Democrats and Republicans

[Timber Loftis]

Boy, did this thing derail.

I don't know if it was mentioned, but Germany didn't declare war on the US because of the sub/Destroyer warfare in the N. Atlantic. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. We declared war on Japan. Under their Alliance treaties with Japan, Germany was obligated to declare war on the U.S. And, it did.

[Gab]

Originally posted by khazadman: Well Chewbacca, what about the illegal commy bases we were bombing? We weren't just holding target practice over there. And as for the money Reagan spent on the military? That spending brought about the end of the USSR and it's slave states in eastern Europe. So I'd say it was money well spent.

If I can recall, a few small countries(can't remember their names) were invaded by the Americans just because they had communism.

[ 10-20-2003, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Boy, did this thing derail.

Heh, yeah, but who really expects their threads to stay on-topic in the Current Events Forum? [img]smile.gif[/img] If discussion is still 100% on-topic by the end of the first page then people simply arn't flaring their heckles hard enough

[Seraph]

Republicans:...Ri[c]hard Nixon

What exactly did Nixon do to get on this list.
He ended the war in Vietnam. He got a treaty with Russia to limit strategic nuclear weapons. He increased US-Russia trade (eg. the winter grain deal) and reduced tensions with Russia. He became the first president to start to really recognise Communist China, and reduced tensions with that. His Secretary of State negotiated disengagement agreements between Israel and its opponents, Egypt and Syria. The "Nixon Doctrine" that encouraged countries to take a greater roll in their defence.

Do any of these things seem agressive?

You can make a similar argument for Ike, who among other things refused to support England, France and Israel when Egypt (supported by the USSR) nationalized the Suez Cannal. Is that the action of someone who is agressive?

I don't know if it was mentioned, Under their Alliance treaties with Japan, Germany was obligated to declare war on the U.S. And, it did.

It wasn't mentioned because it isn't true. Under the terms of their alliance Germany would only have been obligated if the US had attacked Japan first. The Japanese-German alliance was basicly a defensive alliance. If this wern't the case, Japan would have already violated the terms when Germany attacked Russia in mid-1941.

The Three-Power Pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan, signed in Berlin on Sept 27th 1940 (AKA "The Tripartite Pack") clearly states in article three "Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict."

There is absolutely no provision in the German-Japanese Agreement and Supplementary Protocol signed on Nov 25th 1936, the Protocol Concluded by Italy, Germany, and Japan, signed Nov 6, 1937, or the Tripartite Pack that calls for support in the event that one of the axis nations was the aggressor.

If I can recall, a few small countries(can't remember their names) were invaded by the Americans just because they had communism.

Well, the ones that I am aware of, in the western hemisphere:
Dominican Republic 1965 (Johnson)
Cuba (Cuban exiles, trained and supplied by the US, may not count) 1961 (JFK)
Grenada 1983 (Regan)

[ 10-20-2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Desuma Malevois: I'm an anarchist at heart; however, I do recognize that this is an impractical stance to take in this day and age. I tend to follow my conscience, which usually leans towards liberal causes.

Anarchy is THE most practical stance an individual can take, anywhere, anytime. Refusing to live by rules allows you to assimilate into any culture you like when the going is good, and uproot and ditch when the heat turns on. Picking fights willy-nilly will get you killed however. There is a difference between anarchy and wantonness.

[Gab]

[quote]Originally posted by Seraph:
[qb]

Republicans:...Ri[c]hard Nixon

What exactly did Nixon do to get on this list.
He ended the war in Vietnam. He got a treaty with Russia to limit strategic nuclear weapons. He increased US-Russia trade (eg. the winter grain deal) and reduced tensions with Russia. He became the first president to start to really recognise Communist China, and reduced tensions with that. His Secretary of State negotiated disengagement agreements between Israel and its opponents, Egypt and Syria. The "Nixon Doctrine" that encouraged countries to take a greater roll in their defence.


[QUOTE]

Nixon did have some good diplomatic skills and began to develope good relationships with China. Homever, you refuse to admit that Nixon wasn't agressive. He was. Chewbacca and I have already told you that he was responsible for illegal bombing. I can also recall that Nixon still had plenty of bombing in Vietnam even if it wasn't as heavy as LBJ's. In an earlier post I stated that Richard Nixon only had alot of troops withdrawn from Vietnam near the end of the war (1972) was because many Americans were opposing it.

In the last 40 years, the Democrats (not including Lyndon Johnson) have been less agressive than the Rebpublicans. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were not as agressive as Ronald Regean, George Bush Sr. and Jr. That's a fact.

[ 10-20-2003, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Seraph]

He was. Chewbacca and I have already told you that he was responsible for illegal bombing.

Right, but you haven't explained why that was made Nixon aggressive, when similar actions, like JFK arming, training, and helping Cuban exiles to invade Cuba wasn't, or Clinton lobbing missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan, didn't make them 'agressive'.

[Gab]

Originally posted by Seraph: quote: He was. Chewbacca and I have already told you that he was responsible for illegal bombing.

Right, but you haven't explained why that was made Nixon aggressive, when similar actions, like JFK arming, training, and helping Cuban exiles to invade Cuba wasn't, or Clinton lobbing missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan, didn't make them 'agressive'. [/QUOTE]Well I didn't remember Clinton lobbing missles into Afghanistan and Sudan. Do you mind explaining to me why he did it? What was the damage caused by these missiles?

[Night Stalker]

Are you kidding?!? That was one of Clinton's popular Homeland Distraction tactics. "The press is picking on me .... I'll lob off a few Tomahawks somewhere ..."

In some cases he hit terrorist training camps and destroyed a few tents (the terrorist must have been away training somewhere ...), a hospital/bio-weapons factory, I forget if the Chinese Embasy was hit by Clinton or Bush ....

[ 10-21-2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Sir Taliesin]

It was under Clinton's watched that the Chinese Embassy was bombed, but I think laying that at his feet is a bit of a stretch. However he did bomb the Asperin Factory in Sudan at the sametime he went after Osama's camp in Afganistan. Alot of people that was a "Wag The Dog" thing.

Nixon bombed North Vietnam in order to force the North Vietnamese to the peace table, so they could argue about what the shape of the table should be for several months. I'm trying to figure out what was illegal about his actions though since we were at war at the time... well at least technically, though we never formally declared war on North Vietnam.