*DAMN R6 Forum

Please Delete This Thread

Hmm. I don't think a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea would be smiled upon by the world community. Just my two cents, though. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who'll say "We're America, and we don't give a fuck what everyone else thinks! Nuke the bastards!". God knows the North Koreans have constantly been trying to push our buttons and piss us off, but I don't think it's very realistic to think the U.S. would ever use nuclear weapons again, especially pre-emptively(is that a word?).
That being said, I hope we nuke the bastards.

We would never launch a pre-emtive nuclear strike. If we strike them (and I suspect we will sometime in the future), we would hit their nuclear production facilities, artillery pieces, missile silos, and air defense capabilities.

I'm in favor of saving our nukes,

China doesn't like korea that much, so we twist them into fighting each other,
then we let isreal off its leash enough so they take out syria.

and that way we can save our nukes for paris!!!!!
</sarcasm>

Nukes

I don't think any fighting in necessary. All that the world need sot do is disarm all nuclear weapons and WMD. And that in cludes the USA. Why should the US stay in the dark ages trying to be a super power...

The pure BS of war these days is so miguided. Perhapes there were some pros for war in Iraq...but it still isn't the place of the US to invade them and not find WMD or Sadam. You've made a mess of their cities, look at all the looting.

And I predict those so called trained Iraqi malita (police or whatever) are jsut Sadams soldiers trying to fidn a way to take the power back. Let's hope not cause that would be even worse.

As for North Korea, just bribe them. No need ot make a mess of the orient aswell.

 You obviously haven't been around tehse forums long then, GhostSniper. Myst's grammar and spelling are quite good, especially by the standars here.

Not only do I think a pre-emptive strike is completly out of the question, I would say the same about a retaliatory one ( in reference to the use of nuclear weapons ). The ammount of civilians who would be killed by the use of such weapons is staggering, and is completly out of the question.  

Returning to the subject of nuking Korea. no I do not think that it is a very practical thing to do. When are nukes go russia's nukes go then its all gone to shit.

nuke urself and c how  u feel @ GhostSniper

Well going by American foreign policies... I think North Korea better hurry up and drop a few Nukes on America. After all it is being threatend by america so it better carry out what the americans like to call a "Pre Emptive Strike"?

Oh no. Don't ask for French or German oppinions, they might actually be intellegent. wouldn't that be scarey.

One rule for america, and one for everyone else.

God Bless America? LOL. God probably couldn't give a flying fuck about America, Other than to say WTF are you doing to the world? Current biggest threat to world peace?.... America!

I can't remember who, but someone said in this thread that everyone in the world, including the U.S., should dismantle their nuclear weapons. Yeah, okay. Even if everyone did dismantle nukes, that would mean more wars would be fought. The whole reason nobody has invaded Russia or the United States is because we have nuclear weapons. Take that away, and everyone with a bone to pick will probably end up trying to screw us in the ass. And that is the good scenario, too. The bad scenario is that after everyone dismantles their WMD, some country decides they're going to make some in secret and then a few years down the line, they have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Then they can do pretty much whatever they want until other countries build nukes. More than likely, that first country would try to take out a few capitals with their nukes, just to slow everyone down. Anyways, my point is that complete WMD dismantling is about as realistic as Typhy getting it on with Cameron Diaz. It just ain't happening.

Lol. awh go on Typy. you never know she might like you ;)

Yawn. Is immaturity and stupidity enough reason to ban someone from the forums?

In other news I don't miss gameranger much.

The pre-emptive strike policy for the US won't stay for long.  Before Bush, for the previous 30 or so years, the US never had a pre-emptive strike policy, nor a policy to assassinate heads of state.  Now we're gunning after everyone.  I think Bush has pretty much blown his chance for re-election.  5 of the Democratic Presidential candidates are polling above Bush, and all hold a non preemptive strike policy.  

I get the feeling that alot of people in foriegn countries believe that US citizens want to blow the world to pieces.  Every "informed" person i've talked to, be it republican, demorcrat or whatever, all feel that Bush is way out of control.  My father who is a die hard republican thinks Bush is a maniac.  

Don't get me wrong, I love the US, I think it's a great country, but I totally agree with ya BFG, America is the biggest threat to world peace, and it scares the shit out of me.  I don't trust the current administration at all.  It's been proven that they've fabricated intelligence to make a case to go to war with Iraq.  They said Iraq was an "imminent threat".  We've been in Baghdad for 6 months now, and have found exactly squat.  

The CIA has stated that because of the lack of stabilty in Iraq, Al Qaeda is stronger today then it was before Sept 11.  That's just fucking great.  Nice work.

I think the reason that the US is such a target for the world, is exactly because of GhostSniper's sentiment.  We NEED to include the world in our decisions.  It's because we so often go it alone, that Al Qaeda and so many other countries and terrorist organizations' sole purpose is to destroy the US.  

They guy leading this country has the intelligence of a peanut, and seems to have a hard time to grasp that even though we have the most power, doesn't mean we have free reign.  Every empire in history has been toppled eventually.  The more you exert your force, the more people want to rise up against you.

Nuclear strike on N.Korea?
Just look over to the Pakistan / India border!
The US will never strike a country with a Nuclear weapon, even if itself gets hit with one first. Why? Well the US has developed weapons which include *********************************. Oops! Forgot. On occasion the CIA looks at this forum.

omg this guy think real world is a game
go c a shrink man

ask japanese players how it was to get familly nuked by USA ?
u look like a nazi

i doubt that any of us will ever see nukes used in war in our lifetimes. especially american nukes. i do find it funny that north korea continues to threaten america with nukes on a monthly basis. especially with the trigger happy white house we have now. i don't think they should or will be used again. however, when clinton was in office after a similar threat made by north korea, bill clinton promised that if N.K. ever launched against america that there would be "no more north korea."

hey ghost, i guess France and the almost rest of the world were right about the WMD in Irak. So maybe you want their opinion on N Korea  ;D

If Arnold was President he would nuke every damn country.  Anyways, did you any of you hear Bush plans to attack Castro.  

Do we even have a nuke?

1.Osama Bin Laden 2.Saddam Hussein 3.Almost North Korea 4.Israel/Palestine 4. Cuba!

What the fuck, is Bush trying to start a huge ass war or something?

stay in school one....stay as long as you can!

Wow, so sorry to offend you with my bad grammer/spellling Ghost...
...Gee-golly, you know you desperate for a comeback when...

Perhaps you have a rod up your ass, maybe even a nuke, but really... This guy has got to be the reincarnation of Snipey or something, with a slightly higher IQ, double digits this one is.

The only WMD you'll find in Iraq are the ones your government will plant there to save face. As for North Korea, they admit to having nuclear weapons in development, maybe a few done by now, but what are the chances they will use them? I say about a 20% chance.

They don't want to get into a war with China and the other countries of the Orient. Right now even one more country going to war could trigger a horrible chain of events. If the middle eastern war gets out of hand that may be the cover N. Korea would use to attack say S. Korea or Japan. Then that would drag in China. In-turn the ?Coalition? would get involved somehow, and what do you have? The sparks of a world war.

Sure that?s a bit far-fetched but I?m just saying how combustible this situation is. It almost seems as if it?s a damned if we do, damned if we don?t situation. If the US did attack then N. Korea might try to stir up some bad blood in the Eastern Asia. Perhaps the US should just give them what they want.

Side note: War in Iran may have equally as bad affects for the Middle East.

Another reason we'll probably never use nukes again is that if we nuked North Korea, we'd end up contaminating a big part of the region with radiation and fallout because of shifting winds and stuff. I woulda put that in my first post but I forgot...I always forget important things. Oh well.

No, I love jokes, it's just that this one isn't very funny.

If we absolutely positively had to attack Korea I would rather them nuke them then send in ground troops. I wouldn't wish guerrilla warfare traps, poor conditions, foreign disease and maybe even a draft on any American(let alone any other soldier)

I guess the only thing wrong with GhostSniper is his lack of research.  The problem he is stating is like 3 months old.  China and N. Korea are talking it over.  Plus, the UN Inspectors will be disarming them when the only country that has balls, the US of A, tells them to.

A lot of people complain that America is the only country that uses nukes.  They are right, but do they have the security to protect ambassidors from every fucking nation in the world?  France won't work. The reason, Joe Millionaire. England, too small.   Germany, hmmm.. Can we say past?

Blitz pull your head out of your ass and realise if every nation was equal there wouldn't be war. Only when one nation tries to rise above the rest does war occur.

 Blitz, take Myst's advice, although, personally, I'd suggest you have a proctologist do it for you.

It's that American arrogance, Myst. Just gotta get used to it.  

Hmmm lets see, well we can station the UN in China, they are big and have lots of troops, or we can do it in Russia who has a skilled army, or you know what, we can do it in the UK, because it is not a matter of size but security. The Brits may have a small army but they are very skilled. There are many many nations that have the security to house the UN so your premise that only the US can do it is first of all stupid and its also false.

Also, why not France? Whats so wrong with France? Is it because your congressman prefers to call french fries freedom fries? Its your type of thinking that makes me want to lable you an ignorant hick from Cousin Fuck, USA. Yes they do have a competent up to date army, that can secure the UN in a place like Paris. Afterall they have had terrorist attacks in NYC but they havent had them in Paris. Hmmmmmm, who is more secure?

DAMN mysterio, so we share minds when it comes to this topic? i wonder ;)  

but as for you gheisniper. its americans like you, that give us a bad name, and make the rest of the world hate us... i bet you voted for bush, and own a gun of some kind, you right wing hick.

You know I have a hard time beleiving you are an adult with a family, because you act very immature for an adult. Even if you do have those views, your delivery of them is that of a middle schooler.

So you are a genius of war? You act like no officer I know. Hell I have a great uncle and all his sons who have served in Vietnam. All were officers and they act alot differently than you. Every officer that I have met acts differently than you.

If you are a genius of war tell me what verticle envelopment means. What is scattered armoured support? Also what is OCS?

Well I go to school and work about the same amount of time if not more.I have University and a 40 hour a week job. I dont act gun hoe and like a middle schooler. Excuses like that is something a middle schooler would make.

I go to the University of Texas at Austin (it isnt particuarly left nor is it right) and yes I am a democrat and I am not attempting to deny your right to free speech am I? Did I say for you to "shut up you are not allowed to say that?" I am merely analyzing your argument and it seems childish and hateful. I never said your views should be banned did I? DID I? How in earth am I attempting to deny you freedom of speech? I think you have been listening to too much Rush and his warped rhetoric of a pain killer addict. I appreciate your service to this country (if you are telling the truth) I myself am in ROTC and plan to take the same course, but it dosent add any truth or moral highground to your arguments.

You still havent replied my questions about Verticle Envelopement.
If you were a LT in the Air Force Special Forces as you claim in your signature, you should be able to tell me what I am talking about without a second thought.

It must be nice to be happy in the ignorance that most of you live in.  Especially you Myst.  Keep blaming America and acting like being the only remaining super-power is something to be ashamed of.

I dont think Myst's last posts had anything to do with insulting America just because it is a superpower. He is explaining how volitile the situation is that is all, and how America is going about this the wrong way. So whats your view on this Bucc?[color]

going about what the wrong way cossack? cause the question here is dealing with north korea. and so far all i've seen is north korea break a treaty, resume it's desire for nuclear weapons, and publicly threaten america with those nuclear weapons every few weeks or so. if all they want is food or money then they sure do have a funny way of asking for it. what do you think would happen if that goofy little midget threatened his neighbors russia or china like that? ...he'd be gone already. having russia and china as major players in the talks may be the only thing keeping this guy in line and his country above water. in fact i've heard quite alot of people (mostly democrats) say that we should have attacked north korea instead of iraq. i too believe korea was and is the bigger threat. but taking out one gives the other something to think about. and as bad as the press makes the war in iraq look, it's a cake-walk compared to what would happen if we went into a ground war in korea again. i believe the casualty rates were around 40% in korea last time around. so how would you handle this situation cossack? get bullied around by a sick little freak with a big bark, go full into war, or hold multi-latteral talks with the bully and his much stronger neighbors to calm him down and make him realize that he's in a no win situation.?

North Korea (not the USA) is trying to start the cold war all over again, just with themselves as a major player now.

Like Bush or hate him, don't let that blind you to some of the facts out there.  Bush isn't the issue in this case.  The North Korean government has been pretty aggressive, and threatening, not to mention breaking the afore mentioned treaties.  

If North Korea did use a nuke, we would have to use nukes back.  That's just not even a question.  If the USA didn't, you could write it and Canada off the map shortly thereafter.  

No, I'm not for a preemptive nuclear strike.  I'm not even for a preemptive surgical strike at this point.  Let some others try and talk some sense into them.  But one thing I do know, another cold war is NOT what we need.  

For anyone that thinks America was wrong for dropping the bomb(s) in WW2, I defy you to come up with a logical alternative to it (that wasn't tried and failed).  Don't spout any bullshit about asking the Japanese how they feel about fallout, why not ask the Chinese how they felt about the biological weapons and the attempted genocide that the Japanese tried to commit on them?  And lets talk about who thought civilians were legitimate targets and who didn't.  And then ask yourself whey Japan didn't surrender when we told them about the bomb?  Why they didn't surrender till after the Second bomb?  

And finally, look at the estimates on how many lives, both American and Japanese, would have been lost if there were an invasion (and include the civilians in that).  

One last thought on why it had to be dropped then.  Because it always had to be dropped at least once.  Somewhere, sometime, someone would have to do it for us all to realize how bad it could be.  Otherwise, it wouldn't seem real.  That's human nature.  If it hadn't happened then, it probably would have happened in the cold war, and that would have been the end of us all.

cant say usa peeps r dumb when u c 1 dumb usa guy

like u get stolen in street by a black man , a french, a arab, a yankee u  gona say all of em r thieves?

the prob is Bush gov i think not usa people...

and using  nukes on civilians its another shape of deathcamps

 nuclear deterrence that only good nukes are for

and no i dont think french gov is better....

Yes I do agree with Bucc N. Korea is trying to start another cold war. But I think they have an agenda to stall the war, just not ever start it. They may be developing fleets of nukes. If even one made it through, WW3 would be as good as started.

Another theory based on speculation, but that's what a smart person would do. The only thing is, should the USA attack now the Israelis might convince them to allow them to take control of Iraq for them. Or they might use this shield to completely end Palestine. Then again, maybe Iran will take over Iraq when the Americans are looking.

But what if the US moves into Iran for another war? They will keep over extending themselves, maybe N Korea will see this and do another intelligent thing, attack the US off American soil (in Iraq, and possibly Iran). We don't know if China isn?t aligned with N Korea. There's always deception in this world. There are too many possibilities to mention.

And perhaps I should be insulting the American people for what their government does...Then again in democratic America Bush won the election by a majority, slim, but still a majority.

Holy shit...what the hell happened to this thread? If only people researched their comments before posting, we could have an intelligent argument about a very serious problem...but since people don't do that and resort to childish personal attacks, we see how a potentially good thread has turned into crap.

For the record GhostSniper, if you claim to know something, do not copy/paste the definition straight from the DoD...it looks bad for yourself. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/v/05634.html

My prediction for North Korea (like I said earlier) will be a strike on it's production facilities, artillery pieces on the border, missile silo's and portable launchers, and their air defense network. It has been proven countless times before that diplomacy doesnt work and that Kim Jong Il flouts the internation community, so the only way to take away his leverage is to destroy it.

Some great examples of what I was talking about Myst.


First, what war are they stalling?  If they are stalling a full scale war, that would be the whole cold war scenario I'm talking about.  You say "but" which means there is an exception, but then you just talk about a cold war.

Second, you just named the logic behind why a preemptive strike may be a good thing.  


A smart person has some facts to base their speculation on.  And the facts of the matter are that the USA has kept Israel out of the Iraq problem, even when Iraq was attacking Israel.  Problems elsewhere wont change the fact that everyone KNOWS Israel getting involved in Iraq is a very very bad thing.  


Ok, "keep over extending themselves".  How are we over-extended today?  We don't have enough troops, ships, planes, tanks left in our bases?  Considering how many people I know still in the reserves that have not been called to active duty, I'd say we are not over-extended at all.

And attacking America, no matter where, is not the intelligent thing to do.  

Not to mention that North Korea doesn't have the military infrastructure (nor would it get permission to cross through the nations in between) to go after the USA in the middle east.  


And here you really show your ignorance on America Myst.  First, we are a Republic, not a Democracy.  You should look up the differences.  It's what got Bush elected for one thing.  Second, Bush did not win the election by a majority of the votes, he won by a majority in the electoral college (again, this is a Republic).  Gore actually received more of the votes.  

Perhaps you should blame your own country for what it does, and not look to heap your bullshit on America.  

Ghost, when I am in ROTC uniform and plan to be in the uniform of a 2nd LT soon, I am not going to be very vocal about my political affiliations. I dont consider myself a Clintonite Dem but more along the lines of LBJ. However my critique was your "gun-hoe" attitude towards the situation.

Bucc, there are a lot of different theories of what does and doesn't make peace in international relations. What's ignorant is to assume that this unipolar system is just, efficient, or positive. I'm not saying that being in a position of power is a shameful condition, but it's important to examine how we got in this position and what we are using it to do. I'd argue that we do some good and a lot of bad, despite what our government's intentions may be. And please, no one assume that I am defending your comments, because 95% of this thread contains some of the most retarded things I've ever read.

On North Korea, I don't think it will escalate much beyond where it is right now. Bush has actually handled it well in my opinion, and now with N.K's close neighbors at the bargaining table I think it will be resolved. North Korea's nukes are just a scare tactic; logically, it would make absolutely no sense for them to launch a military attack, nuclear or otherwise, on the United States, China, Russia, or any other country. Jong Il's strong-arm tactics may have caused the world to realize their military strength, but it certainly hasn't brought them any respect diplomatically. North Korea looks really desperate right now, and if we can just pacify them with aid or something that would be ideal.

What the hell is this outburst for?

1. What does your job or authority have to do with free speech?
2. Funny, it seems like most attempts at limiting free speech (not to mention other liberties) have come from the right, not the left
3. If you actually learned anything in college, you wouldn't condemn academia or make ridiculous generalizations about "left-wing bullshit"

Well Rush went to college and he is one of those left wing bashing critics.

Also I would like to make known my view on NK since all I have done in this thread is critique someone's arrogance. First off NK is an aggressor. They have built a large ass highly trained active army up for 50 years to serve one purpose and one purpose only. That purpose is to take over South Korea and reunite them under the flag of Pyongyang. Every aspect of their lives goes into the future "unification"of Korea. Every hour they work every plant they seed is designed to help this cause. Some day they will strike, and when they strike it will be hard. The DPRK has the largest Artillery force in the world (larger than China and larger than Russia). Conservative US Army estimates say that 1 million people will die in the first day of the war. Keep in mind I am not saying that the DPRK will succeed in taking out the ROK and the US 8th Army, I am merely saying that this will be no Grenada or Panama.

I agree with Assassin that we will probablly do surgical strikes destroying many storage depots and batteries and what not. Nuclear usage is out of the question because our biggest trading partner China would not like to see the Yalu Valley and part of Manchuria irradiated. However I think it is wrong to use the edict of pre emption on any case, especially this one.

     Also Bucc, explain this action on behalf of the US. We have withdrawn from the anti-balistic missile treaty. This has the strong potential of starting another arms race with China and Russia. Now they have to (and are probablly already) developing new anti missile weaponry. Yes Bush is on his way to starting either a world war or another Cold War.


On a totally unrealated note, did anyone hear that the Chinese are sending a manned flight into space? This is big news and an indicator that the Chinese may soon become a rival superpower.

They already are a rival superpower. They have the largest standing army in the world and are quickly becoming privy to neoliberal trade policies that will capitalize their economy. Communism my ass.

First, it's not unipolar, second, it's not ignorant to think it's just, efficient or positive, just because that opinion differs from yours.

Especially the efficient part.  Where do you base that reaction from?

It is important to understand how we got in this position, but that's really an easy answer.  The mobilization of this country's infrastructure in WW2 and post WW2 is what put the USA into the world power it is.  

Where I don't agree with you Tasty, is where you think we do a little good and a lot of bad.  I think we do much more good then you give the country credit for.  Especially when compared to the rest of the developed world.  What nations give aid like the USA?  Who comes close?  Even talk about it in terms of % of the GNP.  

Sure, the government has made mistakes with the right intentions.  Yes, the government as actually done wrong on purpose.  The the nation is 1) more then the government and 2) still does more good then harm.  

A last note, yes, China has been a superpower for a long time, and without China, the USSR would not have fallen.

You gotta explain this one to me. Maybe it because I am Russian and a bit biased on this claim. I always thought the fall of the USSR had to do with economic woes, destabilization in Eastern Europe, and the Afghan quagmire. Never really thought China to be a deciding factor in this.


Also the reason I dont consider the Chinese to be a superpower is because they havent used it. Unlike the US and Russia, they have no sphere of influence. They have the brawn but they havent used it at all. This Manned Space flight symbolizes to me that they are finally using their economic and technological power.

Cossack, for every nuke the USSR had pointed at the USA, they had another pointed at China.  The USSR was always very worried that China would try to sweep north into Siberia because they needed the land and natural resources found there.  

The USA used the arms race to hurt the USSR economically, but that never would have been possible if the USSR didn't also feel the need to defend against China.  China was the more immediate threat.

This was also of large concern with the break up of the USSR.  Many people worried that China would take advantage of it and make a move then.

And as GhostSniper has said, China has been using it's number one commodity (people) for a long time.  Although I think Truman was right to not drop the bomb in Korea.  Like Vietnam, the USA just never really got in there to win it, which they could have done without the bomb.

I see what you are saying Bucc and I agree with it.

Also Ghost. China has no sphere of influence. VietNam was in the USSR's influence (VietNam actually had a war with China over the Northern Border at one time and Hanoi continues to harrass Chinese shipping every now and then) and Mongolia is definently in Russia's political influence although they are tied to China culturally.

What I am trying to say is China has not done any "empire building" as of late. Nothing compared to the US or even Russia today (The Former republics are really only independent in name only and Cuba's policies are still greatly influenced by Moscow). China may have a large military but they have not used it in a long time since the Sino-Vietnamese War. North Korea is just nuts. They are Stalnist in their practice of communism. China is Maoist. One can argue that the DPRK is the last vestige of hardline Stalinist states.

Not reading the foreign policy abstracts lately? It's been commonly agreed on that the international system hasn't been bipolar since the fall of the Soviet Union.


Economically, I base that opinion on dependancy theory. How LDCs exist on the periphery to feed the core EDCs. We extract the raw materials of the third world, process them in our country to add value, and sell them back to the rest of the world. The economic inequality that exists between industrialized democracies and the rest of the world is inefficient. Also think about aid we give. If trade were fair, would this aid even be necessary?

You're right, this is how we sprung to the position of dominant world power. However, when I said "got in this position" I was going back much further than this to the time that we colonized this country by running Indians off the land and taking from Mexico. To the time we boosted our economy by using slave labor. No, we are not the only country that engaged in these barbarous practices. I'm just saying we became the global hegemon by more than just hard work and elbow grease.
 
I'll fully admit that these numbers are old (they are from 1994), so tell me if you have evidence in any massive changes in them since then:
Economic Aid Given: 1994
United States: 7.87 billion
France: 6.71 billion
Germany: 5.4 billion
Japan: 10.49 billion

Here are the numbers as percentages of our GNP:
United States: .14%
France: .65%
Germany: .36%
Japan:  .34%
So of the world's largest economies, France would actually be the biggest donor percentage-wise.


edit: Also, can someone please explain what the justification for nuking North Korea or China in the 1950s would have been?

To get into a nuclear holocaust. Anyone think Stalin and Kruschev would just sit idle while American bombers irradiated Manchuria and the DPRK?

Tell ya whats really funny; america / some americans, seem to still have the idea that america is the defender of democracy, some sort of holy crusader of good against evil. The land of the free etc... now that is funny.

BFG, especially since it's technically not even a democracy, hah!

GhostSniper, the Scandinavian countries don't rely on the US or NATO for protection, they rely on diplomacy and the UN. kthxbi.

That is not a UNIVERSAL belief Tasty, and I think for myself.


Yes, the aid we give would still be necessary, because we are charitable, and yes, people are starving that we want to feed for no other reason then to feed them.

And your conclusion of ineffeciency based upon a dependancy theory is laughable.  First, in your model, we would be the more efficient, not the less.  Second, you need to take a long look at our import/export numbers before you spout off about this matter, because you are wrong.  I've looked at the UN reports on it, and we still import more FINISHED GOODS then we EXPORT.  Not to mention the amount of raw resources in this country.  In the big picture, you are just wrong. Especially coming from you when you bitch about us using our natural resources in the first place (foresting, remember).


Tasty, you know that makes a Native American madder then all hell?  It's for some white liberal to go spouting off about the stealing of the land by the white man.  It goes to show that you know little about the actual plight of the Native Americans, and even less about Native American history.  So don't be another ignorant fool.

Also, take your spin off it again.  You say "we are not the only country that engaged in these barbarous practices".  At that time, every country that could, did.  Don't talk about the Brits not having slaves, because they did, just not in England.  What nation didn't kick around some other people to establish it's borders?  

Now let's talk about the economic "boost" of slavery.  It's a fallacy.  Any economic gains made by the southern states was lost in the economic void after the civil war.  And if not then, by the Great Depression afterwards.  

You are just trying to spill old guilt, needless guilt, misplaced guilt, to tarnish something that shouldn't be.  You'd make Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore proud in that bullshit.



In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion.  That doesn't include the $4.3 billion the United States budgeted on peacekeeping operations.  However, if you had gotten the point of my post, where you can't judge America just by it's government.  So, add on to that the Red Cross, Feed the Children, and all those hundreds of other charities we give to that go to foreign countries.  

A side note, notice who's giving more, and who's giving less over the years too.  Seems that only the USA is giving more, and remember, those dollars are worth less now, 10 years later.  So, seems like these European governments (the ones Tasty mentioned at least) are going in the wrong direction.

Try this one Tasty:

The USA is the world's biggest giver!
"When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion.

Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.

No, Americans don't give, do we.  That's 2.3 percent.  And if you measure Americans by only what the government gives, then you are just playing that spin game you claim to hate so much.

BFG GEN, you have no idea what land of the free means, and twisting it like that just shows a lack of intelligence, and taste.  Nobody here has said that the government of the USA hasn't done the wrong things, nobody.  The difference is, there are quite a few people that love to take pot shots at America, when their own countries aren't even close to perfect (and that list would include at least 3 of you posting here).  

Think how stupid someone would be and sound when all they do is talk about how arrogant the germans are, or how stupid the Brits?  Doesn't matter what's said, they just keep trying (even when they are wrong) to point out the flaws in another country.  

So don't be a horses ass and start another flame like that BFG.  

...er...I have to go with Cassock on this one.  A lottery is a better solution...

I just said it was common, not universal. You said "it's not" as if it were a fact that it were not unipolar, when you are in fact in the minority. If you want to dispute it then go ahead and give you reasons why you dispute it, don't just say "it's not unipolar" and expect me to receive it like fact.

I'm talking in terms of a world system here, not just from our own personal economic point of view.

Yes, because we have the money to afford extra things we don't need. When I talk about things we export, I am talking about examples like how US Corporations buy coffee from Mexico, grind it up and add preservatives, and then sell it back to Mexicans in their grocery stores. There is a significant value added system in many different businesses that allows US companies to make money off of peripheral nations.

The answer to my complaints about using too many resources isn't to just take resources from other countries, it's to use less paper and waste overall. We do have many raw goods in this country, which is a large part of what has allowed our economy to become like it is today. We still make plenty of profit off the resources of other countries though, and this is capital that gets added back into the US.



Do you know what makes an arguer madder than hell? When their opponent claims that they are ignorant and angering them without even giving a good explanation for why. I have plenty of education about the Native American experience. In 2000 supported the candidacy of Winona LaDuke, a 100% Anishinabe Indian. And in the two times I've seen her speak, you can damn well guarantee that she is with me on this issue. So don't go around trying to claim that I don't know anything about it because I'm white. I'd think you would know better than to play the "Race Card". Besides, just because you are Native American doesn't mean you speak for all of them. Did it ever occur to you that there may be division among the Native American community? That doesn't make you right just because you are one and I'm not.

It was a reservation to my argument, not "spin". I'm well aware that the Dutch, British, French, and numerous other countries did things just as ghastly as we did during this time. No coincidence that today they are, along with the US, in the upper echelon of economically powerful nations. I never said that our experience was any worse than any other power of the colonial period. Societal standards have changed since then, and people know better now. All I wanted was for you to recognize the role that it played in allowing countries like ours to maintain power over smaller countries with less technology, less money, and less imperial intention.

If those economic gains had not been made before the Civil War, then what would have happened? The economic void would have been even worse and our country would have been down that same amount afterwards. A surplus created is a surplus created and is helpful whether it is eventually lost or not.

Sheesh, gimme a break with the character defamation. When have I drawn a comparison between you and a figure I don't like in a debate? I don't think I ever have.

Ha, a mention of peacekeeping. How novel! Considering the UN is responsible for almost all peacekeeping and considering the fact that we owe backfees to the UN for about the past 6 years, I'd say our peacekeeping efforts are rather meager when compared to the efforts of countries like Japan, who gives by far the highest percentage of its money to the UN, or the Netherlands, who actually commits their troops to do peacekeeping instead of just giving money.

I was just comparing governments. Your point about private giving is a good one. However, to know what you meant by this in your previous post, I would have had to read your mind.
"Can't judge America just by it's government ? Look at how much private money we give!"

whoa dood. you need to chill out with that shit. unfortunatly, ( im not trying to insult you) but i think people like you are the reason world peace will never be reached.

you buy into the media, and the fear they sell. you believe what the president says, no questions asked. i really recomened you watch "bowling for columbine" by micheal moore. its a talks about this exact issue and is an excelt movie. watch it, then tell me you are a right wing, gun owning, violent man, who follows the NRA.

really, this post was more in sorrow, and pitty, than in anger, or hate.

So am I.  Doesn't change that in your model, the USA is more efficient.  It's just the efficient subsystem in the overall system.  


Which is a drop in the bucket in the whole picture.  You can nit-pick all you want Tasty, but the truth is, other countries profit more on America then America profits off other countries.  So yes, you can find a few countries that disagree with that model, but the overall numbers, and the truth is, economically, they make more from us, then we do off them.


And they still make more profit off us.


Oh wow, you got behind a Native American candidate, that makes you oh so intelligent on Native American history, doesn't it?  

That's a perfect example of the modern liberal bullshit I'm talking about Tasty.  You think that you supporting a candidacy means shit in this?  Tell me what it has to do with this?

I didn't play the race card, you did (tried to).  And it's not yours to play.  Which pisses me off, yes.  I know the division in the Native American community.  So much so that I'll even give you a little history which does fit right in.  Who did "the whites" take the black hills from?  The Souix?  Who did the Souix kick out of the black hills, the Crow?  Who did the Crow kick out of the black hills, the Yute?  Do I need to go on?  The Native American nations were at war with each other for years.  So YOU don't lump them all together and presume to speak about what the "white man" did.  Because you represent it all wrong, just to fit your liberal agenda.  Yes, there was genocide, yes there were broken treaties (which are the real issues left today).  But yes, there were many Native Americans taking part in the killing of the other nations, both before the white man, and along side him later.  And all of that has absolutely NOTHING to do with why the USA is now where it's at.  

So what makes me right and you wrong?  I have a real education in it, including a good deal of history that does not involve the "white man".  


You missed my point completely.  Name some countries that didn't.  It's not just the powerful, it was pretty much all of them.  Including those that aren't world powers.  So you bringing it up is spin, it is just more bullshit that means absolutely nothing in the context of being a superpower or not (where this started).  


I completely disagree with you, because the economic and industrial strength of the nation was in the North, not the South.  The north, where slavery wasn't used.  

And it wasn't just the surplus in the south lost, it was much more then the surplus.

Add to that the assumption you are making that without slavery, the economic gains wouldn't have been made.  There's just no depth to it.

Face it, you played the guilt card where it sure as hell doesn't belong.


Not one word you said there changes how much the USA spent on it, now does it?  So, there you go, giving more left wing propaganda and acting like the USA doesn't do anything.  BTW, the USA does get involved with peacekeeping with and without the UN, you disagreeing with them doing it on their own doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.


Not read my mind, just my post.


Notice the nation is more then the government comment right there.  Now, you assumed I meant governments, which I didn't, and that's ok, but now answer the other questions I asked, with the right numbers, and how all the other countries you talk about are giving LESS now.  Go ahead, those are answers I'd like to hear.

Smokie, think about what you are saying.  Please.

its no bull shit, this isnt the nukes of the 1980's, they have purified hydrogen bombs and all that other crazyshit that makes things go boom. that one power plant in russia that got fucked up by nuclear stuff is still polluting the planet, concrete cant hold this shit back, what makes u think water will be any different? and i think with 1 nuk u could probably make the planet go smoked

Ok, quit thinking, quit typing, and especially, quit smoking.  There are bombs that range in sizes from much smaller to what was dropped on Japan to hundreds of times bigger.  So what.  Learn a little about fallout, it's range, how it travels, etc, and then realize all the other factors involved.  Finally, figure out that 1) there is no single bomb big enough to fuck over the entire planet (although, dropping a few on the ice cap may have some global impact if it were done) and 2) The powers that be look at the fallout as part of the equation on which bomb to use, where and when.  

It's not a "one bomb fits all" type equation.  If we were to actually Nuke North Korea, I doubt it would be an ICBM with multiple warheads, it would most likely be a tomahawk cruise missile or two, from a sub or more likely from a couple F14's.  They would be smaller, tactical nukes most likely, designed to take out Korea's own nukes.  

Not that I think nukes will ever be exchanged, just saying that if they were, it wouldn't be ICBM's.

so umm, i've forwarded these posts to a few cable news channels and it seems to have sparked off a bidding war between CNN and FOX news. ( i disqualified msnbc strictly on the basis of it's partnership with microsoft). hehe. turns out that bob novak is in trouble over the CIA leak thing and they need some new talent. so ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, i'm proud to announce that starting next week at 5 pm est. on CNN you can catch Tasty on the left and Buccaner on the right on the new crossfire. michael moore was slated to be the first guest host but unfortunatly he was found this morning dead in a motel room apparently choked to death on tastycake butterscotch krimpets and ho-ho's. the room was also littered with empty KFC buckets, naked pics of ralph nader, and dozens of prescriptions that appear to have been filled out by rush limbaugh.  ;D ;D ;D

Not to harp on anything, but we would mostly use a Strike fighter rather than an airplane due to North Korea's around the clock air patrols. You'd more likely see a F-15E Strike Eagle, or a F/A 18E Super Hornet drop the bombs because of their superior speed and handling, while also having the armament to hold off an enemy counter attack. Then again, we may fire a couple low yield ( as opposed to the high yield neutron bombs) nuclear tipped tomahawk missiles from one of our many guided missile cruisers in the Pacific.

We can hit North Korea in virtually any way, conventional or special, from almost any angle, so there is no point in really talking about this. If we want to hit them, we will and suffer minimal (if any) casualties while doing it.

As Bucc said earlier, we have Nuke's of all sizes...the only way we would use our monster ICBM's launched from our boomers hiding in the arctic is if Nuclear winter was upon us, or if we desired to make North Korea glow green.

Bucc, in the 1990's in russia some nuklear plant was  messing with a nuclear particles and boom they blue their selfs up and a few towns near them. in this area crops went dead and the pollution scales across the world went up all because messing with a little bit of this stuff. this isnt old skool hyroshuma where talking here, this is nuking a country that is near the top of the planet, winds would blow alot of stuff this way and affect harvets in the US and canada ( no one cares about typhy land [ alaska ] since its only a border so the russians cant get on this continent)  hat would affect the vinyards and other crops in california , and california is in a 83 billion doller difficet, dont think that would help. even a small nuke would splatter crap into china mayba, nuking is a bad thing now a days, no one builds pussy whipped nukes any more.  if there was a world war 3 with all these terriorts countries we would all go boom, we had our first chance in ww1 and our second in ww2, our third ww will not be forgiven,with a nuke or two we would destroy the enviorment that inter acts with each other, there fore fucking everyone

Very lame quote/idea.

If there's any war going on here, it's the USA (and buttbuddy the UK) vs almost all the world. Let's see, the US tries to threaten the UN into giving the war in Iraq approval. They put forth knowingly false evidence. George Bush leans and narrows his eyes through a entire State of the Union. They go in anyway. They find no WMD. They insult Canada for not helping, although it's Canada dealing with Afganastan. Iraq is in chaos worse than under Sadams rule after the US attacks. CNN gives Anderson Cooper his own show ;). And some time during all this George finds time to choke on a pretzel and almost die.

Oh right....I almost forgot, Bin Laden is still alive, and Sadam is yet to be found...

<sarcasm>

How foolish of me....I forgot...the US, being the super power that it is, has taken the role of international police...How silly of me.

</sarcasm>

I stand by my other posts, and yes it does look like the US will be in trouble (troop # wise) if they get into a war with N Korea.

...The possibilities of another World War are endless...

P.S. Ahhhhhhnold for President!

Here is a little intresting fact I picked up. If you drop a very large Nuclear bomb (I am talking about the "monster bomb" the Russians tested in Kamchatka during the 60s) in the Sahara, radioactive dust will spread globally. I am not saying we will all die or anything, but I bet you cancer rates world wide would raise dramaticaly.

Sin, I dont know where you got the "small casualty scenario". I have heard from an interview with General Campbell of the US 8th Army. He said that a million people (figure includes civilans) would die in the first hours of the war. Then again he could of meant a scenario where the DPRK made the first move. I guess the scenario could be much more different if the US/ROK attacked first.

if u quote bill o reilly then u might as well quote oprah
now that is an actualy pwnage quote.
now how is george bush sending his chronies into afghanistan and iraq and probably north korea and iraq a world war? world war is a group against another group who have a balance of power and want to stomp each other out, what bush is doing is going around and laughing at all the poor people who have it bad and siting in his big confy chair and watching it on tv. which afghanistan iraq and north korea and probably iran have censorded, filtered tv. they cant see bush :D

Small casualties in a strike, not a war. Only scenario of us going to war is if they invade one of our allies or hit us with nuclear weaponry.

Don't forget it's bitch, Canada.

No need to quote the rest of your argument.  You are a child Myst, with child like ideals and views.  Not really worthy of correction because you don't seem to be able to grasp the some of the more involved concepts.

bush isnt stupid enough to attack mexico, all mexican love mexico, and all the mexicans that live in california and the rest of the US , we would rebel and destroy joo all

i love how flippantly most of you are throwing around the idea of nuclear weapons... it really scares me to think that some of you may be in charge of a nation some day

I don't think that's a valid concern Brain =D

you never know. i mean, look a george w.


oh, and to answer a question ghost sniper had earlier, I'm studying to be a materials science engineer. and that quote is 100% correct. you would not believe how many times we simply choose to ignore little things like friction or the fact that stuff bends when you load it

LOL.  Yeah, and if those are the top 4, I'll eat my boxers.

where the hell were Washington and  Lincoln in that list?  or are you going to try tell me that they didn't do anything at all for our country

LOL. Yeah, and if Bucc stopped wearing panties, I'll eat my boxers.

ok, fine, there are 10 names there for presidents (i still say that bush should not be on that list)... what about the 10 greatest Vice Presidents?

I'm not going to even get into the full list (like how Reagan and Ike are so high), but Dubya definitely does NOT belong on any top 10 lists. His domestic policy has been absolute ass. He has seen fit to piss all over the Constitution in the name of "security." Honestly, above all else, it is the responsibility of the President to uphold the Constitution. Instead, Dubya and his adminstration have passed such wonderful bills such as the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act which conveniently ignores this thing call the Bill of Rights. Then there is TIA, basically the government's way of going Big Brother on us in the name of "security." I say fuck that and fuck anyone who endorses how Bush has fucked the American public. Admittedly, I have agreed with his foreign policy mostly, and I think he did the right thing by going into Aghanistan and Iraq. However, his heinous crimes against the American people cannot go unnoticed.

You should be ashamed of yourself for rating him above Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the man who led us through one of our darkest hours like none other, save maybe Lincoln.

excuse me. but where the fuck is dan quayle?

think about it. every time bush senior fucked something up. all he needed to do was have quayle give a speech on something else. and BOOM the media was drawn to him like bullets are to Fassst and Ejo

political suicide for him, but for the elder bush he was a political masterpeice

Yes, admittedly FDR had one blemish on his record of civil rights with regards to the Japanese internment camps. However, it's an awfully long stretch to compare the temporary revocation of rights to a small minority of American citizens compared to what's meant to be a permanent revocation of rights of every American. And please, don't even compare then Japanese internment camps to the German concentration camps. The former were temporary shelters that were poorly planned while the latter were the largest, most efficient death camps this earth has ever seen.

As for the rest of FDR's tenure, please explain to me the problems he created? Do you mean the horrible social ill called "Eating food because you finally have a job again," the grand economic disaster know as "Recovering from the Great Depression," or the foreign policy fiasco known as "Saving the world from the Nazis?" He did ONE truly wrong thing while in office, but the lasting effect was negligible. I think the rest of his illustrious political career more than makes up for it.

Haha, go ace. I find this type of list to be very interesting, but in the interest of time I won't talk about order or my own personal choices, I'll just point out the presidents that in my opinion don't belong:
1. Bush
2. Jefferson
3. Jackson
4. Reagan
5. Wilson

It's a pretty piss-poor list.

Ghost I would like to know where you were educated. I know tasty and I are both poly sci majors, and I am getting a degree in history myself. Your list of presidents is very questionable. Lets take an analyzing look at all of them.
1) George Washington- Well I have to agree with you, he probably does belong on the top ten list. It was his morailty that set up the framework for this nation. However I am not sure what he did while he was PRESIDENT.
2) This goes for Jefferson. I disagree with tasty he should be on the top ten list too. He was one of America's greatest citizens. However dont let his past acheivements influence your view of how good a president he was. He did double the size of our nation by doing the whole Louisiana Purchase speil. He also guided us through the Tripoli War, when Berber pirates attacked our merchant ships.
3) Abe Lincon (not gonna bother analyzing him) did great for the country yada yada yada.
4) Andrew Jackson did what again? He was a hardass and a great commander during the 1812 War with Britain. But that was when he was a general, not a president. When he was president he was almost impeached for going all over the Constitution.
5) Ronald Reagan- You know trickle down economics really dosent work. Also it (coming from a Russian) is kind of silly to say it was because of him that my homecountry went into recession. There were many pressures. If Gorbechev (forget how it is spelled in latin alphabet) was not in power and instead a hardliner, the USSR would have never fell. perestroika and glasnost was the principle downfall along with instability from eastern europe and the quagmire my country got into in Afghanistan. You cant give Reagan that much credit. In truth the seeds were planted in Carter's administration when Zbignew Brezinsky asked the CIA to supply the Mujahadeen with modern weapons.
6)Theodore-(no contest)He did much for the nation and was a TRUE PROGRESSIVE
7)Dwight Eisenhower was mediocre at best. He let McCarthy totally decimate the freedom of speech. But he also ended (or delayed) the Korean War, and he we underwent economic stability. It is during his term that the middle class started to really pop up. Also I would not call Eisenhower's days the darkest days of the Cold War.
8)Dubya Bush- I dont feel like writing 500 pages on why he should be grouped with Grant and McKinley as the top ten worst presidents. I will let the peanut gallery do that for me.
9) He was a good president. He lead us through the 1812 war (probablly America's darkest hour ever) I do not know about how he handled reconstruction.
10) Woodrow Wilson was a grand president, but he also made the Federal Reserve which is a giant POS. He did lead us through WWI and I love him for being key in decolonialzation. Decolonialzation was probablly his greatest legacy.

Now in a nutshell here is my personal list
1) Peter the Great
2)Putin
3)Alexander I
4)Alexander II
5)Kruschev
6)Lenin
7)Gorbechev
8)Yeltsin
9)Stalin
10)Catherine the Great

ooops wrong list

1)FDR
2)LBJ
3)JFK (I must like accronyms)
4)Washington
5)Jefferson
6)Wilson
7)Theadore Roosevelt
8)Abe Lincon
9)Madison
10)Truman

GhostSniper, ask the guys around here, I'm probably the last guy you would call a left-wing socialist nut. (Tasty on the other hand...) Of course, you are a southerner who was also in the military, which is possibly the most stereotypically conservative group I can think of. Your picks for the best presidents ever seem to support this stereotype. I mean, the conservative military type is about the only one who could claim Bush to be one of the top 10 presidents ever. Libertarians and even Republicans who have their head on straight would agree that he has overstepped his bounds in the name of the "War on Terror."

Oh, btw, my education is being a Computer Engineering and Computer Science major at the University of Southern California. That means my professors for the most part don't give a rat's ass about politics. Remember, just because you think for yourself doesn't mean you are a liberal.

FYI it was out of curiosity to know where you were educated and Ace is the last person I would call a socialist left wing nut.
UT proffesors are rather centrist, I am on the left wing because I read up on many miscellanous articles, make conclusions, and have decided that I hate Bush.
Maybe I was born left because afterall I was born in the Soviet Union a few kilometers away from Andropov's Kremlin.

Also the military is very pissed off at Bush. I cant count the number of brass that want him out. Not considering Wesely Clark, there is Schwarzkapf, Cisneros, Casey, and Campbell. So for clarification you cant exactly call the military pro-Bush when so many former and current high ranking officers hate him.

I'm a political science and anthropology major at Univeristy of Iowa/Grinnell College. I just want to say that it's too bad you've been indoctrinated in the corrupt philosophies of the United States Military. You've received a truly biased education and it shows from your warped point of view. I'm so far left of you you probably can't even see me, but its you who is a nut. My professors are learned people, most of whom aren't even very liberal (like cossack, my opinions come from books).

Sack, thanks for mentioning the Louisiana Purchase, because it was a very very big deal.

On to Eisenhower, it's not like he could have done much about McCarthy.  But more important, screw that whole dark days of the cold war, he didn't go along with France, England and Israel with the whole Suiez Cannel fiasco.  

But here (and I stare at Tasty for not bringing him up) I have to bring up Jimmy Carter.  He may have cut military spending, and the military may have let him down in the whole rescue mission in Iran, but look at the good he did.  Who else could have brought peace between Egypt and Israel?  If it hadn't been for him, 3 Mile Island would have not been an "almost" disaster.  Don't buy the hype, I remember Jimmy and Billy Beer, he was pretty damn good for the country and world (and we haven't had a perfect President yet).

I have to say no for JFK.  As much as getting us out of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he did as much to get us in trouble in the first place.  

Washington, Lincoln, Both Teddy and FDR, those are gimmies.  I'll give Wilson too, because of WWI and the League of Nations.

Oh, and as outspoken as I am against the bleeding heart liberals, I wouldn't give George W Bush the sweat off my balls.  The only thing he has really done right is go after terrorism, taking the fight to them.  He hasn't even pulled that off well.  But he's a monster in regards to liberty, economics, and the ecology.  

1 death is a tragedy

1000 is a statistic

A) Tell me a Russian leader that was humane. You got 1000 years of autocrats.
B) I choose Stalin because although he was a monster, he was responsible for modernizing Russia with factories and what not. Most Russians have a favourable opinion of Stalin. He cursed our nation and saved our nation. It is very confusing. As a Russian you want to deamonize him, but he did industrialize it.

Since other people made lists, I made one to clarify my feelings (in order of how objectively good of a job they did, not their historical importance):

1. Theodore Roosevelt
2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Washington
5. John Adams
6. Richard Nixon
7. Dwight Eisenhower
8. James Madison
9. Harry Truman
10. Lyndon Baines Johnson

And just to clarify, the teacher I took two years of concentrated US history from was an NRA member who wore a National Right to Life shirt to class regularly.

Also Coss, I can somewhat understand why Stalin made your list of Russian leaders, but what the fuck is Putin doing on there? He is a horrible leader who is still keeping Russia under an iron military fist instead of giving his people freedom. Russia is not a democracy like he claims it to be. His war against Chechnya and the other former satellites is unjust, and the Kremlin blatantly rigged the recent Chechyan elections. He has taken state control of TV and radio and despite his opposition to the Iraq war maintains close ties to Bush. Not to mention he is extraordinarily ugly? Russia needs a new leader to modernize their economy and bring liberty to the land.

Research Russian politics and tell me who else who be better suited. He is hard on the oligarchs and the Chechen war in principle is not unjust. However its our own little quagmire. Lebed is too much of a hothead.

Drunken Russian Tranlator here:

Cossack's picks of great Russian leaders is based on a lack of options =D.  I mean, name 10 guys better then Putin Tasty?

Tasty, Nixon?  What did Nixon do that was so good?  Kept us in Vietnam?  Gave us Watergate jokes?

What put's LBJ on your list too?

Well Peter the Great was truley a great leader along with Alexander II and first, but on to LBJ.


Civil Rights and the voting rights act happened under LBJ. He put Kennedey's ideals on Civil Rights into action. (maybe I am a bit biased living in central texas and all. There is barely building or street here not named after him.) He did alot for labour in his (part) enaction of the Great Society.