cwsox Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 I dunno. JFK with the USSR and the Cuban Missle Crisis? Lots of people fail to realize just how close the Soviets were to launching. Thanks! The idea that poor G W has problems no one else has ever faced is pure Karl Rove and the SpinMasters spin. Every president has faced situations that were of extraordinary magnitude, that could tear this country apart or presented us with grave problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 OK I guess I'm a historical dumbass, but I still think to this date Lincoln and FDR had to face the most difficult problems. I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, ancient man that I am. I'll never forget the looks on my teachers faces as we were dismissed from school ( I was in the 7th grade ). We were just kids but we knew this was big time serious. Kennedy and Kruschev first had to face down the War Hawks in their own respective camps. Then with Kennedy making a major concession in Turkey, Kruschev was able to back off in Cuba. From then on it was painfully obvious to both parties that there was no real "nuclear option". MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was the policy that carried the day until the fall of the Soviet Union. Yes, I know some historians think we were dangerously close again in Reagan's first term, especially around the time the Russians shot down the Korean airliner. The point is, unless the Russians felt extremely backed in to a corner they were not going to begin lobbing missiles our way. Not so with the enemies we have today. That is why, dumbass that I am I think Bush has the most difficult Presidency since FDR. Some people seem to be blinded by ideology and unable to see this. If Gore were President now, I would feel the same way. The problems today are more difficult and dangerous than any faced in quite some time. I haven't even gotten into the economic sphere, with the world economy in the tank. With this, I swear off politics, again. The last time I think I actually lasted three or four weeks. I still say taking Kordell would be really DUMB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Thanks! The idea that poor G W has problems no one else has ever faced is pure Karl Rove and the SpinMasters spin. Every president has faced situations that were of extraordinary magnitude, that could tear this country apart or presented us with grave problems. No President has had to face a faceless enemy up until now though. For arguments sake, say the media reports that overnight Bin Ladin was killed by US Special Forces and we have the body to prove it. Who then is the enemy? Bin Ladin's death will not stop the fanatical terrorists. In response to Bin Ladin's death, where will the next terrorists strike? Who will they be? What will they attack? How many terrorists will there be? What will the terror-attack type be? Fortunately, up until Sept 11, 2001, most countries and their leaders knew the face of their enemies, where they were holed up, and could mark 10 or 12 possible attack options. Unfortunately for President Bush, this is not the case. And as a side note here..... what names did you call Bill Clinton when he attacked Kosovo and when he launched Tomahawk Missiles at Bin Ladin's training camps? As is now the case, I was behind my President. I'm just wondering where you stood when a liberal was pushing the buttons. To Apu's credit, he's answered where he stood during Clinton's Presidency. None of the other liberals on this board have though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Thanks! The idea that poor G W has problems no one else has ever faced is pure Karl Rove and the SpinMasters spin. Every president has faced situations that were of extraordinary magnitude, that could tear this country apart or presented us with grave problems. No President has had to face a faceless enemy up until now though. For arguments sake, say the media reports that overnight Bin Ladin was killed by US Special Forces and we have the body to prove it. Who then is the enemy? Bin Ladin's death will not stop the fanatical terrorists. In response to Bin Ladin's death, where will the next terrorists strike? Who will they be? What will they attack? How many terrorists will there be? What will the terror-attack type be? Fortunately, up until Sept 11, 2001, most countries and their leaders knew the face of their enemies, where they were holed up, and could mark 10 or 12 possible attack options. Unfortunately for President Bush, this is not the case. And as a side note here..... what names did you call Bill Clinton when he attacked Kosovo and when he launched Tomahawk Missiles at Bin Ladin's training camps? As is now the case, I was behind my President. I'm just wondering where you stood when a liberal was pushing the buttons. To Apu's credit, he's answered where he stood during Clinton's Presidency. None of the other liberals on this board have though. thats my biggest b**** with the democrats/liberals...when clinton was doing the bombing it was for the good of the world...now we are a terrorist nation bent on commiting genocide against the iraqi people.. i dont think the democrats were this screwed up even when carter was presidnet...there is no leadership in that party at all...none..everyone in the party is running around directionless spouting off more and more rediculous off the cuff comments everyday... seriously who is leading the dems right now???....daschle??..lieberman???..kerrey??..anyone??...if they dont get it together in 2 years the only districts they will carry are the ones where its 90% minorities...they are losing mainstream support in a hurry...they have no one to galvanize the party around...bye bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Ugh…Leiberman. I still think Edwards will be running in 04. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Ugh…Leiberman. I still think Edwards will be running in 04. I agree with you on Edwards. Thank you for being a voice of sanity in the thread and elsewhere. Hey baggio - you are my friend and I am not going to unload on you and everyone needs a place to vent but I think all this right wing s*** is exactly that: s***. It is amazing how the Republican party dominated by the religious right wing is not more apparent than the total hypocritical Christian ayatooahs that they are. And if no one can distinguisn between stopping genocide in Kosovo and this unbelivable policies of the cowboy Wag the Dog Bushies, then there is not much to talk about. As was posted in another thread, I hope the Bears do not sign Stewart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Ugh…Leiberman. I still think Edwards will be running in 04. I agree with you on Edwards. Thank you for being a voice of sanity in the thread and elsewhere. Hey baggio - you are my friend and I am not going to unload on you and everyone needs a place to vent but I think all this right wing s*** is exactly that: s***. It is amazing how the Republican party dominated by the religious right wing is not more apparent than the total hypocritical Christian ayatooahs that they are. And if no one can distinguisn between stopping genocide in Kosovo and this unbelivable policies of the cowboy Wag the Dog Bushies, then there is not much to talk about. As was posted in another thread, I hope the Bears do not sign Stewart I think more would vote for Edwards if he didn't have that little "thing" on his upper lip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.