Middle East

Middle East

Marseil
Marseil

January 10th, 2008, 8:17 pm #1

I must say I'm shocked no one here comments GW Bush visit to the Middle East!!!! He is just starting to do now what he should have been doing since the beginning of his mandate.

I keep on thinking he would have been to the Middle East, and would have supported peace talks in the beginning of 2001, 9/11 would not have happened.

Marseil.

Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

January 11th, 2008, 1:22 am #2

What surprises me, Marseil, is that you would think that. How many times have U.S. Presidents and other dignataries participated in such "peace talks" (we had one up here in Ohio . . the so-called "Dayton Peace Accord") and nothing other than a momentary cessation of hostilities resulted? In short order, the attacks resume back and forth.

The only thing that will end this conflict is either the destruction of the State of Isreal . . . or the destruction of all Palestinians and every Muslim state that supports them -- that's it. It is politicial window-dressing . . an utter waste of time . . for Bush or any American leader to participate in efforts to keep people in that region from killing each other. The bombings and rockets and gunfire will continue without end until, maybe one day, one side accomplishes killing the other and can claim "victory." That's all there is to it.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 11th, 2008, 1:31 am #3

I must say I'm shocked no one here comments GW Bush visit to the Middle East!!!! He is just starting to do now what he should have been doing since the beginning of his mandate.

I keep on thinking he would have been to the Middle East, and would have supported peace talks in the beginning of 2001, 9/11 would not have happened.

Marseil.
I think at this point in his last year in office Bush is thinking about the image he will leave to history- and so far his peace efforts have been far overshadowed by his war efforts.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

January 11th, 2008, 1:37 am #4

I think if it weren't for the Iraq invasion, he won't have most of the problem or image that he has now.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 11th, 2008, 1:46 am #5

Well that was a VERY BIG problem that he created and his presidency will forever be tarnish by it just as Lyndon Johnson's was by Vietnam.
Reply
Like
Share

Brandon
Brandon

January 11th, 2008, 3:58 am #6

Ronald Reagan is really the only successful president of the last 48 years.

Kennedy was assassinated.

Johnson had Vietnam.

Nixon resigned.

Ford was never elected, served only 2 years and couldn't get re-elected.

Carter was likely the worst president of all time.

Bush 1 saw his popularity go down faster than any president ever from 1991 to 1992 and lost re-election.

Clinton was impeached and will forever be tarnished with Monica.

Bush 2 has Iraq.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 11th, 2008, 8:16 am #7

Hmmm, well Kennedy was successful up to his assignation- which certainly wasn't his fault. His masterfull handling of the Cuban missile crisis probably saved us from WW-III. When I read about how many of his advisor's wanted us to launch an attack on Russia I'm very greatly that Kennedy use better judgement or we likely wouldn't be here today.

And LBJ accomplished many good things too- including the Civil-Rights Act, the Voters Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid. Pity that all this was tarnished by Vietnam.

Ford didn't do a bad job- he lost because of a bad economy caused by the Vietnam war deficit (the next president will have this problem from Iraq)and because many people were mad that he pardoned Nixon.

Poor Jimmy Carter was a victim of a lot of bad luck but he was a good Christian man who meant well, and you should appreciate that Brandon.

As for Clinton's impeachment- that was a silly political stunt by the Republicans who had nothing better to do for eight years than try to figure out ways to get him.
Reply
Like
Share

cool beans boi
cool beans boi

January 13th, 2008, 5:10 pm #8

Reagan began the assault of the middle class. His destruction of unions and start of the "global economy" has led to a decaying standard of living in this country
Reply
Share

Marseil
Marseil

January 14th, 2008, 2:18 pm #9

Hmmm, well Kennedy was successful up to his assignation- which certainly wasn't his fault. His masterfull handling of the Cuban missile crisis probably saved us from WW-III. When I read about how many of his advisor's wanted us to launch an attack on Russia I'm very greatly that Kennedy use better judgement or we likely wouldn't be here today.

And LBJ accomplished many good things too- including the Civil-Rights Act, the Voters Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid. Pity that all this was tarnished by Vietnam.

Ford didn't do a bad job- he lost because of a bad economy caused by the Vietnam war deficit (the next president will have this problem from Iraq)and because many people were mad that he pardoned Nixon.

Poor Jimmy Carter was a victim of a lot of bad luck but he was a good Christian man who meant well, and you should appreciate that Brandon.

As for Clinton's impeachment- that was a silly political stunt by the Republicans who had nothing better to do for eight years than try to figure out ways to get him.
Clinton impeachment will remain as a demonstration of how stupid this American political system can be. No one actually cared who this guy had sex with and how. It was all built by his political opponents. What I find terrible is there was enough judges (or reps, or whoever....) to support this masquerade.

Marseil.
Reply
Share

Brandon
Brandon

January 15th, 2008, 4:05 am #10

The Clinton case was not about sex.

Clinton lied under oath which in this country is considered a crime called perjury.

Amazing how many people believe the propaganda that the whole Clinton thing was about sex, but it was not.
Reply
Share