who was the greatest american president

[comic boy]

Saddam was a murderous despot, though no different to many in the past that the US and the West have supported, but he WAS NOT threatening World Peace, WAS NOT sponsoring terrorism and DID NOT have weapons of mass destruction. As you seem to know less than nothing about your last president I dont think we can take you as any sort of authority on those that went before.

He didn't have weapons of mass destraction but he was a very harsh dictator.

Yes but how did that affect world peace, you made a statement so back it up please.

[comic boy]

George W. Bush is up there (I'm NOT joking)

You are clearly a dangerous lunatic.

Bush did absolutely wonderful. He freed five million people from terrorism. He had to face some of the same problems as Lincoln. Both had to deal with two wars. Bush had to deal with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Lincoln had to deal with the Civil War and the Dakota Indian War (If you are not familiar with the Dakota Indian War it was a war fought against the Sioux Indian tribe which used to be know as the Dakota Indian tribe.) And both had to deal with a troubled economy. (Which often is the result of war.) Although the Civil war was much more important than the two wars going on right now the economy was much worse than it is right now. It was worse than the Great Depression. The Civil war was fought mostly in the South but the Dakota Indian war was fought in the North in the state of Minnesota but little did the people complain about the economy. I think people need to quit being so selfish. They are too concerned about money. There where millions of people being terrorized and beaten by a very harsh dictator but people where more concerned about their money.

That is why I think that Bush was a great president.

What a load of codswallop, Nixon had to deal with the Vietnam war, does that make him a great president

[JJM]

No. What did we achieve during the Veitnam War?

[Frigidus]

No. What did we achieve during the Veitnam War?

We lost the Vietnam War.

[InkL0sed]

No. What did we achieve during the Veitnam War?

We lost the Vietnam War.

Right, but he was asking what we achieved.

The answer is of course genocide, Pol Pot, Agent Orange... etc

[Frigidus]

No. What did we achieve during the Veitnam War?

We lost the Vietnam War.

Right, but he was asking what we achieved.

The answer is of course genocide, Pol Pot, Agent Orange... etc

We managed to scrounge up some utter humiliation, too.

[comic boy]

No. What did we achieve during the Veitnam War?

Yes now if you would just like to tell us how Bush made the World safer........we are sitting on the edge of our seats here

[GabonX]

How come Obama isn't an option?

No. What did we achieve during the Veitnam War?

We lost the Vietnam War.

Right, but he was asking what we achieved.

The answer is of course genocide, Pol Pot, Agent Orange... etc

Genocide? Don't be silly. If the United States had wanted to commit genocide there would be no more Asians..not sure how we 'achieved' Pol Pot either.

[Skittles!]

Genocide? Don't be silly. If the United States had wanted to commit genocide there would be no more Asians..not sure how we 'achieved' Pol Pot either.

Probably cause the Vietnam War (otherwise known as the American War to the Vietnamese) took away all other News, allowing Pol Pot to do what he wished and not suffer repercussions until the Vietnamese invaded after the war.

[InkL0sed]

No. What did we achieve during the Veitnam War?

We lost the Vietnam War.

Right, but he was asking what we achieved.

The answer is of course genocide, Pol Pot, Agent Orange... etc

Genocide? Don't be silly. If the United States had wanted to commit genocide there would be no more Asians..not sure how we 'achieved' Pol Pot either.

We may not have wanted those things to happen, but they were direct results of the Vietnam War, so you could say we "achieved" them. Of course, there are plenty of other things we did do ourselves, Agent Orange being just one nasty example.

[GabonX]

Genocide? Don't be silly. If the United States had wanted to commit genocide there would be no more Asians..not sure how we 'achieved' Pol Pot either.

Probably cause the Vietnam War (otherwise known as the American War to the Vietnamese) took away all other News, allowing Pol Pot to do what he wished and not suffer repercussions until the Vietnamese invaded after the war.

Oh that explains it

No. What did we achieve during the Veitnam War?

We lost the Vietnam War.

Right, but he was asking what we achieved.

The answer is of course genocide, Pol Pot, Agent Orange... etc

Genocide? Don't be silly. If the United States had wanted to commit genocide there would be no more Asians..not sure how we 'achieved' Pol Pot either.

We may not have wanted those things to happen, but they were direct results of the Vietnam War, so you could say we "achieved" them. Of course, there are plenty of other things we did do ourselves, Agent Orange being just one nasty example.

Sort of. Pol Pot was an accident, Agent Orange was on purpose, and genocide never happened.

Pol Pot was more a product of China than the United States. Agent Orange was bad, but nobody really knew what it did when it was being used.

[InkL0sed]

Um. Pol Pot committed genocide... one of the worst cases in history.

[GabonX]

Um. Pol Pot committed genocide... one of the worst cases in history.

I thought you were trying to claim that the United States carried out genocide. You wouldn't be amending an argument would you?

Anyhow, even if the United States hadn't have gotten involved, it is extremely unlikely that there would have been peace in the region.

China may have taken worse action against the Vietnamese than their Cambodian proxy did to his people.

Rest assured, things still would have been ugly.

[InkL0sed]

Um. Pol Pot committed genocide... one of the worst cases in history.

I thought you were trying to claim that the United States carried out genocide. You wouldn't be amending an argument would you?

No, you just thought wrong. I was saying that we caused these things, either directly or indirectly.

Plus, I believe we did kill a shitload of civilians, which I think might qualify as genocide. Not exactly a good thing in any case.

Anyhow, even if the United States hadn't have gotten involved, it is extremely unlikely that there would have been peace in the region.

China may have taken worse action against the Vietnamese than their Cambodian proxy did to his people.

Rest assured, things still would have been ugly.

Until you invent a time machine, change the past, and prove yourself right, there's not much I can say to this either way. Knowing you, I'm not surprised you think this at all though.

[GabonX]

Oh, and Pol Pot did not commit genocide. Genocide refers specifically with the targeted elimination of people based on race. Pol Pot killed people because they didn't do what he told them to.

The Nazis carried out genocide against a number of groups. The Turks carried out genocide against the Armenians. The Tutsi Fruitis, or whatever they're called, from Rawanda are guilty of genocide.

People like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, while guilty of crimes against humanity, are not guilty of genocide.

[GabonX]

Oh, and Pol Pot did not commit genocide. Genocide refers specifically with the targeted elimination of people based on race. Pol Pot killed people because they didn't do what he told them to.

The Nazis carried out genocide against a number of groups. The Turks carried out genocide against the Armenians. The Tutsi Fruitis, or whatever they're called, from Rawanda are guilty of genocide.

People like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, while guilty of crimes against humanity, are not guilty of genocide.

Anyhow, even if the United States hadn't have gotten involved, it is extremely unlikely that there would have been peace in the region.

China may have taken worse action against the Vietnamese than their Cambodian proxy did to his people.

Rest assured, things still would have been ugly.

Until you invent a time machine, change the past, and prove yourself right, there's not much I can say to this either way. Knowing you, I'm not surprised you think this at all though.

Yeah, it's too bad I don't have a time machine......

Anyhow, all I have to go in is that the Chinese had been trying to control Vietnam for centuries, Mao had enacted mass killings of his own nationals, and that the Chinese armed and funded Pol Pot who carried out the 'genocide' that you referred to.

But who knows..maybe Mao would have just taken no for an answer and been totally reasonable

On the other hand, we may have seen a genocide

[GabonX]

God damn, I'm just thinking about all of the things I could do with the things in my position, with the addition of a time machine........

One thing is for sure..I WOULD BE THE GREATEST AMERICAN PRESIDENT!!!

[Frigidus]

I WOULD BE THE GREATEST AMERICAN

I was expecting disaster, maybe hero. President? Surely not.

[GabonX]

IF YOU DO NOT VOTE FOR ME I WILL TAKE POWER

[joecoolfrog]

Ben Kiernan calls what happened in Cambodia genocide, he also argues that without the American destabilisation of Cambodia Pol Pot would never have risen to power. Of course he is only a professor of history, director of genocide studies at Yale and author of 3 books on the subject , so hardly an expert like Gabon....

[GabonX]

Appeal to Authority eh? Not a good tactic in debate..

It comes down to a question of whether or not the people killed in Cambodia were targeted for political reasons, ethnic reasons, or both. If there was no ethnic motivation, then there was no genocide.

Also, as a side note, the Ivy league schools are extremely over rated today. Quite frankly there are a lot of idiots both teaching at and graduating from them.

President Bush graduated from Yale.

[joecoolfrog]

Appeal to Authority eh? Not a good tactic in debate..

It comes down to a question of whether or not the people killed in Cambodia were targeted for political reasons, ethnic reasons, or both. If there was no ethnic motivation, then there was no genocide.

Also, as a side note, the Ivy league schools are extremely over rated today. Quite frankly there are a lot of idiots both teaching at and graduating from them.

President Bush graduated from Yale.

Incorrect, the definition of genocide is more far reaching than you suggest, a particular group was targetted by Pol Pot , it was not random slaughter.

PS Kiernan did not graduate anywhere in the United States

[Snorri1234]

Appeal to Authority eh? Not a good tactic in debate..

It's not an appeal to authority when the guy is actually an authority and knows more about it than the average person.

[InkL0sed]

Appeal to Authority eh? Not a good tactic in debate..

It's not an appeal to authority when the guy is actually an authority and knows more about it than the average person.

That's not quite right, however:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.

[GabonX]

Appeal to Authority eh? Not a good tactic in debate..

It's not an appeal to authority when the guy is actually an authority and knows more about it than the average person.

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

Incorrect, the definition of genocide is more far reaching than you suggest, a particular group was targetted by Pol Pot , it was not random slaughter.

PS Kiernan did not graduate anywhere in the United States

The term 'genocide' gets thrown around a lot, and most times incorrectly, when there are mass killings of a group of people. It doesn't matter who targeted who and how many people were killed, motivation is key in determining genocide. If people are killed because they would not submit then there was not a genocide but rather mass political killings.

My understanding is that Pol Pot did not target people because of racial ideology. Rather he wanted to enslave the nation and was willing to use murder and fear to achieve his goals. This is a different animal.

If on the other hand he targeted a group based on principles of ethnic cleansing, there was a genocide, but from what I've read it does not look like this was the case.