It should be "TURKS", not OTTOMANS

[blitzkrieg1980]

No, as in where I come from is stated on the left. I don't want to be too explicit in case it comes up in a search when the authorities over here try to check on who has been saying anything about the political situation here It has actually happened to other people before.

Wow, bro. Is your government democratically elected?

 

[Crighton]

i haven't picked up this thread in a while so forgive the randomness to my post but i'm not reading through the 12 pages (or more since my last post) anyway @minci I wasn't knocking the language skills.

 

[aelf]

Wow, bro. Is your government democratically elected?

Technically, it is. But it has resorted to strong measures in the past. Right now, elections are still quite a joke since the government sets the rules and opposition to it has been discouraged for a long time. But most people are not complaining as the economy is pretty stable and the people are mostly well cared for.

Anyway, I must say I admire the knowledge that many of the people frequenting this forum has displayed. Regardless of your beliefs, you've encouraged me to learn more so that I know what my own beliefs are built upon (or what they're lacking in).

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^Agreed. I have definitely learned a great deal from the debates I get involved with on these forums. I have also learned good debating techniques and how insults usually discredit one's points thx again to Wodan.

 

[Swedishguy]

This should be moved to OT. Thread title is about Turks and you are arguing about NATO and US army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Man, who lighted this fire?

Precisely what I've been trying to say!

 

[Wodan]

@Wodan

You bring up extremely good and well based points. However, in response to your thoughts on Iraq: whether or not good may come from this conflict (and it very well may in years down the road), it was initiated in an illegal manner and against any sort of "democratic" style of doctrine.

Thanks.

Anyway, if it was illegal then someone should initiate criminal proceedings.

The President of the US has pretty strong powers in regard to war. I think we would all agree there.

Whether or not any of us agree with those powers, is another story. If we disagree, then the laws should be changed.

We've totally screwed the Iraqi people.

I wouldn't go that far.

Compare to welfare. I'm very against most so-called charities. I think they make the recipient dependent and looking for the next handout. Giving someone a boost when they're down is one thing. Making them a social parasite is another.

At some level, we have to expect and demand that people adapt and work to improve their situation. Yes, their life is in the crapper. Maybe they didn't even want help. But we gave it to them anyway. This is true of welfare recipients and people in Iraq alike.

The question is whether they're going to adapt to their new situation and work to improve their lives, or sit back and wish for "the good old days" (which weren't all that good to being with).

I'm a touch more cynical. I don't think Iraq had a single little thing to do with bin Laden or Afghanistan, other than rhetorically.

It doesn't matter. I brought up Afghanistan half in jest. What matters is what the people of Iraq are going to do to improve their situation.

I think if they stood up and took some initiative, then the US would be out of there in a heartbeat.

Not only that, I think the message sent by invading Iraq is "we're so shortsighted and greedy that we'll inadvertantly bolster bin Laden's recruiting efforts via misguided, failing, aggressive polices."

Greedy?

Wodan

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

The President of the US has pretty strong powers in regard to war. I think we would all agree there.

Yes. But the powers of the President have been expanding more and more during this administration. It's becoming a little OP and is endangering the system of checks and balances that were supposed to be in place. Wait... checks and what? Oh yeah, we have a Republican Senate, House, Executive branch, and a Supreme Court with a naturally conservative basis (thanks to some recent appointments). This never used to matter. Even with all branches of government being the same party, each branch would still keep the others in check. Not so, recently. We've seen more partisan politicing in all branches of government which is not only bad, it's downright frightening. I would be saying this if the Democrats had the same situation and were abusing it, so it isn't about the party. It's all about the checks and balances that are quickly disappearing.

Whether or not any of us agree with those powers, is another story. If we disagree, then the laws should be changed.

I agree 100% that we need to stop this spread of the Presidential powers NOW.

Compare to welfare. I'm very against most so-called charities. I think they make the recipient dependent and looking for the next handout. Giving someone a boost when they're down is one thing. Making them a social parasite is another.

Once again, agreed 100%. I think that we definitely need to help people who have known nothing but poverty for over a century and before that, slavery (not just African Americans, but other empoverished as well). But welfare is just perpetuating the problem. There has to be a way to get people to desire the embetterment of themselves. What that is, I don't quite know just yet.

I think if they stood up and took some initiative, then the US would be out of there in a heartbeat.

Honestly, Wodan, I don't think leaving is in the Bush agenda. Now, I'm not saying that the elimination or at least lessening of the insurgency isn't in the agenda. But I am saying that leaving isn't.

 

[eric_]

Greedy?

Yes, for resources, money, and strategic influence in the region.

At some level, we have to expect and demand that people adapt and work to improve their situation. Yes, their life is in the crapper. Maybe they didn't even want help. But we gave it to them anyway. This is true of welfare recipients and people in Iraq alike.

That comparison doesn't work, as you can boil it down to this:

If you have a child, it is your duty to strike a balance between helping them and not spoiling them.

If you know someone else with a child, it is your duty to let that child's parents strike that balance or fail to. If you see the child being mistreated, you have the option of reporting that person to an authority. You do NOT have the option of beating the **** out of that parent and kidnapping the child because you deem that it needs help.

 

[eric_]

And yes, for what it's worth, Welfare absolutely can lead to a cycle of continued poverty via enablement.

 

[Abegweit]

The Amish have a wonderful society which works well in a rural setting with other Amish people. In cities and/or with people of other beliefs, it would be an utter failure.

The Amish do not live only among the Amish. I live among Mennonites, who are basically the same. Everyone agrees that they are fine people, although my neighbour who likes to ride a motorbike, complains about the horsesh!t on the roads.

If we could unilaterally dismantle every nation's armies, also cut back militarism in societies which encourage personal ownership of weapons (to prevent a possible citizen army from forming), and also somehow prevent some power (national, commercial, or private) from secretly building arms, then this might work. Unfortunately, I don't think we can do any of those things.

It simply is not necessary to disarm everyone. The US, for one, has no possible enemies other than those it has created for itself.

In addition, it's a valid question whether the threat or application of force is a reasonable diplomatic tool. If a dictator is systematically committing genocide on his own people, is another nation justified in invading to stop the atrocities?

Can you name an example in history of this ever happening? This is not why nations invade each other.

Interesting. Would you consider a stockpile of other WMDs as a useful deterrent against WMD attacks? Why or why not?

First off, there are no other WMDs. A Daisycutter does far more damage than chemical weapons, biological weapons are a joke and dirty bombs don't exist. In any case, should someone develop such weapons, nukes would be an ample deterrent against them. No need for more.

I would, however, find it extremely hard to believe if all the other countries were raping and pillaging each other left and right, but just over the border Costa Rica magically went on their merry way, bright economy shining, and all the people living the high life on the tropical beaches, margaritas in hand. Perhaps they weren't invaded, but certainly there would have been unrest and/or economic implications they had to suffer.

Your assertion is the exact opposite of the truth. Remarkable isn't it? Costa Rica has always been the richest and most peaceful Central American country with the possible exception of Belize. I believe actually that Belize doesn't have an army either but at the time it was a British colony, so I didn't point it out as another example.

Since the end of the Second World War, there is almost no example of one country attempting to annex territory from another without at least some sort of fig leaf to cover it. The only exception which comes to mind is Israel in 1967. Tibet in 1952 and East Timor in 1975 are the only other examples at all. East Timor has regained independence, the Sinai has been returned and the Golan will probably eventually be too. Tibet is finished as a country unfortunately; the majority of the people living there are Chinese.

The lines on the map have become sacred. With the exception of the Americans and Africans, there are very few recent cases of one country invading another at all. This is the reason countries survive quite well without armies.

As for Afganistan and Iraq, frankly, I'm just as happy with the way things have turned out. I think the US should have made our point and then gotten out by now, but I realize that's easier said then done.

What was that point?

Clinton largely disbanded the military and installed quite a few civil programs. Once the bureaucrats are in place, it takes a herculean effort to redirect that money and resources, no matter how ineffective or useless the program turns out to be. The superb military you speak of doesn't really exist. You do realize that most of the troops in Iraq, Afganistan, and South Korea are Reserves or Guard units, right?

I didn't speak of a superb military. Maddy did. Clinton may have let the military decline a little but he certainly didn't dismantle it. As for civil programmes, what ones are you talking about?

Did you know that FedGov, as a percentage of GDP, declined in every one of the last 12 years under Democratic administrations (4 under Carter and 8 under Clinton) while they rose under Reagan/Pappy and especially under Shrub? The Democrats have become the party of limited government!

I read a couple of books a few years back in an alternate history setting where the South won the US civil war. They ended up in a society where personal arms were carried by everyone, even grandmothers going to the market. There were no police (except private investigators and commercial security guards) and no armies. The author posited that no other nation would ever invade because they would be slaughtered by the civilians because the number of guns per capita was a half dozen or more.

Of course that goes against any kind of a personal/individual pacifism creed, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless.

Sounds a lot like Switzerland. As I said elsewhere, I am somewhat conflicted on this and I certainly have no objection to people who believe in self-defence.

It's far to easy to manufacture and hide extremely powerful weapons.

Like what? Give me concrete examples of things how it would be possible

Again, I have to disagree. The S. Korean army outnumbers the north, was stated earlier. If the US military wasn't there, the south would still outnumber the north. It would be implausible for the north to reduce their military.

Actually, the north outnumbers the south (600,000 to 450,000 IIRC). However, the qualitative difference is so great that Kim's poor conscript slaves would have less chance of surviving than the Iraqi slaves did back in 1991. All the belligerence is between the Americans and the North while the South has been attempting rapprochement so removing the Americans from the equation should improve matters. Whether this is right or wrong is completely irrelevant. The Koreans don't want American "help" and they should leave.

Frankly, I like the response, "Mess with the US in a big way (the way Bin Laden and Afganistan did), we'll invade you AND the country next to you!"

How did Afghani peasants mess with the US - or any Iraqis at all? It has been forgotten, but the Taliban government attempted to negotiate. As for Iraq, there were no WMDs. There was no al queda connection. There was no reason for the attack at all.

The not-like minded citizens (of all sorts) include those which are capable of violence but previously were suppressed. Some of them were opposed to the militarist leadership, some were a 3rd party. The opposed will now be committing "sectarian violence" against the like-minded citizens. The 3rd party citizens will be committing violence against both the like-minded and against the American presence.

Frankly I disagree with the thought that dismantling the Hussein presence caused increased violence from the citizenry. Some was there before, just against people in other countries, so this is improved. Some is the result of and a reaction to previous suppression, and should be laid at the feet of the previous leadership (your secret police or military unjustly commit acts against my family, the only thing preventing me from going after you is the continued presence of the secret police -- remove them, and it all changes).

Do you have any notion of the scale of the violence? Approximately 600,000 men between the ages of 15 and 44 have died since the invasion, 250,000 at the hands of the invaders and the rest in sectarian violence. Assuming that's a fifth of the population, this represents 10% of the men of military age. It's horrific. And there are no "like-minded" citizens. The only people who want the Americans to stay are the Kurds.

Some was there before, just against people in other countries, so this is improved.

This particular claim is especially surprising. Which people in which countries?

 

[eric_]

Yes. But the powers of the President have been expanding more and more during this administration.

Yeah, and I'm growing more and more alarmed.

IMO Americans are too trusting of our government because, by and large, it has respected the basic foundations upon which it exists. Basically we've grown complacent. We don't know from experience what a too-powerful executive means. But now things are different. The following actions appear to me to constitute pulling bricks out of the foundation of checks and balances: abuse of signing statements, Congressional approval of the warrantless wiretapping program, categorization of detainees, limits on the rights of detainees based on their category, giving power to the President to define a detainees' category, giving power to the president to define what constitutes torture, Congress retroactively protecting any and all government officials who may or may not have violated international and US law pertaining to detainee treatment, free speech zones, man being arrested for insulting Cheney, etc.

Some of these things make me ashamed of what we're becoming. For instance, we are now a nation who is not clearly opposed to--let alone opposed to engaging in--torture.

 

[scorp24]

WTH? Average at best? Are you joking or what? The Turks were the greatest Islamic(/Arabic) empire ever
And that says a lot! You have to be forgetting that the Zulu empire is in the game, the Aztec empire is in the game, the Inca empire is in the game and you can't really tell me they're a "greater" empire than the Turks! But the fact is that they dominated the area (Zulu in S-Africa, Inca in Western S-America and Aztecs of Mesoamerica)

yeah, yeah skippy. those were all good emires/civs/countries whatever you want to call them, but they were never GREAT by the world standards. they were great by their regional standards, but they cant compare to the egyptians, romans, french, brits, russians, nazis and americans (im sure im missing some) - if you look at their cultural contributions, world power ratings, influences and their places in history. but we cant really have civ game with only 7 or 8 nations, so they threw in some other important countries, such as the turks and aztecs. however, once again, they are not comparable to the powerhouse empires i just mentioned.

 

[Wodan]

It simply is not necessary to disarm everyone. The US, for one, has no possible enemies other than those it has created for itself.

If the US disarms, then this would enable anyone with a half-baked military to declare itself an effective enemy.

Even as it stands, China is a world power and becoming more influential economically, scientifically, and militarily every year.

Can you name an example in history of this ever happening? This is not why nations invade each other.

There have been cases of genocide, unfortunately. However, I can't think of one where the US chose to invade as a result. That doesn't mean it can't happen.

In addition, there is plenty of instances of lesser evils being perpetuated, either on their own people, or on others. Hitler, for one.

First off, there are no other WMDs. A Daisycutter does far more damage than chemical weapons, biological weapons are a joke and dirty bombs don't exist. In any case, should someone develop such weapons, nukes would be an ample deterrent against them. No need for more.

I'm hardly an expert on weapons, but I'm not sure I share your disdain for other types of weapons, let alone your claim they don't exist.

In any event, a couple of friggin' 747s did just fine in New York. Does that give the US permission to use nukes? That seems to be what you're saying.

What was that point?

Exactly. The waters have been muddied beyond belief.

I didn't speak of a superb military. Maddy did. Clinton may have let the military decline a little but he certainly didn't dismantle it. As for civil programmes, what ones are you talking about?

I didn't say dismantle, but regardless it was more than "a little". Military spending was reduced every single year of his administration. 1999 was down to about 3/4 of what it was in 1992.

As for civil programs,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Major_legislation_signed

Sorry, I don't care to get into a party debate.

Like what? Give me concrete examples of things how it would be possible

http://home.tiscali.be/comicstrip/anarcook/indanarcook.html

This discussion is becoming increasingly irrelevant and ideological.

Wodan

 

[aelf]

It simply is not necessary to disarm everyone. The US, for one, has no possible enemies other than those it has created for itself.

I agree with Wodan on this point. Anyway, during the Cold War, the US had to develop a doctrine of limited response to prevent a likely nuclear exchange and MAD. Dismantling armies and relying only on nukes for deterrent would be turning back the clock in some ways. How are countries like the US supposed to respond to a terrorist attack, for example? Nuking the sponsor states? That does nothing to make the world a safer place. In fact, far from it. And do you actually believe that terrorism would stop just because the US removes all its troops in foreign soil and disbands the army?

As long as there are human beings, assuming that the world can become a peaceful place if we just take a different course is very naive. You did depart a little from your pacifist beliefs to say that nukes are necessary as deterrent, but I've pointed out how they are too inflexible and even harmful.

Can you name an example in history of this ever happening? This is not why nations invade each other.

Certainly not. But I don't trust individual nations. How about the United Nations? Isn't intervention sometimes necessary to ensure peace? What if countries like South Korea asks for help when they are attacked? Who wouldn't? With international help, they can lessen the destruction they have to suffer, even if they can win. Without armies, how is the UN going to intervene? With nukes?

First off, there are no other WMDs. A Daisycutter does far more damage than chemical weapons, biological weapons are a joke and dirty bombs don't exist.

Any evidence to back yourself up here?

Since the end of the Second World War, there is almost no example of one country attempting to annex territory from another without at least some sort of fig leaf to cover it. The only exception which comes to mind is Israel in 1967. Tibet in 1952 and East Timor in 1975 are the only other examples at all. East Timor has regained independence, the Sinai has been returned and the Golan will probably eventually be too. Tibet is finished as a country unfortunately; the majority of the people living there are Chinese.

Strangely enough, you forgot to mention Korea in 1953. How about the Iraqi invasion of Iran and Kuwait? Such examples are proof that an international community capable of armed intervention is needed in order for the world not to degenerate into chaos.

The lines on the map have become sacred. With the exception of the Americans and Africans, there are very few recent cases of one country invading another at all. This is the reason countries survive quite well without armies.

Really? There are no territorial disputes that can explode into full-scale aggression if there are no arms on one side or on the side of the international community to prevent that from happening?

The Democrats have become the party of limited government!

Veering towards partisanship here. But I can't discuss American party politics.

I certainly have no objection to people who believe in self-defence.

Without arms? Do you propose entire countries learn karate to beat up aggressors with guns? Sounds like the absurd Boxer Rebellion in China.

Whether this is right or wrong is completely irrelevant.

Hmm... I don't know why but this comment reminds me of Hitler. I don't know any credible member of the international community right now who doesn't at least pay lip service to the concept of right and wrong. Let me ask you a question. If you see a madman attack another person, do you not try to help? If there are a few people there, the madman might be restrained until the police arrive. Is it right if you stand there and watch the innocent person get beaten up?

How did Afghani peasants mess with the US - or any Iraqis at all?

It's not the people. It's the governments. The Taleban regime was a big player in the opium trade. The North Korean government is involved in illegal financial activities. You can't say that these governments did not do anything clearly wrong in order to stay in power. And these activities go beyond the boundaries of their domestic scenes.

 

[Loki cdn]

While this post like 90% of the others in this thread is off topic, Abeqweit has been engaging in quite a bit of factual revisionism and I feel the need to reply.

The fact is that the Soviets won WWII almost single-handedly and they did so before Pearl Harbor. When the Nazis failed to reach either of their main objectives (Moscow and the Caucasian oil fields) before the snow flew in 1941, the war was over. All that was left was the clean up.

Hardly true. While not taking Moscow was disastrous for the Germans it was hardly the turning point on the Eastern Front. Most of that failure can be placed on Hitler for not taking the German economy to a war time footing. If he had, Barbarossa would have launched weeks early with greater numbers and far better resupply. Not withstanding this fact the Russian's needed to produce more war materials at this time due to German superiority in tactics and training. To do so Stalin had to convert almost 100% of the Russian ecomony to producing war materials. The Lend Lease program allowed him to do this and supplied almost all of Russia's aviation fuel, 375883 Trucks, 1981 Locomotives, 4.4 million tons of food over a billion dollars in machinery 15,417,000 pairs of Army boots, etc, etc. Without this I think it is debatable whether Russia could have beaten the Germans.

Two points:

1) the Japanese had been trying to surrender for many months; their only condition was the one the Americans ultimately accepted - that the Emperor not be touched.

2) there was no more reason to invade Japan than than there was to invade Iwo Jima or Okinawa. The Roosevelt doctrine of unconditional surrender was completely unjustified in either theatre.

There is no direct evidence that the Japanese ever offered to surrender. In fact the Japanese response to the United States demand that the Japanese unconditionally surrender in accordance with the Potsdam agreement was simply "Mokusatsu" which was mistakenly understood to mean "kill it with silence".

What's less well known is that the Allies were strongly complicit in the communist takeover of China as well. Both the Americans and Brits at the time preferred commies like Mao to fascists like Chiang Kai-Shek.

Not true. Lend Lease materials went to Chiang Kai-Shek exclusively. Who had strong supporters in the US in the China Lobby included the publishers of Time magazine.

This despite the fact that the KMT was actively involved in the war against the Japanese while the CPC was conserving its forces for a battle over China which would come after the Americans had decimated the Japanese. Meanwhile, Uncle Joe sent huge amounts of materiel, much of it acquired through Lend-Lease, to Mao. Some came directly from the US.

After the battle of Shanghai, the KMT retreated into the interior of China pursuing a scorched earth policy. Prior to the final stages of the war the only significant successful action they where involved in was in the Burma theatre where they where led, trained and equipped by the American's under General Stilwell. Since Lend Lease materials entered China through either Burma or where airlifted from India please explain how they could have reached Northern China with an intervening Japanese army in the way? Also why did General Chu Teh, Commander in Chief of the Communist Army, complain in a national broadcast on July 7, 1942 that the 8th Route Army had not received munitions for three years? Point in fact the Communists not the KMT maintained two armies in the field for the entire war supplying themselves almost entirely from captured Japanese materials. American support was only pulled from the KMT after General Stilwell's complaints of rampant corruption and profiteering where proven correct after the war.

The Japanese did not start the war with the US.

If you are referring to the embargoes and the creation of the Flying Tigers please explain how punishing a rogue nation that is bent on carving out their
Far East sphere of influence through military conquest is starting a war? Embargoing the Japanese hurt the American economy, if the Japanese hadn't flaunted the League of Nations the embargoes would never have happened. Therefore the Japanese started the war.

Let's follow this, shall we? There are more than a million men facing each other across the DMZ. Of these 30,000 are American. Do you honestly believe that they have the slightest impact, other than to exacerbate relations between the two Koreas?

You forget to mention the Carrier group that is always on station in the Far East. Yes I believe that would have an effect.

As for "appeasement", the South Koreans believe that it works. And that's their business. Not yours.

Since the Dear Leader has broken every agreement he has ever had towards non proliferation, I think that is proof it doesn't work. The South Koreans seem to believe that now as well since they have cut off all aid to the North.

Even the sainted Gandhi caused the deaths of a million Indians and the total disruption of the lives of many millions more.

How? Gandhi achieved independence for India through civil disobedience and English war exhaustion. Post independence he quelled religious strife by fasting. Hundreds of millions of people bent to the will of one man by simply refusing to eat. While it is debatable whether his vision of India could have been achieved, laying what happened at his feet after his assasination is ridiculous. Both the Hindu's and the Muslim's are to blame for that, the Mahatma was one of the few people working to unify them into a peaceful co existence. Even Nehru didn't think it was possible.

The issue is clearcut. Palestine is an occupied country.

Palestine is not a country, never was. They had their chance to be country after WWII but chose to try to side with the forces bent on destroying Israel. Imagine their surprise when they lost and their so called allies said piss off we don't want you in our country. Contrary wise Arab nations expelled more then a million Jews from their countries. Including significant numbers of Jews from what would become Isreal's occupied territories.

First off, there are no other WMDs. A Daisycutter does far more damage than chemical weapons, biological weapons are a joke and dirty bombs don't exist. In any case, should someone develop such weapons, nukes would be an ample deterrent against them. No need for more.

Dirty bombs don't exist? Grind up fifty pounds of radioactive uranium into a fine dust, put it on a missile and air burst it over say, Europe. Why do you think everyone takes Iran and its missiles seriously? It isn't for their third rate military.

Actually, the north outnumbers the south (600,000 to 450,000 IIRC). However, the qualitative difference is so great that Kim's poor conscript slaves would have less chance of surviving than the Iraqi slaves did back in 1991.

Kim's army aren't conscripts. In matter of fact I imagine it is one of the most desired jobs in North Korea since almost all of the countries resources go to feeding, equipping and training that army. Since it is a closed society there is no way to tell how they would perform.

How did Afghani peasants mess with the US - or any Iraqis at all? It has been forgotten, but the Taliban government attempted to negotiate

There is the small matter of them allowing Osama to train his terrorist's there. Funny how giving shelter to the Jerk off who kills almost two thousand of your people doesn't really encourage nations to negotiate.

There is more but you get my point.

 

[Peronosporos]

WTH? Average at best? Are you joking or what? The Turks were the greatest Islamic(/Arabic) empire ever
And that says a lot! You have to be forgetting that the Zulu empire is in the game, the Aztec empire is in the game, the Inca empire is in the game and you can't really tell me they're a "greater" empire than the Turks! But the fact is that they dominated the area (Zulu in S-Africa, Inca in Western S-America and Aztecs of Mesoamerica)

Well... no my friend sorry. The Persian Khalifate of the 9th century AD was far stronger, the only difference was that the byzantine empire was at it's apex and was capable of repulsing it. There was no force in Western Europe those days that was capable of stoping them.
Another good example would be the Persian army under the command of Chosroes the 1st in the 7th Century, or Zoroastrian Persia which also posed a serious threats to the (then) roman empire.

The Turks on the other hand found the Byzantine empire and the arabs weakened by the 500 years of their strife and could deal with them easily. Not to mention that the Byzantine Empire had already collapsed once (and its power was fleeting as a consequence) with the fall of Constantinople by the 4th Crusade.

 

[Tekee]

I want Byzantiium in Expansion, I like Theodora

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I didn't speak of a superb military. Maddy did. Clinton may have let the military decline a little but he certainly didn't dismantle it. As for civil programmes, what ones are you talking about?

Did you know that FedGov, as a percentage of GDP, declined in every one of the last 12 years under Democratic administrations (4 under Carter and 8 under Clinton) while they rose under Reagan/Pappy and especially under Shrub? The Democrats have become the party of limited government!

If you speak with members of the military who were active duty in the '90s you will swiftly realize that Clinton did a lot when it comes to reduction in force. I was in the military in 2000 right when Georgie took office and believe you me, there were plenty of service-members who had plenty to say about Clinton's reduction in force. As to his programmes, check out Wodan's link. Also the GDP decline you speak of seems a bit off, as our national debt was brought to a new low during the Clinton years.

As for Reagan and Pappy, talk about the destruction of American opinion around the world. Reagan set new presidence when he extradited Noreaga to the U.S. for crimes commited in other countries. The contraband issue is one of my favorites to bring up with Reagan.

I do not feel like getting involved in partisan politicing, but the fact is that all US presidents have done both good and bad. But most have done a real good job of doing underhanded things overseas. If you ask me to give examples, I am only going to refer you to wikipedia and books like Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", so refer to those before asking me to write 3 pages worth of examples. thanx

 

[Swedishguy]

I want Byzantiium in Expansion, I like Theodora

I like your suggestion but maybe you should post this in a seperate thread?

SG

 

[Abegweit]

If the US disarms, then this would enable anyone with a half-baked military to declare itself an effective enemy.

What exactly does disarm mean in your book? The US today spends almost 50% on the money that the world throws away on miltary - and most of the rest is spent by allies like Britian, Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany, Korea...

There have been cases of genocide, unfortunately. However, I can't think of one where the US chose to invade as a result. That doesn't mean it can't happen.

Warmongers commit war. I am sure that somewhere, somewhen, this might actually be their excuse. Kosovo comes to mind. The fact that there was no genocide seems to have been forgotten.

I'm hardly an expert on weapons, but I'm not sure I share your disdain for other types of weapons, let alone your claim they don't exist.

Well check it out.

In any event, a couple of friggin' 747s did just fine in New York. Does that give the US permission to use nukes? That seems to be what you're saying.

This is wrong on so many levels that's it hard to know where even to start. Nukes against whom? 19 hijackers? They are all dead. Incidently, there will never be another airplane hijacking. That was the last one. Five years later there has not been even one more incident. This has nothing to do with scotch-stealing and tit-groping goons. It's because people (passengers and crew) have learned that they can't trust the authorities to protect them. They have to do it themselves. And potential hijackers know it they can do it.

I didn't say dismantle, but regardless it was more than "a little". Military spending was reduced every single year of his administration. 1999 was down to about 3/4 of what it was in 1992.

As for civil programs,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Major_legislation_signed

Sorry, I don't care to get into a party debate.

Well, you may have gathered that, IMO, it should be reduced by far more than 25%. And count on it, I am not a Democrat. I merely wanted to point out that the conventional wisdom which says that the Republicans are the party of small government is wrong. Both sides favour big government when in power. Divided government is best for us little folk. As such I support the Democrats this year, almost entirely because getting opposition chairpersons on Congressional comittees could be interesting. I have no illusions that they might actually have principles. They don't.