Very true and almost forgotten about. Good point
Let’s face facts, it’s about Oil, simple as that, everything else was an excuse/smokescreen.
Saddam was a genocidal maniac, gassing his own people. guess what, Robert Mugabe does exactly the same thing and, apart from the BBC and a few newspapers wringing their hands, nothing is done. Zimbabwe has no oil, Russia did the same thing in Chechnya and nothing was done.
As for the war on terror, bollocks. We were fighting terrorists for 40 years before this, the SAS could have taken out Saddam, Bin Laden et al at a stroke and no-one need know a thing. This would have achieved exactly the same effect but we would have lost our excuse to invade and seize control. As for Israel, they are far more dangerous to peace in the middle east than any of their Islamic neighbours. Don’t forget that one of their soldiers was exonerated despite murdering a british journalist, neither the British or US government had the balls to make a fuss.
US and British Oil companies are now guaranteed 70% of Iraqi oil production for the next 40 years as well as all the construction contracts.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Saddam is dead. Daddy Bush and our pathetic leader at the time should have finished the job first time round which would have saved countless lives. George Bush jr had a convenient excuse to finish the job and secure oil supplies for decades to come. Together with his lapdog, Tony Bliar (not a typing error), he fabricated excuses to justify it and, despite my deep reservations about the leadership qualities of either of them, I’m glad they did!
As for Barack, good luck to the man, you’ve got to admit it’s a bit strange that the only superpower left on the planet has only ever been led by white men, even us Brits were led by a woman nearly 30 years ago and the Germans currently have a woman in charge.
My two cents worth:
Oil: Until we find something better, we need it. Do we need to be working our butts off to evelop working, economical alternative energy: Yes. Does it really exist yet: No. We need to work fast on this one because until we find something better we are handcuffed to a mess. To put it diplomatically.
Carter Doctrine: We will do whatever we need to do (to include combat operations) to secure our oil supply. I believe President Carter was a Democrat if I remember. No president has yet to refute that doctrine. Maybe Al Gore would …
George Bush: I think one of his biggest problems was that he turned to his dad’s generation of trusted advisors rather than coming up with his own cadre of “young turks” and “the best and the brightest”. I say this because I think it left us in a mindset set 30 years back. This leads into Donald Rumsfeld …
Donald Rumsfeld: Wanted to modernize the military. Not a bad thing. Problem 1: Tried to handle Iraq on the cheap in order to leave money for modernization. In other words with not enough there to maintain the peace afterwards. Problem 2: “Old mindset” - I swear he was thinking liberating Iraq would be like liberating Europe during WWII. Festive parties and back to the business of democarcy and business. Wrong. More like the former Yugoslavia falling apart but with even deeper antipathies. Result: Not enough there to keep the peace and no plan to deal with it.
Iraq: Terrorist ties, yes. But only as much as it served them.
WMD: Read up on Saddam’s debriefing after he was caught. Although he did not have a functioning WMD arsenal and program he admitted that he made sure his Intelligence services were quietly broadcasting he did. Why: He was sure the US knew he was lying but he wanted Iran in particular to think he did to keep them on their toes. Did these signals confuse the US, did we believe them or did we use them as an excuse. I do not know.
Arab Middle East: No functioning democracy. They routinely kill (massacre) each other along religious and ethnic lines. The few countries that get along with each other really only do so out of regime protection and business interests. Nothing that deals with the “common good” because when you are a dictatorship (monarchy or whatever) the only common good is maintaining the regime. Not exactly the folks I want guarding my back …
Israel: Do they watch out for themselves? They sure do and in that neighborhood they have to. Do they trust much of anyone else. No and with good reason. If I were Israeli would I trust Europe when I can look on my grandfather’s arm and see a numerical tatoo there? Hell no. Anti-semitism did not start or end with the Third Reich. Even the US has shown it can be somewhat … fickle … supporting allies from time to time.
Iran: Don’t kid yourself. Very very dangerous. The theocrats who run that country have shown many times over that they do not care how many people suffer or die - even their own people - as long as they do what they think is religiously correct.
I have more thoughts and will add them as I have time.
Actually, Daddy Bush was smart enough to leave Sadam in place. He may have been a genocidal maniac, but he kept the Middle East stable. With him gone, Iran is becoming more dangerous. Instability is spreading through the Middle East and into east Asia. The whack jobs that are setting off bombs all over the place may have still have held the same beliefs, but were worried that if they actually carried out any bombing, Sadam was crazy enough that he would have come after them with his (imagined) WMD’s and taken them out along with the rest of their local population, after all, look at what he did to his own people.
Which brings me to the conclusion that if Captain Kirk didn’t go back in time to save those whales, everything would be OK now. Blame it on Kirk
I was an avid McCain supporter throughout the campaign.
I do recognize the historical and social significance Obama has already made, HOWEVER, I see him as dishonest and opportunistic. I don’t think America 2012 will be better off than in 2008, probably even worse IMO.
We shall see though. He’s my president too, and I DO hope he proves me wrong, and I DO hope he’s the best president this country has ever seen. I just can’t see that happening…
Amen to that
McCain seemed like a decent candidate, but i had real problems with the way he decided to campaign. Not that it affects me on this tiny little island.
True and true - at least about instability in Iraq once you removed Saddam and certainly about Iran now having an opportunity to create even more mischief. The flip side is that if we had handled the transition better both internal violence and an increase in Iranian influence would have been less but I believe you would still have seen them.
Of course the alternative was leaving Saddam in place and then … hoping he smoothly transitions power to his equally if not more homicidal sons? 
Because I just don’t think the UN was going to convince Saddam to hold elections right before he died. And no telling if that smooth transition would have happened. Some generals might have had other plans and the whole thing could have blown apart then without us there. A major power vacuum that the Iranians could have moved into.
I also find it interesting that many folks who would otherwise lambast the US for supporting dictatorships and not democratic movements - say Nicaragua under Somoza and others in Latin America or not attempting to stop genocide in Africa - would now say it would be better to leave a guy even worse in place elswhere. Or say that certain regions are not capable of supporting a democracy (not to say anyone here on the forum has said either but they are arguements I have read and heard). Real Politik from an unexpected quarter.
Of course I also realize we cannot go in and solve every countries’ problems - and certainly not by force. Although once again I have heard this recommendation for other countries once again from very unexpected quarters.
OK. Look at this:
-
Both McCain and Obama agreed to ONLY take public donations to campaign. One candidate (Sen. McCain) stayed true to his word. The other, Obama, did not.
-
Obama didn’t need negative campaigning. The EXTREMELY liberal media did a good job of that. They also kept ALL the controversy (about 10X more for Obama whose only been in Senate for 3 yrs. as opposed to McCain’s 27 yrs) about Obama out of the media. The only people that reported it were our friends on Fox. I’m telling everyone that true journalism died in 2008, because they did NOT do their job, and didn’t remain objective throughout the campaign.
Honestly, I care more about this international crisis that Biden promises over Palin’s $150K wardrobe. Which did we hear about more?
Now you understand why McCain campaigned the way he did.
I’m getting a nice history lesson here. 
Keep it up guys, I might not even need to take HIST 20 anymore. 
If you really wanna get into it lakerman, true journalism died before we even had a chance to see it. You think the media’s been behaving any better during the 2000 elections, or the 2004 elections? How about in the 90s? 80s? 70s? I’m pretty sure politicians have been slinging mud ever since there have been politicians. Ancient China? Check. Ancient Rome? Check. Every ancient/older society with complex societies/economies? Check.
I’m sure whatever exposure to media we have is very dependent on where you live. Here in California, all I honestly saw was McCain bashing Obama from the get go and Obama not bashing at all and just talking about his promises. Maybe you saw something different over where you are.
But for me, I don’t see any excuse to spend money on bringing someone else down. Sure, all politicians do it underhand, but to just have a straight up attack ad? That’s just lacks tact and I don’t want another president with no sense of tact. In any case, I’m sure both politicians received funding from private sources, only one got caught.
As for the liberal media? I don’t watch TV News for a reason. Look up who owns all of the cable shows, all of the news stations. Those people are not liberals. They own billions (trillions with inflation? ) in properties (land, brands, corporations that own companies, what have you) and the liberal’s idea of taxes, and government handouts are not what they have in mind.
Really, the media is about as liberal as San Francisco is in the desert. In the end, news stations need to be profitable too. They’ll play whatever they need to, to get viewers to watch their broadcasts and in turn their ads. Then the news stations get paid and the companies get their money’s worth.
Mm..maybe not, but it might take 8 years of reconstruction to repair the damage during the 8 years of neglect under Bush. Neglect would be the diplomatic term…
In any event, 2008 isn’t really what I’m aiming for. I’m aiming for pre-2000. I dunno, I was young then, I’m sure there were a lot of problems then, but I liked my cheap gas.
Either way, just as a heads up, things have been going downhill for the last 8-10 years. We need a change. Things can certainly get worse, but we can’t continue down the path we’ve been going down. That’ll lead to self-destruction.
I find it really ironic that more ancient empires fell apart due to internal factors and conflicts than to external factors. Really, go look it up, in the end, most of the crucial decisions were made internally, which allowed external factors to take a greater hold.
It’s a fact that Obama was accepting private donations, McCain was not.
Also, if you look at the birth place of democracy, Athens, they did NOT have mudslinging. They believed that ANYBODY could hold public office, and chose their officers annually by drawing names (they used pottery shards).
Obama is EXTREMELY leftist, but to win American votes, he ran his campaign down the middle. Even if he wanted to run the country down the middle, IDK that the liberals in Senate, especially the EXTREME left, would allow him.
Obama took a social view in the economy, and honestly, I think big businesses realize that he wouldn’t do what he preached w/ his tax cuts because it’s somewhat unconstitutional, you can’t cut taxes at a time like this (which, it seems Obama realizes as he has been refusing to answer questions about the ‘95% Americans’ deal), and, in the end, companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will earn EVEN MORE MONEY! McCain said he wanted to punish those who were responsible for the economy crashing, so oil companies and big banks would probably be paying fines up their ass, and even jailed!
SMALL business owners, at least all the ones I know, voted McCain, because those are the ones he wants to help.
That one pastor that they had interview Obama and McCain (forgot his name) said it best. There are two ends of the spectrum: government allowing big companies to make ridiculous amounts of money (under Bush), or the government creating wealth (potentially under Obama). Both are extremely harmful. He said that the healthy medium between the two was job creation, and thats what America needs to get back on track. Say what you want about her, but Palin was drilling (no pun intended) job creation. The McCain-Palin ticket had the right idea.
The Greeks were destroyed by the plague, some people given too much power (priests, oracles), etc. Religion really killed those nations.
Then he would have to punish the Republican
eoconservative Congressional members and Presidents going back to Reagen who have deregulated us into disaster. This is especially true of the banking regulations that were put into place during the Great Depression “1”. Those regulations would have prevented the mortgage crises and would have prevented the creation of those derivatives that no one could understand. The neoconservatives believe that government can’t do anything right, and rule in such a way so as to prove it.
Wait…Reagan deregulated us into disaster??? Um, I don’t think so…
Reagan SAVED THE COUNTRY w/ Reaganomics. Clinton started a housing crisis. Liberals are JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for the economic crash as republicans, it’s just that you don’t hear much about them because of the newspapers. Clinton gave houses to people who couldn’t afford the mortgages! I think you have your presidents mixed up…
Please don’t forget to mention Barney Frank (D) who made $90 million from his part of running Fannie into the ground.
Frank’s fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe
Herald readers put blame on Barney Frank - BostonHerald.com
Oh and Captain Kirk for going back into time and saving those damn whales. Should of made lamp oil out of them and saved the economy, but NOOOOOOOOOOO!
Freaking Whales
You missed the part where I said “Presidents”. It only started with Reagan.
And yes there were a lot of people in Congress involved.
Some homework:
Oh and this guy is no “liberal”, he was a member of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1981 to 1985.** Reaganomics**
by William A. Niskanen
I lived through the Carter and Reagan years, hell, I lived through Reagan as Governor of California.
It’s a fact that politicians lie.
I suppose it depends on what part of Greek history you’re looking at. Yes, the plague royally screwed them, but it royally screwed a lot of other people as well. Since we’re discussing democracy and it’s birth in Greek society, I think it’s appropriate we discuss why that particular empire fell apart. At that time, it wasn’t due to the plague. The Greeks had driven back the Persians and were doing just fine. This is before the Greek classical age, btw. So, the Persians were driven back and an alliance was formed between the various Greek poleis (city states). Eventually, that alliance fell apart and began a Greek civil war. That allowed Philip II from Macedonia to come in and conquer the Greek poleis.
After all that, Greek culture had a classical/golden age, but that wasn’t due to the Greeks maintaining a large empire, Greek culture was transferred from whichever empire ruled their land to the next empire that ruled their land. Greeks lived in so many other kingdoms that Greek culture eventually flourished.
Yes, they were the basis of democracy, but don’t be fooled into thinking that it’s the democracy we enjoy today. Today you can vote without defending the country by serving in the military. In ancient Greece, it was a requirement that you had to purchase your own armor and weapon to fight in the army. If you did not fight in the army, in some poleis, you could row the boats (Athens happens to be one of these poleis). Either way, you had to participate in the army in order to vote. Other cities, such as Sparta, kept a number of slaves and had few soliders who could afford their armor/weapon. Rowers were not considered part of the military.
Furthermore, if you couldn’t trace your ancestry on both your paternal and maternal side to that specific city, then you couldn’t be a citizen of that city. The combination of requirements to be a citizen, and consequently vote, were quite high. Much higher than today I presume.
Lastly, yes anyone could hold office, but that has nothing to do with mudslinging. I don’t have any primary sources right here in front of me, but I’m know there were political struggles, people getting stabbed in the back, people bribing others for political or military support. Trust me on that one, if you don’t believe it, just go read your history texts. There was a LOT of mudslinging going on.
Honestly, the idea of democracy is Greek, but our government system is founded upon the system of a Republic, which is what the Romans were, until Caesar decided he’d make himself emperor…in any case, Democratic, Republic, Monarch, they all had political infighting.
Religion has killed a lot of things, mostly people.
Boy, if I thought anyone, even McCain, had a shot at actually pulling that off, I’d vote for them. It’s not gonna happen that easily though. Talk about a campaign promise that’s not going to get fulfilled. Big banks, oil companies, they already have a tight hold on our politics. How do you think they became so powerful to begin with? We’ve been under their influence before we were born, because they influenced our parent’s lives and their parent’s lives. We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg in our short lives my friend.
I’m not sure I understand how government allowing big companies to make money is any different than government creating wealth. It looks like it’s on the same side of the spectrum to me: the government is making someone money. For that matter, government subsidized job creation is still the government making someone money (if you wanna nitpick, the chance to make some money, but even then the company who is hiring is bound to make money as well.) The only difference is who? I say, give it to the people, the big corporations don’t need it.
Job creation, yes that’s the right direction IMO too. Ultimately, we’ll just have to find out what Obama does, or doesn’t do. Hopefully I’ll have the pleasure of having voted in the person who changes America for the better…which, of course, in some ways is very subjective.
Well, I guess you can’t argue with that.