world and that no one can touch us.
The greatest president our nation ever had, is easily Lincoln. No other president was put under the strain he went through. He preserved the union(which is the top priority for any president), he wasnt afraid to use the powers given to him if it meant saving this country(many people considered it abuse, but if putting key people behind bars meant preserving the union... than it was justified) and he did it all while combating severe depression.
He was also the greatest president from a moral perspective, 'The great emancipator' as they call him, was the only president who dared to abolish slavery once and for all. He knew the risks involved with issuing that final declaration, but he did it regardless. Truly a great man.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't do shit for slavery, since no one in the south was bound by Lincoln's law at that point, and during Reconstruction the slaves and former slaves got ****ed over anyways.
And Lincoln wasn't out to abolish slavery from a moral POV; he was doing what was neccessary to preserve the union.
KMC Community Forums
May 10th, 2006 02:33 AM
my point exactly
