Bush and the 22nd amendment

[Phreddie]

I said i hoped we would try, not that i thought he would succeed.

1. if he tries the only reason i would want him to succeed would be so that i can have the satisfaction of voting against him

2. the only reason i hope he tries is to watch fall onhis face with the world lauging at him... or sometyhing to that effect...

[VonDondu]

On a related note, do you remember when Arnold Schwarzeneggar (then a rising star in the Republican party) was running for governor of California, and a lot of people were calling to have the U.S. Constitution amended so that foreign-born citizens could run for President? It was clear they had Arnold in mind, since they thought he would be a "Terminator" at the polls (or any other silly thing you want to call him from his movies).

However, now that he is governor of California and his approval ratings are low, I haven't heard any more calls to amend the Constitution on his behalf now that he is a less viable candidate for President.

Similarly, when George W. Bush first became President, I'm sure he was excited about being President, since he was "the one who gets to decide" everything. ("Why aren't you confirming my candidate for the Supreme Court? I'm the one who gets to decide who sits on the Supreme Court, just like I'm the one who gets to decide when we go to war.") But now that he's meeting resistance from his Republican allies and he's getting questions from pesky reporters and his approval ratings are extremely low, I don't think he's so happy about being President. He says he stopped drinking when he turned 40, but one of his associates (probably the former FEMA director Michael Brown, who is one of the only people working for Bush who has lost his job) has told the press that President Bush is hitting the bottle again. Supposedly, his wife Laura finally caught him and has tried to make him stop. Major newspapers have commented on his body language during a recent interview in which he looked totally uncomfortable because he blinked and fidgeted so much. In every recent photo I've seen of him, he has a sour expression on his face. I don't think he enjoys being President anymore--it just isn't as much fun as it used to be, and it's too hard.

I certainly agree with Aegis that one of President Bush's main goals in office is to make his friends and associates richer (they're already rich). I think he's deluded enough to believe that he's a good President and he's doing the country a lot of good. But the idea that he has any competency when it comes to running a "corporation" is laughable. He received investment funds from a Saudi prince when he tried to run a few oil companies when his father was Vice President and he lost it all. He was put on the board of trustees at a couple of companies when his father was President, and several of his peers are on record as saying that he never showed up for meetings or did anything to earn his pay and he supposedly said he didn't like it because it wasn't "fun". That doesn't sound like someone who is serious about running a business, or running the country like a business. President Bush is kind of like his father, who seemed to think the country would run by itself, except that unlike his father, he doesn't try to hide his attempts to reward his friends and associates.

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by fable

He died during his 4th term, a feeble man at the last who was responsible, along with Churchill, for allowing Stalin to conquer unopposed Eastern Europe.

I know this is going off-topic, but what choice did they have? Stalin was clearly going to conquer eastern Europe regardless, and once the Nazis were defeated, it wasn't like Britain and the US were going to want to fight the Soviets, and it's not like Stalin would have wanted to relinquish control over his new territory.

[Phreddie]

Thats true, also, neither Britain or ourselves had the resources to fight a new born powerhouse after the war, not only would we not be able to supply any attempt to stop the soviets (where they soviets then?) the people would not have been behind the effort, remember that little altercation called vietnam?

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Phreddie

Thats true, also, neither Britain or ourselves had the resources to fight a new born powerhouse after the war, not only would we not be able to supply any attempt to stop the soviets (where they soviets then?) the people would not have been behind the effort, remember that little altercation called vietnam?

You can not compare Vietnam with post WW2 Soviet and the possible conflicts. They are different in most every aspect, from reasons, scope, consequences, support, timeperiode.

As for an attempt to stop the Soveits it could be fun little thought expereiment. It is generally known that many people in many countries feared Stalin and the Soviets much more then they feared Hitler. Hitler was just "to close to comfort" for the "western world", and they didn't care much for the eastern block countries.
It is strange twists of events that England went to war with Germany over the independancy of Polan just to let it be glubbed up by another powerhungry dictator.

But - I guess it is more relevant in another "what-if" thread, then this.

[Phreddie]

Originally Posted by Xandax

You can not compare Vietnam with post WW2 Soviet and the possible conflicts. They are different in most every aspect, from reasons, scope, consequences, support, and time periode

The only comparison i was drawing was that the people would have been divided in support of the war much like tey were in vietnam and the iraq war.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

I know this is going off-topic, but what choice did they have? Stalin was clearly going to conquer eastern Europe regardless, and once the Nazis were defeated, it wasn't like Britain and the US were going to want to fight the Soviets, and it's not like Stalin would have wanted to relinquish control over his new territory.

1) Stalin didn't have the officers, the soldiers, or the equipment to fight a lengthy war with the US and the UK, and he knew this--which is why he agreed to Yalta, in the first place. He might have fought if told to move back to his Soviet borders, but that's not certain. Historians are divided.

2) US/UK troops actually waited in a few instances to allow Stalin to move into areas he'd yet to occupy, per government instructions. This is documented. In other words, Stalin didn't initially have control of all the territory he wanted. He demanded it, and it was given to him.

3) Roosevelt actually thought Stalin was an ally. It's hard to know what Churchill was thinking in this instance. But a simple glance at known history would have shown that Stalin was a tyrannical psychotic who had conquered a range of Central European nation-cultures, and had no qualms about killing millions of his own citizens if he even suspected them of harboring "unpatriotic" feelings.

Thats true, also, neither Britain or ourselves had the resources to fight a new born powerhouse after the war...

It was far from a powerhouse. Stalin's purge of the officerial corp in the 1930s meant he had practically no leaders for his army. The Nazi destruction of industrial centers meant he had little in the way of equipment. He had the same thing that defeated Napoleon: the Russian weather, and that's what ultimately stalled the Eastern Front for the Nazis, who couldn't afford what was needed to push further.

In any case, Bush isn't Stalin or Hitler. The latter pair were, in the opinion of at least modern psychiatrists, certifiably insane. Bush, like Putin, is all too sane by cynical political standards, and willing to sacrifice many lives and any semblance of the truth to achieve an overarching objective. Putin wants to return Russia to the kind of strong-man government it had in the Soviet era. Bush wants the US (and primarily, his friends) to control all the resources it needs to determine the fate of the world, and prevent China from rising to challenge it in the 21st century. That such leaders should be elected and praised, despite their actions, is a sign perhaps of incipient madness in their respective cultures. But then, what person deserves to be elected who craves office?

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by Xandax

It is strange twists of events that England went to war with Germany over the independancy of Polan just to let it be glubbed up by another powerhungry dictator.

I recall Churchill being quite upset about that very thing.

Originally Posted by fable

1) Stalin didn't have the officers, the soldiers, or the equipment to fight a lengthy war with the US and the UK, and he knew this--which is why he agreed to Yalta, in the first place. He might have fought if told to move back to his Soviet borders, but that's not certain. Historians are divided.

2) US/UK troops actually waited in a few instances to allow Stalin to move into areas he'd yet to occupy, per government instructions. This is documented. In other words, Stalin didn't initially have control of all the territory he wanted. He demanded it, and it was given to him.

3) Roosevelt actually thought Stalin was an ally. It's hard to know what Churchill was thinking in this instance. But a simple glance at known history would have shown that Stalin was a tyrannical psychotic who had conquered a range of Central European nation-cultures, and had no qualms about killing millions of his own citizens if he even suspected them of harboring "unpatriotic" feelings.

Thats true, also, neither Britain or ourselves had the resources to fight a new born powerhouse after the war...

It was far from a powerhouse. Stalin's purge of the officerial corp in the 1930s meant he had practically no leaders for his army. The Nazi destruction of industrial centers meant he had little in the way of equipment. He had the same thing that defeated Napoleon: the Russian weather, and that's what ultimately stalled the Eastern Front for the Nazis, who couldn't afford what was needed to push further.

In any case, Bush isn't Stalin or Hitler. The latter pair were, in the opinion of at least modern psychiatrists, certifiably insane. Bush, like Putin, is all too sane by cynical political standards, and willing to sacrifice many lives and any semblance of the truth to achieve an overarching objective. Putin wants to return Russia to the kind of strong-man government it had in the Soviet era. Bush wants the US (and primarily, his friends) to control all the resources it needs to determine the fate of the world, and prevent China from rising to challenge it in the 21st century. That such leaders should be elected and praised, despite their actions, is a sign perhaps of incipient madness in their respective cultures. But then, what person deserves to be elected who craves office?

I'm sure Stalin also knew that the US and UK also didn't have the officers and men and equipment to fight a lengthy war with him, especially when Japan was still needing to be dealt with.

I remember that Eisenhower stayed his forces so that the Soviets would reach Berlin; after all, why should the US waste lives fighting for something they'd only have to give up later? The fact that certain areas of Germany were ceded to him despite not having fully taken control of them personally is obvious. But neither the West nor the Soviets had it in them to fight a long, drawn-out war with each other, and I imagine Stalin knew that all too well.

Roosevelt was an idealist, I think we can agree on that. If he had survived past 1945, maybe we would know whether he viewed Stalin only as an ally of convenience or as a true ally. He treated the Soviet Union as an ally all the same, and afforded them the same benefits that other countries fighting the Nazis received. If it had been me, knowing what I would have known of Stalin back then, I think I would have withheld aide to the Soviets; let the Nazis drive through Russia and they'd still have stalled and stagnated and been eventually obliterated, but the Soviets wouldn't have driven the Germans back nearly as far as they did. As it happened, the fact that Roosevelt treated Stalin as an equal ally made the fighting all that much easier against the Germans. Convenient.

While I agree that Stalin's purges did significantly decrease his army's effectiveness, weren't the industrial plants of Russia moved when the Nazis attacked so that they could continue producing war material and keep them out of German hands?

And who compared Bush to Stalin or Hitler? I missed that somewhere.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

I'm sure Stalin also knew that the US and UK also didn't have the officers and men and equipment to fight a lengthy war with him, especially when Japan was still needing to be dealt with.

The US emerged from fighting the Nazis as the military and economic powerhouse of the world, with near total employment, an enormous army, great industrial might, and a full corp of officers. There are many books on this subject, and all reach the same conclusion.

[b]I remember that Eisenhower stayed his forces so that the Soviets would reach Berlin; after all, why should the US waste lives fighting for something they'd only have to give up later?[/quote]

Because, as was protested at the time, it need not have been given up. Stalin bluffed Roosevelt, who was heavily ailing and doped on drugs, by promising democracy and free elections for all the nations he gobbled up. There was no good reason that Roosevelt, in his right mind, should have agreed to this: idealism had nothing to do with it. Stalin's behavior was internationally well-known; do a search on the Katyn Massacre, or the Massacre of the Officers, or the Phony Famine.

While I agree that Stalin's purges did significantly decrease his army's effectiveness, weren't the industrial plants of Russia moved when the Nazis attacked so that they could continue producing war material and keep them out of German hands?

By the end of the war, the Soviet was flying primitive pre-WWII planes fixed with the contemporary equivalent of duct tape. The Soviet had next to no industry, no agricultural base left, and hundreds of millions of displaced people. It was in no shape to do anything about ruling at the time, that the US and the UK didn't want it to rule.

And who compared Bush to Stalin or Hitler? I missed that somewhere.

My point (and thank you for at least mentioning Bush! ) was that Bush isn't the madman or religious fanatic that he's sometimes being portrayed, in this thread and elsewhere on the board. He's a shrewd, hardheaded politician who doesn't care how many lives are lost to achieve his goal, and he will do anything he must--including, play the fool--if it wins him elections and opinion polls. He's the kind of murderer that people allow to remain in charge of governments, while screaming in horror at such madmen as Hitler and Stalin. But when you think about it, who needs extremely sane, cynical politicians like Bush, either?