What's wrong with the USA.

[Dy]

I'm not sure I'm well informed enough to answer that, being only 23 and British, my knowledge of US politics is stictly to do with recent (past few years) global events. Of the ones in my life span (not including Carter, as I was 2 when he left office), I'd say Clinton. Simply because he's not Bush snr or Reagan.

---

Dylan
[Bush] said he's praying for guidance about Iraq. I'm thinking there is no way God would direct him to start a war with anyone. Only Satan wants wars. Conclusion: Bush must be a Satan Worshiper. Cathy, Soapbox, 07/03/03

[Lost User]

Dylan Kenneally wrote: I'd say Clinton. While GWB is certainly not my favorite POTUS, Clinton is one of my least favorite so I doubt we'll find much common ground. Dylan Kenneally wrote: I'm not sure I'm well informed enough to answer that, being only 23 Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." So maybe in about 7 years we'll agree. ;P Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

[HENDRIK R]

Jason Henderson wrote: So its not anti-war, its anti-Bush? Sure it's anti - war, but this leads to anti - Bush. Because I think it's the government which propagates and plans a war. I don't know whether the situation would differ in case the US had another president, but I'd tend to that point of view. What I originally intended to say is that (almost) nobody in Germany or France would call our attitude anti - american, what's often misunderstood. But it changes nothing in our attitude against a war.

---

We are men. We are different. We have only one word for soap. We do not own candles. We have never seen anything of any value in a craft shop. We do not own magazines full of photographs of celebrities with their clothes on. - Steve

[Giles]

Dylan Kenneally wrote: I'm not, I am however ashamed to have voted Labour. Yes you should be. :-D Quote from a clever bloke : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

[Dy]

Out of interest, who (if anyone) did you vote for? I know votes are a private thing, so if you don't want to answer then furry muff.

---

Dylan
[Bush] said he's praying for guidance about Iraq. I'm thinking there is no way God would direct him to start a war with anyone. Only Satan wants wars. Conclusion: Bush must be a Satan Worshiper. Cathy, Soapbox, 07/03/03

[KaRl]

Eisenhower and Kennedy

---

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

[Lost User]

KaЯl wrote: Eisenhower and Kennedy I'm surprised to hear that, considering they are probably the most responsible POTUS's for US involvement in Vietnam. Gee, I wonder who left Vietnam in such a screwed up mess in the first place? :rolleyes: Hint: France Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

[Jeremy Falcon]

Colin Davies wrote: asfar as I'm concerned its obesity. I'll second that! Jeremy Falcon

[Joao Vaz]

Colin Davies wrote: obesity Well, definitely obesity is one of the 3 things that I don't like on the US, the 2nd is of course (???) McDonalds and the most important the US government wanting to make war disrespecting ONU. This I don't agree, war should be avoided at all costs and only be used as last resort . IMHO, it's a shame this kind of thought by the US government and by the Bristish government. The sad thing is that our Portuguese Prime-Minister is on this war bandwagon too, not that isn't a suprise since his political party a decade ago selled weapons to Iraq ... what ironic ... Peace :rose: Cheers,Joao Vaz And if your dream is to care for your family, to put food on the table, to provide them with an education and a good home, then maybe suffering through an endless, pointless, boring job will seem to have purpose. And you will realize how even a rock can change the world, simply by remaining obstinately stationary.-Shog9 Remember just because a good thing comes to an end, doesn't mean that the next one can't be better.-Chris Meech

[Michael A Barnhart]

Mike Mullikin wrote: I'm surprised to hear that, considering they are probably the most responsible POTUS's for US involvement in Vietnam. Not sure I agree with you here. Both felt a limited advisor ship role was appropriate. Johnson is the one who made it the mess it became. We also have to remember how close the world was to nuclear war in the early 60's. The public opinion to stop the spread of communism was very strong and any of them may not have felt they had any choice. The change is attitude between 1960 and 1970 was dramatic. ""

[DFU23]

Colin Davies wrote: as far as I'm concerned its obesity You know ... I think it is more of a lack of motivation ... in other words, "laziness".

Wally Atkins
Newport News, VA, USA

[Lost User]

I have an excellent book at home (therefore right now, I have no clue of it's title and author :-O - I'll have to get back to you on that) that paints a much different picture. It was written by a reporter that lived in Vietnam from the late 40's or early 50's. He referenced documents from Vietnamese sources as well as documents from our consulate and administration. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were strongly warned by many advisors that Vietnam was to be avoided like the plague and both were too arrogant to listen. If either had taken the time to listen Johnson wouldn't of had to make the stupid decisions he did. Don't get me wrong, Johnson made some horrendous mistakes but Eisenhower and Kennedy put us in the position in the first place. Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

[Russell Morris]

Rohit  Sinha wrote: They don't play Cricket! Lucky you! If we did, we'd pay them millions of dollars a year and they'd all come over here to play in a tournament of US Cricket teams. And the winner would be crowned 'World Champions' :rolleyes:;P -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"

[Doug Goulden]

Hey remember Nixon got the US out of that mess ;P Liberals hate when you point that out...... Something about the truth hurting Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

[KaRl]

Mike Mullikin wrote: I'm surprised to hear that, considering they are probably the most responsible POTUS's for US involvement in Vietnam It seems this affirmation is already contested :) Mike Mullikin wrote: Gee, I wonder who left Vietnam in such a screwed up mess in the first place In Indochine french soldiers were as mercenaries doing the job for the US. France could never afford a war just after WW2. That's however true that a big occasion was missed in 1946 because of the internal political mess X|

---

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

[KaRl]

At last Nixon listened finally to De Gaulle's speech in Phnom Penh in '66 ;P

---

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

[Lost User]

KaЯl wrote: It seems this affirmation is already contested And disputed ;) KaЯl wrote: In Indochine french soldiers were as mercenaries doing the job for the US. Ummmm.... I don't know about that. Vietnam was a French colony at the time. I think France can take full responsibility for her actions and inactions. Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

[KaRl]

Mike Mullikin wrote: And disputed No doubt about it :-D Mike Mullikin wrote: I think France can take full responsibility for her actions and inactions. IMHO the man responsible of the mess of the Indochina war is the Admiral D'argenlieu, the French High Commissioner of Indochina. He made all he could to avoid an agreement with nationalists, and pushed for a war France could not afford. He constantly bared the efforts of the[
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop](http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/L/LeclercJ1.asp>Marechal Leclerc</a>, who had understood that Peace was the only solution and than the destiny of Indochina will lead the future of Algeria, another war for nothing. Once war started in 1947, in the context of the cold war, the anti-colonialist struggle changed in a East-West confrontation.

<hr color=#ADBDFF width=60% align=left height=10%>
<div style=)

[Doug Goulden]

Surely you aren't implying that the French history of colonialism doen't exist and that the French are lily white? BTW I remember watching the news with Walter Cronkite as a little kid and hearing how many American soldiers had died that day.... Vietnam was a tragedy and the way it was pursued was nearly criminal. I think that if you look at America now you see two outgrowths of that conflict 1. An enormous guilt among the American people for the lack of support for the troops who fought there. The American people go to enormous lengths to seperate their feeling about policy from their feelings about the people sent to enforce it. 2. The tremendous aversion that you see among some people to fight for any cause. I think that has probably always existed to some extent but after Vietnam and WaterGate there is a large amount of cynicism amonst the American population. Seems like every tim there is some sort of confrontation that rears its head. Not sure that is a bad thing, just an observation Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

[Michael A Barnhart]

Mike Mullikin wrote: Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were strongly warned by many advisors that Vietnam was to be avoided like the plague and both were too arrogant to listen. If either had taken the time to listen Johnson wouldn't of had to make the stupid decisions he did. Agreed. May I assume it is called "A Bright Shining Lie". Again my comment about how much public pressure was on any/all of them to act. In the late 50's or early 60's had the president just let Vietnam fall to the communists it would not have been well received. ""