Post by: AnThRaX on June 07, 2004, 03:10:00 PM
Post by: nemt on June 07, 2004, 03:48:00 PM
Post by: AnThRaX on June 07, 2004, 04:02:00 PM
Post by: EXCURSION-CRUSHER on June 07, 2004, 06:54:00 PM
Post by: CHRONOSTORM on June 07, 2004, 09:40:00 PM
and gore would have been MUCH WORSE
Post by: EXCURSION-CRUSHER on June 07, 2004, 09:58:00 PM
Post by: Banj on June 07, 2004, 11:52:00 PM
Post by: nemt on June 08, 2004, 05:36:00 AM
| QUOTE (Banj @ Jun 8 2004, 04:52 AM) |
| Do you really think the important decisions of such an enormous country are left to the sole discretion of one man? The president has about as much clout as Tony Blair. They are figureheads. The question should have been "Which American puppet looked to the stupidest?" |
You speak with a lot of bravado for a guy whose country hasn't been powerful on its own since a woman were PM...
Post by: Banj on June 08, 2004, 06:17:00 AM
Post by: BenJeremy on June 08, 2004, 06:34:00 AM
Clinton? Not horrible, but didn't do a damn thing to quell the rising storm of terrorism. Looking back on his campaign promises, he didn't even manage those (For those who forget, he pretty much broke ALL of his promises to the Democratic faithful). He will be remembered for riding the boom of M$ and the Dot Com bubbles into economic prosperity, and eventually, for pushing M$ back down (and our economy along with it).
Bush I? Well, he didn't carry the Gulf War to a logical conclusion. "Compassion" (like his forerunner, Carter) wasted the effort.
Nixon? He got burned playing the same game all of his predecessors did. He also inherited the mess of 'Nam. Beyond that, what can you hang on him? He warmed relations with China, and opened a lot of international doors.
LBJ? Ramped up the war in Vietnam. Questionable Presidency all around.
JFK? Way overrated. Almost brought our country to the brink of nuclear war. Bay of Pigs debacle. In retrospect, his image has gotten better treatment than most. Not "bad" - but not nearly as "great" as people proclaim him to be.
Going back further... FDR is overrated. The growing war in Europe helped the U.S. out of the Depression, not really his social programs.
Taft? Perhaps... there were a whole slew of Presidents in the 1800s to early 1900s who screwed things up.
Post by: moistness on June 08, 2004, 07:27:00 AM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Jun 8 2004, 03:36 PM) |
| You speak with a lot of bravado for a guy whose country hasn't been powerful on its own since a woman were PM... |
That was no woman, it sure looked like a woman, but I'm not even sure it was human!
Anyway, reagan shat himself everytime (s)he popped over to visit!
Post by: Videogamebuyer14 on June 08, 2004, 07:48:00 AM
Bush I and II suck ass.
Reagan's presidency was a joke. That's what you get for making an actor a president. "Let's win one for the gipper."
Also, I know Schwarzenegger isn't a president, but giving him even the slightest of politcal power is retarded. Another actor...
Clinton was the shit. He did alot for the country. Plus he gave us the Internet Security Act. Okay, he got caught in a sex scandal. Big deal, it didn't hurt our country at all. In fact, it helped by giving the news material.
Anyways, my couple cents.
Post by: nemt on June 08, 2004, 08:35:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Jun 8 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| Carter was bad. Not a leader at all, horible foriegn policy. Demoralized the military. Awful. |
Carter did more than cripple the US military. Carter destroyed the American economy, and he was the first in a long line of Presidents to show Islamists the US would not retaliate against terrorism. Carter is far and away the worst leader the US has ever had, and is easily one of the worst leaders in world history.
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Jun 8 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| Clinton? Not horrible, but didn't do a damn thing to quell the rising storm of terrorism. Looking back on his campaign promises, he didn't even manage those (For those who forget, he pretty much broke ALL of his promises to the Democratic faithful). He will be remembered for riding the boom of M$ and the Dot Com bubbles into economic prosperity, and eventually, for pushing M$ back down (and our economy along with it). |
Clinton was a felon before he was even elected. He's a draft dodging murderer, not to mention the lying under oath and conspiracy. Clinton let Bin Laden escape capture in Sudan and Saudi Arabia, and did nothing to respond to his repeated attacks on US interests. His missile strikes in Sudan blew up an animal vaccine factory, and the strikes in Afghanistan let Bin Laden escape via ISI interference - because Clinton felt a need to inform Pakistan of the impending missile strike. Clinton showed the arab world they risked nothing but a few empty tents and office buildings if they attack the US. Clinton is the sole cause of Sepetember 11th, and is even more guilty than Bin Laden himself.
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Jun 8 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| Bush I? Well, he didn't carry the Gulf War to a logical conclusion. "Compassion" (like his forerunner, Carter) wasted the effort. |
George HW Bush was a good President, his failure in Iraq was the result of UN meddling, not allied unwillingness to deal with Saddam.
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Jun 8 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| Nixon? He got burned playing the same game all of his predecessors did. He also inherited the mess of 'Nam. Beyond that, what can you hang on him? He warmed relations with China, and opened a lot of international doors. |
Nixon was a great leader and is the most underrated President in American history. Had he not resigned, Nixon had plans to capture Arab oil fields, which would have averted both the energy crisis as well as significant acts of terror (showing the islamists early-on how the US will defeat them). All this, in addition to ending the war in Viet Nam (a democrat-crafted fiasco) make Nixon a great leader, and history certainly dealt him a bad hand.
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Jun 8 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| LBJ? Ramped up the war in Vietnam. Questionable Presidency all around. |
LBJ was a lying son of a bitch. That's all I have to say about that.
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Jun 8 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| JFK? Way overrated. Almost brought our country to the brink of nuclear war. Bay of Pigs debacle. In retrospect, his image has gotten better treatment than most. Not "bad" - but not nearly as "great" as people proclaim him to be. |
JFK was the initial cause of the crisis in Indochina, and he's only remembered fondly because of his assassination. Frankly, I'm suprised the US even survived his foreign policies.
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Jun 8 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| Going back further... FDR is overrated. The growing war in Europe helped the U.S. out of the Depression, not really his social programs. |
FDR is easily the most overrated President in history. The war is the sole reason the depression ended, and FDR's stubborness led to death at Pearl Harbor. When oil is cut off from Japan, a warfare driven, savage nation at the time, anyone with a brain stem could have predicted an attack.
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Jun 8 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| Taft? Perhaps... there were a whole slew of Presidents in the 1800s to early 1900s who screwed things up. |
He needed a special bathtub in the white house, give him a break.
Post by: AkumAPRIME on June 08, 2004, 09:53:00 AM
Post by: nemt on June 08, 2004, 09:54:00 AM
Post by: nemt on June 08, 2004, 12:19:00 PM
Post by: Colonel32 on June 08, 2004, 01:20:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Clinton was a felon before he was even elected. He's a draft dodging murderer, not to mention the lying under oath and conspiracy. Clinton let Bin Laden escape capture in Sudan and Saudi Arabia, and did nothing to respond to his repeated attacks on US interests. His missile strikes in Sudan blew up an animal vaccine factory, and the strikes in Afghanistan let Bin Laden escape via ISI interference - because Clinton felt a need to inform Pakistan of the impending missile strike. Clinton showed the arab world they risked nothing but a few empty tents and office buildings if they attack the US. Clinton is the sole cause of Sepetember 11th, and is even more guilty than Bin Laden himself. |
Nemt, reply is here to stay on topic
most of your facts come from right wing sources and I certainly wouldn't trust the fans of PNAC to feed my information about this topic.
Post by: GamerBR on June 08, 2004, 01:37:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Jun 8 2004, 09:19 PM) |
| You seem to be basing your political knowledge on mail scams... |
wrong,i read this in a magazine(the most respected magazine of news in Brazil if it makes difference)
Post by: nemt on June 08, 2004, 03:23:00 PM
| QUOTE (GamerBR @ Jun 8 2004, 06:37 PM) |
| wrong,i read this in a magazine(the most respected magazine of news in Brazil if it makes difference) |
..and the most respected magazine in brazil didn't mention this leader's name?
Post by: BenJeremy on June 08, 2004, 06:33:00 PM
| QUOTE (GamerBR @ Jun 8 2004, 07:37 PM) |
of course it did,but i simple don't remember him name  i read this notice around 1 year ago |
:::sigh::: no, it's a MAIL SCAM. Very old. It's called, IIRC, the "419" scam. It has many variations, and has been around for decades.
Google "419 scam"
Snopes puts your "story" to rest
Post by: nemt on June 09, 2004, 03:05:00 AM
| QUOTE (self @ Jun 9 2004, 06:39 AM) |
| We all know about the Nigerian mail scams, but what GamerBR talks about actually happened. I've heard about it too, and a little bit of googling found this article (see last to paragraphs). |
Maybe he'll cut you in on the 400 mil if you send him the money transfer free.
Post by: BloodyMary on June 09, 2004, 03:40:00 AM
| QUOTE (self @ Jun 9 2004, 05:39 AM) |
| We all know about the Nigerian mail scams, but what GamerBR talks about actually happened. I've heard about it too, and a little bit of googling found this article (see last to paragraphs). |
Quoting the article that your pointed to...
| QUOTE |
| Opinions of Abacha and his military regime vary across Africa and the international community. He is credited with leading the African military intervention in the civil war in Sierra Leone that resulted in the restoration of civilian rule in that country in March 1998. His supporters see him as a strong leader and centrifugal force that sustained ethnically diverse Nigeria as a cohesive state and regional power. His opponents maintain that he was a cruel despot that embezzled almost three billion dollars of public funds into private bank accounts in Europe and the Persian Gulf. In 1999, the Nigerian Federal Government began efforts to recover the stolen funds. Mohammad Abacha, the late president's eldest son was arrested on related charges of fraud, money laundering and embezzlement and for the murder of Cheif Abiola's wife, Alhaja Kudirat. Later, a deal was struck between the Nigerian government and the Abacha family in which all criminal proceedings against Mohammad were dropped in return for eighty percent of the family's liquid assets. It has been reported that the Abacha family has been allowed to retain $100 million of the looted money as part of a protracted settlement. |
| QUOTE (GamerBR) |
| in africa?there was a president in Nigeria,that stolen around U$400 millions,he died and nobody knew where was the money,what they did?there was a son of this president that was in the jail for murder,he said if he could quit the jail and stay with a part of the money(i think he asked for U$100 millions) he would give back the rest of the money,the government accepted,he quit the jail and stayed with all the money (i don't know if after him went to the jail after but i think not) |
The story's have 2 very different endings... but seem to be the same story anyway...
Post by: self on June 09, 2004, 04:57:00 AM
Post by: GamerBR on June 09, 2004, 09:35:00 AM
| QUOTE (BloodyMary @ Jun 9 2004, 12:40 PM) | ||
Quoting the article that your pointed to...
The story's have 2 very different endings... but seem to be the same story anyway... |
where's is the difference of the endings?it's the same,he was allowed to stay with 100 millions,but he stayed with all the money,probabaly the article i read is newer than this one,because this article says what the govenment and the family combinned,but the family didn't do them part of the agreement