1. Watergate 2. Secret bombings in Cambodia & Laos 3. 1973 Oil crisis 4. His VP (Agnew) charged with various crimes 5. His secret support of the Pinochet led coup in Chile of a elected Government
_________________________________________________
There were many things that he did do that were controversial that were brought out by the media.
The question i have always had was would many of these things have been exposed if he had not gotten us out of Vietnam?
He took longer to get us out than many of us would have liked but he did finally did do it and i still think there were many that did not want him to do that.
I also think we will face this same situation when the next politician decides it's time to get out of Iraq and no matter which person is elected i think he will be thinking of what happen to President Nixon after he pulled the troops out of Vietnam.
No President or party will really want to pull the troops out of Iraq for fear that something will come back to bite them because of their decision.
That old saying that It Will Not Happen on My Watch always comes to mind when pulling out troops.
As far as bombings of Cambodia and Laos were concerned those Arc Light strikes (B-52) sure made nice instant swimming pools all they had to do is just add water.
I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing about the coup in Chile was the exacution of 70,000 people a lot of them were tourist in the wrong place at the wrong time the Spanish Government still has murder warrants out on Pinochet.
As does some other Europian Governments.
If he is still alive
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: [I think JFK and LBJ got us into a real mess and Nixon had to straighten things out. Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things. I don't understand what your talking about.
Herbert Hoover:
1. Great Depression 2. Stock Market Crash of 1929
Dwight D. Eisenhower (he was ok):
1. Vietnam conflict started in 1959
Richard M. Nixon:
1. Watergate 2. Secret bombings in Cambodia & Laos 3. 1973 Oil crisis 4. His VP (Agnew) charged with various crimes 5. His secret support of the Pinochet led coup in Chile of a elected Government
Gerald Ford:
1. Controversial pardon of Nixon 2. Economy suffered inflation & Recession 3. Did not bail out NYC out of a possible bankruptcy 4. Mayagueyz Debacle
Ronald Reagan:
1. Laizze-faire approach to business leading to untold greed in the 80's 2. The Saving & Loans crisis 3. Iran-Contra Scandal 4. Ignoring detente with regards to the USSR which lead to 40% defense spending increase 5. Increases in Federal Budget Deficit & National Debt (increasing it from about $700 billion to $3 Trillion) which in turn would have it's effects on Bush Sr. when he had to increase taxes 6. Tax cuts for the well off (for the rich as always) while increasing Gov't spending and borrowing. 7. Slow or no response to the HIV/Aids epidemic 8. Involvement with Sadaam Hussein & indirectly with Osama Bin Laden and his minions in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation that would bear consequences in the future 9. High Gold prices 10. High interest rates 11.High Unemployment
Anyways this is just some samplings... I'll leave the Bushs' alone since we know much more about them.... if i left something out or got something incorrectly feel free to post about it...
You've listed everything you feel was wrong with the Republican presidency's, but what did the Democrat President's that followed do that fixed anything. As far as Eisenhower starting Vietnam in 1959, JFK and LBJ sure fixed that one! LBJ was a joke and a servant to the same oilmen as Bush. Reagan brought respect back to the presidency, after Jimmy Carter's disaster we needed a man who respected the office and Reagan was that man.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Carter had us on our knees and Reagan had to fix things
Nixon did fix a bunch of the Dems mess
but,
Reagan didn't fix a dam thing. Reagan sent Rumsfeld over to Baghdad to encourage Sadam to attack Iran
people love Reagan, but i have no clue why...
and yeah i voted for him, but all he did was give nice speeches...
he wimped out on the marine barrack bombing in Lebanon-1983 look it up...
Yah, I didn't want to mention the Lebanon thing since alot of you guys are military or ex military and I figured you would of defended him on anything related... but I'm with you... I don't know why neither other then he was a funny guy... he played a role... he was a actor...
All the Gipper did, undone by Indiana Jones...
Indiana Jones movie makes communists see red - Calls for it to be banned from Russian screens
ST PETERSBURG, Russia - Russian Communist party members condemned the new Indiana Jones' film on Friday as crude anti-Soviet propaganda that distorted history and called for it to be banned from Russian screens. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" stars Harrison Ford as an archeologist in 1957 competing with an evil KGB agent, played by Cate Blanchett, to find a skull endowed with mystic powers.
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Russians are a bunch of idiots they got rid of there old bunch of commies and the sovite way and now they defend its honor?
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every transition leaves many wishing it never happened. Under communism they were a world power with a decent chance of being THE world's power. Now under this pseudo capitalism they are weak. Pretty easy to understand how they can see it the way they do.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: those commies have no sense of humor
au contraire...
quote: * Kniaz Andrei Bolkonski asks Poruchik Rzhevsky: "Tell me, Poruchik, how did you come to be so good with the ladies? What is your secret?" - "It's quite simplement, mon Prince, quite simplement. I just come over and say: 'Hey, wanna boink?'" - "But Poruchik, you'll get slapped in the face for that!" - "Oui, most of them slap, but some of them boink!"
not Henny Youngman, but, hey...don't know any commie one-liners...
posted
Poruchik Rzhevsky? heck i knew half a dozen guys right here in the US like that BEFORE i joined the Navy, and while i was in? well, let's just say that when you have two days of liberty........
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I also think we will face this same situation when the next politician decides it's time to get out of Iraq and no matter which person is elected i think he will be thinking of what happen to President Nixon after he pulled the troops out of Vietnam.
No President or party will really want to pull the troops out of Iraq for fear that something will come back to bite them because of their decision.
That is true. But people won't see or think that. They will just blame whichever party is in power but in this case a GOP president did get us in this mess. Also if and when we pull out no matter whose the President imo it will turn into a Civil War in Iraq. If anything I think the Iraqis are playing nicey nicey more nowadays to escalate our departure and once we leave foughetboutit. But that shouldn't be our problem even though we created it. We need to pull out and concentrate more on Afghanistan and our own countrys' economy etc. Not to mention oil might go down if we pull out therefor affecting rest of economy into recovery (food crisis, dollar weakening etc.).
quote:I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities.
You should be because we are always trying to project a image of not being hypocrites and when we bomb illegally we are exactly what we say we aren't but do accuse others of being. Not to mention the civilian casualties we cause from bombs that in those days imo aren't "smart" bombs. They just hit targets are random.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: You've listed everything you feel was wrong with the Republican presidency's, but what did the Democrat President's that followed do that fixed anything.
Your kidding right?
1.FDR: Brought us out of the Depression and into a new economic prosperity. Not to mention gave jobs to alot of people who were unemployed with public works projects. Also gave us a image of respect worldwide since "respect" seems to be more important to you.
2.JFK: Handled the Cuban Missile Crisis pretty well without going to war and again bringing us "respect". All other JFK accomplishments I am pretty sure you know about though you are right about him furthering our involvement in Vietnam but considering it was during the height of the Cold War I don't think it would of mattered who was President, the result would of been the same. 3. Carter: He had a good heart but bad advisors & tried his best with the Iran Hostage crisis without making deals with the enemy. With the exception of his ill fated trip meeting Hezbollah or Hamas recently, he has done more good in his Post-Presidency life then any other President imo. 4. Clinton: read below.
quote:As far as Eisenhower starting Vietnam in 1959, JFK and LBJ sure fixed that one! LBJ was a joke and a servant to the same oilmen as Bush.
I could be wrong but Vietnam does not seem to have ever been gushing millions of barrels of oil unlike Iraq so therefor the LBJ/Oil connection has no meaning in that case. Wouldn't you agree?
quote:Reagan brought respect back to the presidency, after Jimmy Carter's disaster we needed a man who respected the office and Reagan was that man.
False respect actually because in reality he caused more damage then good imo. Plus "respect" does not pay the huge bills he left us with like the National Debt and Budget Deficit that Bush Sr. had to try to resolve with raising taxes and for which Clinton managed to balance the budget and create a Federal surplus of $559 Billion. Name me a GOPer Prez that even got close to that much less Reagan (they tend to cut taxes for the rich or well off of society no less, but they also like to spend and leave office with huge bills). He also had a approval rating of 65% when he left office. Highest of any President since WW2. Not even Reagan had that. We can go on?
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Machiavelli:
You should be because we are always trying to project a image of not being hypocrites and when we bomb illegally we are exactly what we say we aren't but do accuse others of being. Not to mention the civilian casualties we cause from bombs that in those days imo aren't "smart" bombs. They just hit targets are random.
_________________________________________________
I have looked at it through your perspective which is that of many others.
When we use to have operations on the borders and our enemies knew that they were protected across that border.
The enemy was allowed to hit and run on you and once they got into those countries we could not chase them or get any kind of support legally.
They would drive trucks with lights on at night and they even had a tank one time within a couple of hundred yards of us we were not allowed to engage legally.
Another problem was if you overshot the border you would not have any support unless those fly boys would come in and help which was not uncommon. Those guys seem to be willing to risk a lot for the guys on the ground. Whether it be the borders or no fire zones they would pick up a radio conversation and stick their necks out time and time again.
You think we cared in the middle of of fire fight or later if something helped keep our casualities down whether it was legal or not.
I was in a special team for awhile and we were into Cambodia illegally quite a bit i never thought about it at all until something happened then you realize that your small group was on their own. You knew that when you became part of that team but the reality never sunk in until something happens.
Our perspectives during that year of living in the jungles (around 330 days aprox.) puts a whole different view on some of the rights and wrongs seen through other eyes, whether that be good or bad it's called survival.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Quote Iwish:
I never was against those bombings whether they were legal or illegal because they saved American lives and casualities.
I understand what you are saying IWish but I am not talking about you per say. The ones on the ground who make decision by their wits when someone is firing at you. I'm basically talking about the higherups who make decisions in advance when your not being fired upon. If we do not respect the surrounding countries' borders who for the most part are neutral then how can we expect the same if it ever happened in our borders. Not that it will but just saying hypothetically. We want everyone to respect our borders in time of war and in peace but we never do it ourselves. Wouldn't you say that is true? Plus imo the CIA were running the war secretly from Laos/Cambodia and prolonging the war. If the CIA and Military (higher higher ups and not foot soldiers) had their ways indefinitely they would prolong wars because that is their business imo. Just like with the Iraq debacle right now. McCain (a military guy even if retired) wants Iraq to go for another 5 years which I think would be further disastrous for our economy. Besides with what you are saying, why do we not bomb within Pakistans' and Irans' borders then?
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
"I understand what you are saying IWish but I am not talking about you per say. The ones on the ground who make decision by their wits when someone is firing at you. I'm basically talking about the higherups who make decisions in advance when your not being fired upon. If we do not respect the surrounding countries' borders who for the most part are neutral then how can we expect the same if it ever happened in our borders. Not that it will but just saying hypothetically. We want everyone to respect our borders in time of war and in peace but we never do it ourselves. Wouldn't you say that is true? Plus imo the CIA were running the war secretly from Laos/Cambodia and prolonging the war. If the CIA and Military (higher higher ups and not foot soldiers) had their ways indefinitely they would prolong wars because that is their business imo. Just like with the Iraq debacle right now. McCain (a military guy even if retired) wants Iraq to go for another 5 years which I think would be further disastrous for our economy. Besides with what you are saying, why do we not bomb within Pakistans' and Irans' borders then?"
_________________________________________________
In reality you should not seperate the American soldier from the rest of our country, but the sad truth is that we do. We seem to fight separate wars in Vietnam and what appears to me in Iraq.
There seems to be the war that many of the upper brass and politicians fight the one that the American citizen fights and the one that the soldier fights especially the infantry etc.
Two out of the three are kind of fantasy wars considering we are figting a guerrilla war.
I do not think most would respect our border if they felt they could take it without consequences.
Would it saves lives by going into Iran, Pakistan etc.? Looking at the history of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan NO, under other circumstances maybe.
We do not seem to know how to just take out other troops without total involvement in those areas so under that criteria we would just be fighting another war which would mean more casualities not less.
As far as civilian casualities are concerned there will always be civilian casualities in war but many of these civilian casualities are really not civilians some are the direct enemy and some are helping the enemy.
I agree that some will pro-long wars for their benefit but we also get sucked into their game by the way they present their war to us through the media.
I don't think the bombings in Laos or Cambodia prolong anything but that is just my opinion.
As far as Iraq is concerned i think we should put our troops around some of the oil fields set up a refinery pump the oil send the gas back to the US and our allies that are over there, pay the Iraq gov $20 a barrel and let the Iraqis fight to see who governs. If we do not like the outcome do the shock-in-ah again. Once we pay off our dept caused by the war and our true allies debt then give the Iraqis back their oil fields IF they don't shaft us on the oil price, you like that scenario.
Again to win a guirrila war you have to fight a guerrilla war and i do not think the American public will every be up to that idea.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
to win a guirrila war you have to fight a guerrilla war and i do not think the American public will every be up to that idea.
i agree absolutely. in guerrilla warfare? the enemy blurs the traditional civilian military boundaries.
what is going on in Iraq now is apparently US (Petraeus) saturating the region with CASH in an attempt to buy peace... that's not going to work long term. it is nothing more than bribery and will end as soon as the cashflow does...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: to win a guerrilla war you have to fight a guerrilla war and i do not think the American public will every be up to that idea.
guerrilla is what got us here. George Washington and a small army of 2400 men that crossed the Delaware River should attest to that.
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by glassman: to win a guerrilla war you have to fight a guerrilla war and i do not think the American public will every be up to that idea
-------------------------------------------------
Ask Breaker Morant Fought the Bores like the Bore fought and was very sucessful at it.
He was exacuted for it by the British Army.
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: guerrilla is what got us here. George Washington and a small army of 2400 men that crossed the Delaware River should attest to that.
What you forget is that Guerrilla warfare generally works for the enemy when you invade them which is what happened with GW and his 2,400 men. The British had invaded. When we fight a guerrilla war our soldiers are paid to fight, theirs aren't:
[about the unrest in Cuba] Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Retailers just jump the price one way or the other $4.39 and i am sure another $.20 today at least.
This is killing business except oil related.
I know the long time family business is getting hurt. Those chemicals that are oil and gas based and use energy to process(which is everything) go up by leaps and bounds. Most orders orders are taken months in advance. It just kills unless you can stock hugh inventories way in advance. So much risk what ever way you do it.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bigger businesses are getting hurt as well. Any product that has to be shipped is doubling in price. I thought we were in Iraq for oil? Beyond all the political BS, the war was supposed to be about oil.. Seems it was.. just not to free oil up. We are looking at the economic version of the perfect storm and I doubt many of us will make it out alive if it really turns.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[bold]This is killing business except oil related.[/bold]
It's very good for the rental business. More people are renting as the cost of living increases. People also want to live in the city where the drive to work is much shorter.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is now doubt about it we are getting it royal.
The oil is still in the same place and the means of getting it out of the ground is still the same as it was at $30.00 a barrel.
The only thing that has changed is the bottom line of the oil company's.
If they are allowed to keep this up no matter what the reason there won't be a country left to worry about.
Might have to for the nations good have to take the oil company's over and manage them for the good of the nation. Then give them back but monitored very closely
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sounds like anything but capitalism. It also sounds like you have more faith in our government than you do in any corporation. Might want to re-think that statement.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes, thank you; loses the markup in simple cut n paste, but the message comes through--and the links are there:
Some excerpts:
quote:In the popular press the explanation given most often for rising oil prices is the increased demand for oil from China. According to the DOE, annual Chinese demand for petroleum has increased over the last five years from 1.88 billion barrels to 2.8 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels.8 Over the same five-year period, Index Speculatorsʼ demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels.9 The increase in demand from Index Speculators is almost equal to the increase in demand from China! (bold, my emphasis, throughout--tex)
quote:In fact, Index Speculators have now stockpiled, via the futures market, the equivalent of 1.1 billion barrels of petroleum, effectively adding eight times as much oil to their own stockpile as the United States has added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the last five years.10
Now, re food basics:
quote:What they overlook is the fact that Institutional Investors have purchased over 2 billion bushels of corn futures in the last five years. Right now, Index Speculators have stockpiled enough corn futures to potentially fuel the entire United States ethanol industry at full capacity for a year.12 That’s equivalent to producing 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol, which would make America the world’s largest ethanol producer.13 Turning to Wheat, in 2007 Americans consumed 2.22 bushels of Wheat per capita.14 At 1.3 billion bushels, the current Wheat futures stockpile of Index Speculators is enough to supply every American citizen with all the bread, pasta and baked goods they can eat for the next two years!
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
