03 Apr 10
George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon are indisputably the three worst presidents in US history. I am tempted to nominate Bill Clinton as the fourth worst. I have no interest in Monica Lewinsky or any of the Rove & co. manufactured conspiracies. My judgment rests primarily upon three things that transpired during the Clinton administration:
1. NAFTA
2. The Telecommunications Act of 1996
3. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
This Trifecta of Doom has done irreparable harm to the nation. The only way the Clinton administration could have been worse is if he had been a Republican.
03 Apr 10
3 edits
Al-Shifa pharmaceutical bombing
The situation in Haiti after he put Jean-Bertrand Aristide "back in power".
The debacle in the Balkans
The augmenting of the Cuba embargo
Negotiating with the Taliban
Providing theTaliban with diplomatic cover
...
Edit: LBJ deserves an honorable mention too. And we gotta love the Nobel Peace prize winning Jimmy Carter. He was a real humanitarian. 😵
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28916
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by adam warlockYeah, it is so fashionable to denigrate Carter. The facts are so clear however. He was absolutely correct in his evaluation that our dependence on foreign oil would lead to a disaster. 9-11, the Middle East invasion (which is the real cause of our gloomy fiscal future,) all of this can be laid at the feet of the stupid policies began by Reagan. Carter was right (and his own party turned on him because of it.) We had a real chance in 1980 and we blew it. I seriously doubt (especially after the Bush train-wreck) that we will survive.
Al-Shifa pharmaceutical bombing
The situation in Haiti after he put Jean-Bertrand Aristide "back in power".
The debacle in the Balkans
The augmenting of the Cuba embargo
Negotiating with the Taliban
Providing theTaliban with diplomatic cover
...
Edit: LBJ deserves an honorable mention too. And we gotta love the Nobel Peace prize winning Jimmy Carter. He was a real humanitarian. 😵
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDo you know the terms of the negotiating?
How can "negotiating" - in and of itself - ever be a mistake?
The taliban offenses on human rights were much, much worse than the ones commited in Cuba. One got a bigger embargo, the others got money that helped them continuing on their violations.
That's how it was a mistake.
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by adam warlockWell, I don't approve of the Cuban trade embargo, but what does Cuba have to do with Afghanistan?
Do you know the terms of the negotiating?
The taliban offenses on human rights were much, much worse than the ones commited in Cuba. One got a bigger embargo, the others got money that helped them continuing on their violations.
That's how it was a mistake.
03 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by TerrierJackCamp David Agreements?
Yeah, it is so fashionable to denigrate Carter. The facts are so clear however. He was absolutely correct in his evaluation that our dependence on foreign oil would lead to a disaster. 9-11, the Middle East invasion (which is the real cause of our gloomy fiscal future,) all of this can be laid at the feet of the stupid policies began by Reagan. Carter wa ...[text shortened]... and we blew it. I seriously doubt (especially after the Bush train-wreck) that we will survive.
El Salvador's Civil War?
Carter's administration role in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
The genocide in East Timor?
03 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLet me lay it out then.
Well, I don't approve of the Cuban trade embargo, but what does Cuba have to do with Afghanistan?
One of the supposed reasons for the Cuban embargo is the violation of human rights.
The taliban had much greater violations.
Cuba has an embargo that is killing its population.
The taliban had money given to them (to continue on killing their population).
A little bit strange don't you think?
Edit: Care to answer my previous question since I've answered all of yours. That's just common courtesy.
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by adam warlockI don't believe any kind of negotiation should ever have any sort of terms. If you don't negotiate, you don't resolve your differences. The end result of the negotiations probably was nothing to be proud of, but that's a different matter entirely.
Let me lay it out then.
One of the supposed reasons for the Cuban embargo is the violation of human rights.
The taliban had much greater violations.
Cuba has an embargo that is killing its population.
The taliban had money given to them (to continue on killing their population).
A little bit strange don't you think?
Edit: Care to answer my previous question since I've answered all of yours. That's just common courtesy.
I don't believe in trade embargoes either. Have they ever accomplished anything?
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe end result of the negotiations didn't come through because after he left Office 9/11 happened. But you should know what negotiating means in the case of Clinton and the Taliban.
I don't believe any kind of negotiation should ever have any sort of terms. If you don't negotiate, you don't resolve your differences. The end result of the negotiations probably was nothing to be proud of, but that's a different matter entirely.
I don't believe in trade embargoes either. Have they ever accomplished anything?
For all I know embargoes always have the same results: killing the civilian population. In the case of Cuba that's actually a good thing if one takes into account the original goal of the embargo: punishing the civilian population of Cuba for not overthrowing Castro!
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by adam warlockI'm not sure what it was about. Heroin?
The end result of the negotiations didn't come through because after he left Office 9/11 happened. But you should know what negotiating means in the case of Clinton and the Taliban.
For all I know embargoes always have the same results: killing the civilian population. In the case of Cuba that's actually a good thing [b]if one takes into account the ...[text shortened]... oal of the embargo: punishing the civilian population of Cuba for not overthrowing Castro![/b]
Have trade embargoes ever led to people revolting against their rulers?
03 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'll leave that homework for you but it wasn't heroine. Opium production and trade in Afghanistan was nearly zero during the Taliban era. After the USA invasion it skyrocketed due to USA's connivance. Karzai, his croonies, and the warlords are all profiting from it.
I'm not sure what it was about. Heroin?
Have trade embargoes ever led to people revolting against their rulers?
The real question isn't if they work or not. The real question is why the "International" Community goes for embargoes? I don't remember anyone that worked and even if they work they always take way too much time. And the point is that they always affet the civilian population.
One instance that I know of that was similar to an embargo working is what happened to the Sandinistas. Due to USA pressure and direct threats the Sandinistas were voted out by the people.
Edit: Pinochet's coup in Chile was also the result of an un-official embargo.