[QUOTE=brunoparga;96306]Now, I'm not sure if I've understood correctly what Jwb has written. If I have, then what he means is that the US faces a choice: environmental-friendly but economy-slowing policies, considering environmental problems which may not be so urgent, versus keep-it-burning-like-hell policies.[/QUOTE]

I think you have misunderstood. At the risk of characterizing others.... Global warming came up in this thread as one example of how the Bush administration is irrational. I don't think anyone here has argued that ignoring global warming is wise, they are arguing that there is a rational argument behind it. The argument may be weak, it may be very selfish, it may be short-sighted, but it is rational.

Bruno, I know Europeans don't like this way of thinking, but I think the majority of Americans don't appreciate being told by other countries, even if they are supposed to hold some power of some kind, telling the US what to do when it thinks it should do something. I think "international law" is a great thing when it is something everyone agrees on, but that agreement can only go so far in real action. Until such time as the US were to agree to a written statement saying it would be willingly subjected to the idea that Europe and the other countries have the right to tell the US what to do in anything at all, it's just a waste of time for them to try without starting a war to stop the US.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;96306]
[Quote=M29]
[Quote=cheesehead]
(I.e., you do not contend that the Clinton immorality extended beyond the First Couple to numerous official agencies and committees. Right?)[/quote]
Wrong, starting with Ron Brown.[/quote]
Question from The Outside World: who's that?
[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_H._Brown]Ronald Harmon Brown[/url] was Clinton's first Secretary of Commerce. He died in a plane crash in Croatia in 1996.

The mission of [url=http://204.193.232.34/cgi-bin/doit.cgi?204:112:ca6ff65e72b6f38e4fe42ea2ba9cf9358ad6df26eae063a68a6e8f420a9ac897:245]the Department of Commerce[/url] is “to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce”. I suppose that it is similar to your [url=http://www.desenvolvimento.gov.br/sitio/inicial/index.php]Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior[/url].

[QUOTE=brunoparga;96306]
... I unfortunately find very often in Americans: to think only American lives are worth something, or at least thatb they're worth much more than foreigners'.[/QUOTE]
This certainly is not a uniquely American trait.

[quote=M29;96235]Wrong, starting with Ron Brown.[/quote]Okay. I've started a separate thread "[B]Comparison of crimes and transgressions by recent U.S. Presidents[/B]" at [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6975[/URL].

From that thread's header:

"I want to see more comparison, or just plain lists, of crimes and transgressions committed or reasonably alleged to have been committed by the 42nd and 43rd U.S. Presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

I'm interested not in stuff that's only political, but in stuff that goes beyond politics. I realize that's a fuzzy border -- I'm just trying to set some kind of boundary. Anyone with a way of clarifying that boundary -- please speak up!

For perspective, remind us of similar misdeeds, if any, by earlier U.S. Presidents -- since, say, World War 2 (i.e., Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder).

I want, if possible, to take this out of other threads where the allegations get off-topic.

Please limit the allegations to those for which there is (a) at least some evidence that has been published in the responsible major news media (e.g., not just sensationalist tabloids) and (b) plausible logic for commission of the crime or transgression.

Please include links to detailed responsible (non-wacky) explanations elsewhere (so that the rest of us may be educated) if possible. Please limit your text in this thread to basic summaries if there's such a link or links."

[QUOTE=cheesehead;96338]Okay. I've started a separate thread "[B]Comparison of crimes and transgressions by recent U.S. Presidents[/B]" at [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6975[/URL].
[/QUOTE]
I was more interested in discussing what pushes people's buttons.

[quote=ewmayer;96186]More or less the same thing happened in the late 80s, leading up to the first Gulf War.
[/quote]
The only thing that also happened in the late 80's is that the opinion of the so-called experts turned out to be wrong both times. You cannot compare the late 80's opinion which was based on very limited intelligence to the opinion of Blix and co. who had been in Iraq for many many inspections. In any case, the important point here is that they were not given the time to complete their job. Remember when Bush first said that Saddam needs to let Blix and all back if he does not want to be attacked? And when he did, the stakes were raised, and again and again.


[quote=ewmayer;96186]
Yes, Israel surely has nukes of its own, but unlike most of its neighbors, it is a functioning democracy (which is not to say a perfect one - far from it), [B]has never invaded any of its neighbors with no cause whatsoever[/B], and is *not* on record as repeatedly stating, "neighboring country X must be wiped off the map," in stark contrast to many of *its* neighbors. I don't consider myself to be a pro-Israeli apologist by any means, but there is a fundamental asymmetry there which you fail to note.[/quote]

Two problems with the sentence highlighted above. One: you assume that Saddam invaded Kuwait with no cause whatsoever. He had his reasons, including the slant-drilling being engaged in by the Kuwaitis at the time. That you and I do not agree with his reasons is not "no cause whatsoever".
Secondly, Israel has invaded a country - in case you spent all of 2006 sleeping - Lebanon and killed about a 1000 civilians and created a million refugees in a brutal air campaign. And you know, it is more important to look at actions than words. Israel has not declared that it will destroy X but it has in effect destroyed Palestine and continues to do so with its aggressive settlement building and the destruction of Palestinian resources.

Iran on the other hand, is a true case of "has never invaded any of its neighbors with no cause whatsoever".

[quote=ewmayer]
On the Syrian side, you'd be dealing with a regime which is no more savory or interested in "fair" outcomes - just look at their dealings in Lebanon.
[/quote]

The US is not particularly savoury in its foreign policy dealings and has not particularly been interested in fair outcomes either. I will not insult your intelligence with a laundry list of examples.

[quote=Prime95]
Apparently you have completely forgotten the fact that the U.S. Congress gave the President the authority to invade Iraq. And don't give me any "but the U.N. says..." drivel. Bush was elected President of the United States, not President of the U.N.
[/quote]

George, do you think that countries should follow international law or not? Do you think that countries should basically do everything that they can get away with - which is basically what has been happening for all of our history - is the right way to go about it? War is rightly seen as a horrible last option. After WWII, the US and others tried to set international rules to govern the declaration of war. Those rules have been flouted time and again. Are you for or against international rules? Do you think a sovereign nation has an absolute right to do what it thinks is right?

[QUOTE=M29;96341]I was more interested in discussing what pushes people's buttons.[/QUOTE]

Slick Willie was a sleaze who couldn't keep his pants zipped.
And he lied about it.

I am sure that Hillary was buried deep in monetary shenanigans back
in Arkansas. (But Hillary held no office at the time. And I would hate it
if she were nominated by the Democrats to be president)

However:

Slick Willie did not let his own personal religious views dictate policy.
He did not advocate imprisonment without habeus corpus.
He did not advocate torture.
He did not stick his nose into affairs such as Terry Shiavo
He did not start a war under false pretenses.


When he lied, noone died. When Bush lied, more than 3000 American
soldiers died.


Everyone lies about sex. I agree that Slick Willie's sexual moraility
was that of a swine. And he cheated on his wife. But to me, that sort
of thing is a private issue between him and Hillary.

What matters to me is politicians who lie about their official
duties and pervert the constitution to their own personal whim.

In my opinion, Bush and Cheney should not only be impeached, but
they should then be tried for TREASON for their violations of the
Constitution and for starting a war under false pretenses. You can
toss in Rumsfeld and Condi Rice as well.

Congess DID try to impeach Slick Willie over matters that were much
less important. Failure to do the same with Bush & Co. shows screwed
up priorities: the puritans in the U.S. are much more upset with sexual
deviation than with 3000 deaths. So much for the "right to life" crowd.
This crowd seems to be among W's strongest supporters. But they
only seem to care about the life of fetuses and not about the deaths
of 3000 young men.

[QUOTE=garo;96375]do you think that countries should follow international law or not? [/QUOTE]

My point was made in the context of U.S. law is what counts when it comes to applying the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

As to your questions: International rules are a beneficial restraint on unsavory actions. They serve as a warning that going to war without proper cause will have consequences. However, if a country's safety is on the line, then it has the right and in fact a duty to its citizens to take whatever actions it deems necessary, including going to war, whether the International community agrees or not. (NOTE: I'm not making any claims as to whether the Iraq war actually met those criteria).

[quote=R.D. Silverman;96377]
When he lied, noone died. When Bush lied, more than 3000 American
soldiers died.
<snip>
Failure to do the same with Bush & Co. shows screwed
up priorities: the puritans in the U.S. are much more upset with sexual
deviation than with 3000 deaths. So much for the "right to life" crowd.
This crowd seems to be among W's strongest supporters. But they
only seem to care about the life of fetuses and not about the deaths
of 3000 young men.[/quote]

1) It is the deaths of 3000 American men AND WOMEN.

2) As brunoparaga pointed out, it is not just 3000 deaths, it is more like 650,000. If the US professes to be the leader of the free world, perhaps it should count its "followers" as human beings too and record their deaths as well?

3) Clinton's lies during the Kosovo war did lead to deaths of many innocents. None were American. Perhaps this is why this is not cited. But then what about his lying over Somalia? But then again, these were not the subject of the impeachment motion so Bob is right on the money. The US Congress cares more about tricky dicks than it does about deaths, American or non-American.