PDA

View Full Version : War on 2 Fronts


Andy867
01-09-2003, 02:11 AM
Ok, to start of the trial period, what is everyone's thoughts about Iraq/Saddam and the idea of ALSO the possible threat of war in N. Korea?

I think its ridiculous that Saddam is still in power, and the idea of going to war on 2 different fronts. The whole N Korea topic could easily be silenced by just sending in diplomats to negotiate an agreement to where the US would have some presense in the Nuclear Plant at all times to prevent any kind of discrepensies.

Reborn Outcast
01-09-2003, 07:34 AM
After reviewing everything that is happening I have come to realize that Bush is kinda power hungry or just trying to make everything safe in the world. I still cannot decide which for sometimes he seems to be leaning to power hungry and then back again.

I DO NOT think that there will be a war in N. Korea anytime soon. N. Korea is actually not near the top of our concern list because we are not near the top of their "htred and who we would try to blow up first list". The top countries on that are actually places like S. Korea. Bush has already tried to send in diplomats but now he has just decided to let N. Korea decide if they really want to do this and possibly get in a war with the world because N. Korea has very little allies (even if one of them is a huge country *China*) I think that Bush is doing the right thing for the N. Korea situation because it is not the Us's main concern at the moment.

I do however think that Bush is pushing the envelope with Iraq. Just becuase there is the ASSUMPTION of nuclear weapons in Iraq does not mean send a "ton of troops with enough firepower to blow up Iraq" there. I wonder if he has any idea how many people he worries nearly to death everyday for fear of their husband, daughter, son, brother, wife etc. getting in a war and getting killed. Although I see no war on the horizen, or anytime soon because of the no show of the nuclear weapons, people still worry themselves to death over things like that. Saddam, in my opinion, has just hidden the nuclear weapons in that month time perios where he would not allow inspectors in even when the UN told him to. They will be found someday (cannot say whether soon or very far away) but lets just hope its not to late because we ARE on the top of Iraq's "hated" list along with Isreal.

Now about Saddam, the ONLY reason he is still in power is because of his command of fear over his people. He executes people, burns houses... stuff like that to keep them under his control... most DON'T like him but there are some who are willing to die for him just like there were many who were willing to die for Bin Laden. The only way that we are going to get Saddam out of power is if we start a war and finish it with the "creation" of a new government like we did in Afghanistan.

BCanr2d2
01-09-2003, 07:41 AM
Is Iraq not another country that the US gave weapons to in the 80's and is now having some form of trouble with them?

It seems eerily close to Executive Orders by Tom Clancy, a conflict in the Middle East and Asia.

It never wonders to amaze me how the US voted him President....

Anyway, I don't see the US being able to sustain conflicts, of a major kind anyway, on two fronts. It is the easiest way for the US to fail in one of the theatres.
The only way to remove people like Saddam, and to completely change the regime, is to kill them. It isn't overly accepted in the Geneva convention that Heads of State are legitimate targets for assassination to change regimes.
It is definitely a position of wait and see for me, as I have no idea when Dubya will change his mind and do something stupid that sets the ball rolling.....

Young David
01-09-2003, 09:52 AM
And what about Bush? That guy is a loon. He wants to be the good guy and get rid of all evil ... wich he can't.

America has weapons of mass destruction. Maybe not a nuclear bomb, but Bush has the power to lay Bagdad into ashes.

Bush will not end a regime, but he will start a worldwide war.

STTCT
01-09-2003, 09:56 AM
yes - if i wish he would stop threatening war.
"do or do not - there is no try"

He would be smarter to shut up. I'm not saying you know that North Korea isn't doing anything bad to warrant a war or iraq for that matter - but...I'm getting sick of Bush saying all these speaches about Axis's of Evil etc it is like he is trying to prove to us why he is justified in doing this. That only makes me loose confidence in him.

C'jais
01-09-2003, 12:18 PM
N.Korea has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq has the same. We know that Korea has nukes. We're most certainly sure that Iraq does not (though they have biochemical weapons). Korea has given US the finger, ashave Iraq.

Il Jong is just as much a tyrant as Saddam, and does just as bad things to him as he. Yet USA is using the kid gloves on him. Saddam HAS to go, even though he doesn't even have nukes.

I'm wondering...

Attacking Korea might entice them to throw nukes on American soldiers. Not good. Also, the terrain is unfavourable as well. And I guess the US don't like to piss in China's backyard either. An attack on Iraq will be a pushover for USA. Korea has a much larger army and as well trained and equipped as they can financially allow - attacking Korea will be huge risk in terms of an effective victory.

Saddam is ignoring UN imposed regulations. Il Jung is not, but that's because UN hasn't imposed any on him yet. Both have to change their rule for a better world, but war is not always the best solution. If the US attacks Iraq (which they most likely will), they're going to get even more civil unrest down there. If they insert a US enforced rule in the place of Saddam, it'll likely create chaos over there.

Andy867
01-09-2003, 12:40 PM
Obviously, there is no point to War anyways. I mean, fighting each other for rock and the compound h2o. Not exactly impressive to those "little green men." No wonder why they barely make their appearances. They don't see Earth as a promising force. They will just wait till we Nuke ourselves 3 times over before needing to land publically, and by that time, we won't have ANY armies or weapons to defend. But anyways, you all have made fine points, from saying that Bush is a loon, even if I may disagree, to saddam not following UN inspections, even though Blix from the UN has said that the inspections teams have yet to find any evidence of Iraq possessing any "smoking gun".

Reborn Outcast
01-09-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Attacking Korea might entice them to throw nukes on American soldiers. Not good. Also, the terrain is unfavourable as well. And I guess the US don't like to piss in China's backyard either. An attack on Iraq will be a pushover for USA. Korea has a much larger army and as well trained and equipped as they can financially allow - attacking Korea will be huge risk in terms of an effective victory.


That's why I said that the US is not going to attack N Korea because they are NOT our main concern at the moment. We are not going to attack unless they do something drastic.

C'jais
01-09-2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
That's why I said that the US is not going to attack N Korea because they are NOT our main concern at the moment. We are not going to attack unless they do something drastic.

But don't you think this is a bit hypocritical of the US?

Bush is trying to remove Saddam from power because he's a brutal dictator, and because he has very dangerous weapons. Well, NK has just as bad a dicatator and even more dangerous weapons (nukes). If NK wanted to launch an attack on USA, it'd be far easier for them than for Iraq. Spy satellites can pick up any kind of military build up in the middle east, but with NK's terrain and underground tunnels, it's not very easy.

Bush attacking Saddam instead of Il Jung only shows his ability to use the UN as a bogeyman for more oil.

Arkum
01-09-2003, 06:49 PM
I live in America and I wonder the same thing the whole world wonders:

what the hell is he doing in office? lol.


Amyways, on the whole Iraq issue: I think it's all right if Bush goes into Iraq to REMOVE Saddam from his position. That's good. Saddam is oppressive against his people and should be removed, so i dont have a problem with Bush attempting to remove Saddam.

On the North Korea issue: I think we should NEGOTIATE first. Why the hell does anyone want to go t war first? No one likes war, no one. We should try to negotiate with North Korea, It wont be a good idea that we have to fight a war on 2 fronts.

XWING5
01-09-2003, 09:12 PM
President Bush is only taking measures right now that suggests to Saddam that we mean business. It's almost like he is daring Hussein to do something stupid. He isn't going to attack without provocation, but rather with intimidation on all fronts. If not effective in weakening his regime :deathstar:, it should certainly work on his citizens - the same citizens that threw their hands up in the air at the first sign of a US troop during Desert Storm. This guy Hussein needs to be removed. He is an awful person to his own people and even if he doesn't have WMD aimed directly at us. :blast10:

But geez, North Korea is far more scarier to me than the Mid East. Those Taliban radicals attacked us for a terribly stupid, awful reason. But at least it was a reason. NK seems like the kind of place that would just like to screw everyone just because they could. Hope I am wrong though.

But given the circumstances, what would you do? I think he is doing what he thinks is right and I will support him. Though I, like everyone else, have my questions. I just believe that he will do what he truly thinks is best. I have way more faith in his character than clinton.

Reborn Outcast
01-09-2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
But don't you think this is a bit hypocritical of the US?

Well, NK has just as bad a dicatator and even more dangerous weapons (nukes). If NK wanted to launch an attack on USA, it'd be far easier for them than for Iraq.

I don't understand how the US is being hypocritical. The US is not on the top list for NK and their "nukes". Yes it is a very big concern but the US is facing a country that very likely has nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction and would use them in less than a heartbeat on the US if they had the chance. (Iraq) NK has actually stated that they would not use the weapons on the US unless we started a war which is why Bush and everyone is taking it VERY slow. That's why there is no movement of troops to NK for fear of provoking them to use nukes that we KNOW they have or can make very quickly. The US is more concerned with Saddam because of that 2 month time period when he firmly would not allow UN inspectors to come in. That gave him loads of time to hide anything that would provoke the US to action. And the fact that we are #1 on their list along with Isreal to destroy... then yes it makes it the main concern.

Yes I agree with you that oil is also a factor in the Iraq situation, but why wouldn't it be? That area of the world has the largest deposits of oil in the world by a long shot and it would nearly destroy the economy if we were to lose that. Alaska does have oil but the environmentalists have firmly stated that it would destroy wildlife if we were to excavate it and a law has been passed I think in which it says that we can't get oil from Alaska which is why we don't. So yes I agree that oil is a big factor.

Originally posted by Arkum
I live in America and I wonder the same thing the whole world wonders:
what the hell is he doing in office? lol.


I live in America and I don't wonder that. He is in office at one of the roughest times in American history and he's doing a very good job of it. Could you please go into more detail about why you don't like Bush and why the "whole world" doesn't like him?

And yes I agree that we are right in negotiating with NK. See even though you don't like Bush you still agree with waht he's doing because negotiating was his idea. :D

Arkum
01-09-2003, 09:38 PM
Response to Reborn Outcast:

I don't hate Bush.

When I said:

'what the hell is this guy doing in office?'

I meant that I was surprised that he still has support form Congress, I didn't think people would support his decision to remove Saddam. I guess I chose a wrong choice of words. Forget I said that.

Reborn Outcast
01-09-2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Arkum
Response to Reborn Outcast:

I don't hate Bush.

When I said:

'what the hell is this guy doing in office?'

I meant that I was surprised that he still has support form Congress, I didn't think people would support his decision to remove Saddam. I guess I chose a wrong choice of words. Forget I said that.

No no no its my fault because I misunderstood you, my bad. :) Now that I get what your saying I have to agree with you becasue he has been doing some strange things lately. :)

razorace
01-10-2003, 02:23 AM
We have to treat NK differently than Iraq. Iraq doesn't have a superpower ally to protect it. If we made a premature attack on NK, China would flip out.....again.

Reborn Outcast
01-10-2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by razorace
We have to treat NK differently than Iraq. Iraq doesn't have a superpower ally to protect it. If we made a premature attack on NK, China would flip out.....again.

Yes I agree completely and that's why we should just let things run in NK while taking a diplomatic stance and see what happens. NK will not attack us if we don't attack them because they have said that thye want to finish this diplomatically.


Besides, as my Social Studies teacher once joked, "China's army is so big that it could walk across the sea to us." :)

Anakin_Solo
01-10-2003, 09:55 AM
Okay im a bit stuck with this one.

Do you think the World, or more importantly Asian countries like China, Japan and russia have to deal with north Korea?

And what do Americans think of NK threatening to go to war with the USA if sanctions are put in place...

Im pretty sure if we do go to war with them, this could turn to nuclear...

:(

C'jais
01-10-2003, 11:04 AM
Iraq: War necessary?

NK is more likely to attack than Iraq. They have significantly more destructive weapons than Iraq. They could be massing for an attack right now without us knowing. Their president is just as much a tyrant as Saddam.

I fail to see why Bush wants to war with Iraq so much, but still haven't taken off the kid gloves when dealing with Il Jung.

War is sometimes necessary to ensure peace. Especially when talking peace on a global scale.

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Young David
Bush will not end a regime, but he will start a worldwide war.

"You are either with us or against us." - G. W. Bush

Is that a world war I hear? I think that it is...

I have way more faith in his character than clinton.

WTF? Clinton was a great el Presidenté, by US standards. If they hadn't been so thick in the Middle East, he could have ensured peace down there.

In short: I don't give a blessed thing about his character (of course if he "relieved" the US of money for his "retirement fund", matters would be different). What I find troubleing in an el Presidenté is not lack of character, but lack of brains, which GWB unfortunately seems to suffer from.

And the fact that we are #1 on their list along with Isreal to destroy... then yes it makes it the main concern.

Well, Israel is not exactly worthy of our protection. Note that "Israel does not equal Israeli".

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by razorace
We have to treat NK differently than Iraq. Iraq doesn't have a superpower ally to protect it. If we made a premature attack on NK, China would flip out.....again.

And China became a superpower when?

Sure, they have nukes and a big army, but I don't believe that they have the economic or technological capacity to survive a war.

That area of the world has the largest deposits of oil in the world by a long shot and it would nearly destroy the economy if we were to lose that.

I don't think that the oil flow will stop anytime soon. Why? Because the OPEC can't afford it half as well as the West can.

a law has been passed I think in which it says that we can't get oil from Alaska which is why we don't.

I don't think that you are right about that. Last thing I heard (from sciam (I don't really get much other news on that part of US policy, since the European media have a habit of focusing on how WWIII is going)) was that a limited, but no less damaging drilling had been allowed, or was about to be allowed. But maybe I don't remember right?

And yes I agree that we are right in negotiating with NK. See even though you don't like Bush you still agree with waht he's doing because negotiating was his idea.

Gee, since when did it become unnormal to try to negotiate with someone who actually has a chance of beating you. Even Christianity does that.

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
I fail to see why Bush wants to war with Iraq so much, but still haven't taken off the kid gloves when dealing with Il Jung.

Saddam: Oil. Il Jung: Plutonium. Hmmm... Wonder why, wonder why...

Seriously, though, Old man Saddam can't win and can't break even. While I don't think that NK has a real chance of winning, it just may have a chance of breaking even.

razorace
01-10-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
[B]And China became a superpower when?

Sure, they have nukes and a big army, but I don't believe that they have the economic or technological capacity to survive a war.

Well, it depends on how you define a superpower. :) I think it counts when the particular country has kicked the US's ass in two seperate "wars".

C'jais
01-10-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Saddam: Oil. Il Jung: Plutonium. Hmmm... Wonder why, wonder why...


Yes. But at least he should be honest about his "best intentions" instead of stating that he's taking actions against Saddam because "he has very dangerous weapons and he's a loonie".

Why not just admit that he's using the UN for his corporation's interests :rolleyes:

Knows it's not going to happen - Jais

C'jais
01-10-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by razorace
Well, it depends on how you define a superpower. :) I think it counts when the particular country has kicked the US's ass in two seperate "wars".

And which "wars" would this be? :confused:

Enlighten me here.

Reborn Outcast
01-10-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
I don't think that you are right about that. Last thing I heard (from sciam (I don't really get much other news on that part of US policy, since the European media have a habit of focusing on how WWIII is going)) was that a limited, but no less damaging drilling had been allowed, or was about to be allowed. But maybe I don't remember right?



Gee, since when did it become unnormal to try to negotiate with someone who actually has a chance of beating you. Even Christianity does that.

I stand corrected on the oil from Alaska. :) But not much oil is being taken out there so...


Ah I see you left out my grin face (which implies a joke) when you quoted me in saying...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yes I agree that we are right in negotiating with NK. See even though you don't like Bush you still agree with waht he's doing because negotiating was his idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I stand corrected on the oil from Alaska. :) But not much oil is being taken out there so...

Your point is still standing. And I'll repeat that I'm not quite sure if I'm right here. That kind of news aren't really the most common in european newspapers.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Ah I see you left out my grin face (which implies a joke) when you quoted me in saying...

Now it is my turn to stand corrected: I didn't realise that you were joking (many people use ":)" even when dead serious).

razorace
01-10-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
And which "wars" would this be? :confused:

Enlighten me here.
The Chinese army has gotten involved in both the Korea and Vietnam wars. It's the reason why we lost both wars. Both wars started with the US kicking some ass until they pushed the enemy up to the Chinese border. At that point, the Chinese ended up pouring over the border on the oppostion's side. Basically, fear the Chinese army. :)

griff38
01-10-2003, 05:17 PM
Confused by the Bush policy towards Iraq and N Korea?

In my opinion Bush does not care if they N Koreans loose it and kill millions in Asia.

On the other hand if Iraq were to go postal, they would take it out on Israel.

The right wing element of this country that controls everything does not want this to happen. Not out of any great love for the Jewish people ( the US has an abismal anti-semite history ).

But because they are the only ally we have left who would nuke our shared enimies without any compunctions. There was a time many of our allies would support the US unconditionaly, but not anymore.

Most of the world powers are becoming more responsible, but not the US or Israel.

Andy867
01-10-2003, 05:23 PM
Strange on how foreign countries and their leaders can make one's country turn on their own leader. Sad thing is, this has happened in the past way too many times. Something wrong in the world, and its OUR president's fault. During the end of the 2nd WW, Harry S. Truman was immediately blamed for the problems and the recession that followed World War II. People need to realize that the president can only do so much, and with being the President of America, everyone expects him to run EVERY country. Sorry to break it to ya people, but Bush can only do so much within his power. If Saddam had been removed from power back when there was the chance, this crisis may have been avoided. And going back to the North Korean War, talk about a massacre. Here the U.S. thought that N. Korea was weak, and then all of a sudden, they launch a counter-attack against S Korea. Nuff said. If intelligence would actually do their job, North Korea wouldn't be having the chance to run a Nuclear Power Plant, nor would Saddam still be in power. The president only goes off what he is informed about, so false or misleading/inaccurate information is what brought about these crisis matters.

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Why not just admit that he's using the UN for his corporation's interests

You know why: It would be a bad move, diplomatically. I think that he should just say: "S. Hussein is threatening one or more of our allies," which would be less false, since Hussein is threatening Israel.

His current course of action, however, is so transparent that he would be better off admitting that he is using the UN as a pawn, IMO...

On the other hand if Iraq were to go postal, they would take it out on Israel.

But... Israel is causing the US to loose steadily more face and influence in the UN (insofar the only superpower in the world can ever loose influence)...

So from a strategic point of veiw the US would seem to be better off if Hussein nuked Tel Aviv. Mind that "strategic point of veiw", before you start shooting flak in my general direction.

The president only goes off what he is informed about

El Presidenté only goofs off what he is informed about (just a little harmless fun at el Presidenté's expence).

Let's face it: G. W. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

razorace
01-10-2003, 10:56 PM
The UN is a pawn. It's never had any true power to start with.

And the Israel is more complicated than that. There are a lot of jewish voters in the US.

Sides, stategically, the US doesn't need anyone/anyplace other than North America.

FunClown
01-11-2003, 01:18 AM
Andy, wasn't it the Chinese joining the war that allowed North Korea to strike back.

Also, people mentioned how Bush got into power. Isn't it if you don't vote for Bush you are being unpatriotic? Thats the feeling I get whenever I see him in the media. But I think you guys should give him a break. It's been a very long time since the US was attacked on home soil. Anyone here recall the Cuban Missile Crisis and how your relationship with Cuba has been since then?

Andy867
01-11-2003, 02:00 AM
But the point is that the so-called intelligence reported that N Korea was SEVERELY outnumbered, and the war in North Korea would have been over in days after running into N. Korea's borders and storming the capital to remove the Communist leaders. Least, that's what I can remember.

FunClown
01-11-2003, 08:58 AM
But the point is that the so-called intelligence reported that N Korea was SEVERELY outnumbered, and the war in North Korea would have been over in days after running into N. Korea's borders and storming the capital to remove the Communist leaders. Least, that's what I can remember.

I believe that was true, until the Chinese arrived. Then came the retreat of the allies. I was watching a documentary about this and a Seargent Major of the US was saying how seventy Australians held back wave after wave of 10,000 Chinese over night. The US and Canada assumed them dead but that was not the case. I just added that in because I think that is one of the greatest feats our countrymen has made in battle. But every country has them.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Let's face it: G. W. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Neither was Bill Clinton whom I heard that you like. He was causght with his "pants down with another woman" figurativly speaking.

Bush is not all powerful and he really is trying his best to fix this up. People may say otherwise but... like FuClwon said, it has been a long time since America was attacked on our own soil. The last time it happen, we went off, destroyed Japan, thought we had everything back and then look what happened. See nothing ever turns out the way everyone in this country wants it.

C'jais
01-11-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Neither was Bill Clinton whom I heard that you like. He was causght with his "pants down with another woman" figurativly speaking.


Bush has a reported IQ of 92

Clinton had an IQ of around 140. Major difference.

I don't care what he did in his spare time, as long as he was a good president. He could practice S/M sex for all I cared. Heck, he could dress up in a clown costume and dance naked in a pentagram - as long as he kept his ability as a good president, I wouldn't think bad of him.

Andy867
01-11-2003, 03:07 PM
But you do realize Cjais is that Clinton was making these booty calls with Monica during phone calls with foreign leaders and White House officials, which one could argue that his extracurricular activities were distracting him and causing him not to be 100% focused on the issues at hand... err mind. So he wasn't doing his job properly. And what then do you think Clinton would have done differently in the time of September 11? Bush had only been officially sworn in 7.5 months before.

Also, this whole Middle East issue was going on with Clinton in office, and what was he doing then? Trying to settle the lesser of the major disputes. And what about the first attack on the World Trade Centers, which Osama claimed as his doing. And then there was Kosovo.

C'jais
01-11-2003, 03:15 PM
Did Clinton make "booty calls" (phone calls?) during other phone calls with officials? Can you source that? It sounds a little far off from what I've heard...

What was the lesser of the major disputes? :confused:

"Then there was Kosovo" - what do you mean?

I don't know half of the things you're talking about, man.

razorace
01-11-2003, 04:08 PM
Yeah, read the 50 zillion page "Starr Report" or/and the impeciment records. It's all in there.

I think both statements are refering to Kosovo and the fact that Clinton obviously lied (or was really stupid, your pick) about how long we were going to stay.

And finally, the report of an Bush IQ of 92, is false. I believe this issue is addressed on snopes.com. Sides, one's IQ has nothing anything to do with your ability to be a good president.

C'jais
01-11-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by razorace
Sides, one's IQ has nothing anything to do with your ability to be a good president.

Your intelligence has a lot to do with being a president.

Notice how nearly all the former presidents had very high IQ's. While Bush may not exactly have one of 92, it's certainly Joe Average compared to the earlier boys.

I can't really comment on the Clinton scandal until I've read the report.

razorace
01-11-2003, 05:32 PM
your IQ doesn't equal your intellegence level.

And frankly, you don't have to be "smart" to be president. The president surrounds himself with people that specialize in their particular field. They do most of the "thinking" for him. It's just the way it is. There's too much to do for just one man to handle.

C'jais
01-11-2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by razorace
your IQ doesn't equal your intellegence level.

Not exactly, of course, but it's pretty damn close. No point in arguing this - a guy with an IQ of 140 is obviously smarter than the average person with 100.

And frankly, you don't have to be "smart" to be president.

No...... but it helps a lot. You're in charge of things, and you make the final decision. If there's something you don't understand, or if you lose the overview on things, your country might mess up real bad.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 07:38 PM
If he doesn't understand that why he has hundreds of people ready to explain things down to how to make his own bed.

Originally posted by Cjais
Notice how nearly all the former presidents had very high IQ's. While Bush may not exactly have one of 92, it's certainly Joe Average compared to the earlier boys.

I can't really comment on the Clinton scandal until I've read the report.

And notice that a few of them have been impeached (including Clinton).

ET Warrior
01-11-2003, 08:23 PM
Two presidents have been impeached. Johnson and Clinton. Neither of them were actually removed from office though. Nixon would have been impeached but he resigned.......i'm not really sure what your point is about them getting impeached though.
I believe that was true, until the Chinese arrived. Then came the retreat of the allies.
Well, after N. Korea rolled in the troops into south Korea they initally pushed everyone WAY south into south korea, and then General MacArthur launched a clever counter-attack that pushed North Korea way up north, and then they bombed some bridges linking them to China so they couldn't continue the retreat, and China decided that was not nice so they rolled in with thousands and thousands and thousands of troops.
Then MacArthur called the president to be allowed to take the war into China.....but Truman would not allow it, and then MacArthur criticized the president on national TV and was fired.

that's most of what i know about the Korean War.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Two presidents have been impeached. Johnson and Clinton. Neither of them were actually removed from office though. Nixon would have been impeached but he resigned.......i'm not really sure what your point is about them getting impeached though.


I was trying to help out the person that stated that your IQ level doen't state your intelligence. So what if Clinton had a higher IQ... He was still STUPID in many ways until the point where peopl wanted him kicked out.

ET Warrior
01-11-2003, 08:50 PM
Clinton made ah mistake to get him impeached. He didn't make any mistakes that actually affected the country.....but people FREAKED out because he had an affair. well so what? People have affairs ALL THE TIME. I dont condone them, but they happen.

C'jais
01-11-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
So what if Clinton had a higher IQ... He was still STUPID in many ways until the point where peopl wanted him kicked out.

Being stupid with regards to your private life has nothing to do with you being stupid on matters concerning the country.

Many geniuses are very lacking on the emotional and social front of intelligence (which isn't measured at all in an IQ test). But they're very adept at viewing things logically.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 09:38 PM
But his social life and the outcry affected his way he ran the country. Take that time set and everything happening with Clinton and make him President now, he wouldn't be doing half as good as Bush is doing.

razorace
01-11-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Being stupid with regards to your private life has nothing to do with you being stupid on matters concerning the country.

Clinton wasn't impeached for the affair. He was impeached for lying about it, trying to cover up many unethical/illegal activates, and do such activates. Only God knows what will come out about his behavior in the future....

FunClown
01-14-2003, 03:08 AM
Being stupid with regards to your private life has nothing to do with you being stupid on matters concerning the country.

I'm sure if Saddum Hussain did silly things like cheat on his wife(if he has one) and so forth the United States would use that against him.

BTW I also think IQ tests are meaningless. They can't judge success. Also, the more tests you do the better you become.

XWING5
01-22-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
WTF? Clinton was a great el Presidenté, by US standards. If they hadn't been so thick in the Middle East, he could have ensured peace down there.

In short: I don't give a blessed thing about his character (of course if he "relieved" the US of money for his "retirement fund", matters would be different). What I find troubleing in an el Presidenté is not lack of character, but lack of brains, which GWB unfortunately seems to suffer from.

Look, I'm not talking about whatever the heck he did behind closed doors (whole other thread about that embarassing stuff) when I say I trust Bush's character more than clinton's. I'm just saying that from a soldier's point of view, it's better to believe in the character and motivations of your Commander-in-Chief. Remember the whole Somalia episode? So don't care about his character, that's your right, but I say again that I trust more in what Bush does because I believe in his goals with regards to Sadddam :emperor: . I do wish we would get to work on N. Korea though, through diplomacy (initially.) But just my opinion. And since I don't work in the NSA, that is all I can give.