What people think of W. Bush

[Zack]

Britan was being just as bad as france, germany was willing to give up because of the promised 'peace without victory' by america and then was stabed in the back much like the US by brittan and france. The reason the US retreated back to isolationisum is because we got tired of war mad Europe.

 

[Zakalwe]

Uso, I would really like to see your evidence to back that statement up. I have studied this subject, and yes it was true that the Germans believed it was a truce and not a defeat, but thinking of the huge amount of damage dealt to the French, the countryside and economy of France, combined with the fact that Clemencau the president was known as the 'tiger' because of his tough political nature, meant that it could never be anything other than a defeat. And the British did not have much to do with it, we where not just as bad, we where much more leniant. They where not stabbed in the back as much as they did not see the obvious outcome.

And how in particular do you think that Britain or Frane stabbed the US in the back?

As for the US's policy of isolationoism, it was to make sure they whern't brought into anymore wars, but to be fair in all the recent wars in europe, neither Britain or france was behind them.

 

[Zack]

Just because the british were not as eager as france to get stuff out of german dosen't mean they still didn't do so. Once WW1 was over woodrow's 14 points went right out the window and had become so twisted that woodrow himself ordered his party to vote them down.

 

[Zakalwe]

Woodrow's 14 points where not all very reasonable. They where the points of an idealist and a dreamer. I mean the idea of all nations having access to the sea is alright I suppose, but many of the other points just had no possibility of being passed with the current state of world politics. He policy of free trade would not work as some countries needed them to compete with countries such as America who had a larger work force and could afford to sell an object for less cost. And the formation of the league of nations was one of his points, and that went through and it wasn't even twisted, just maimed due to the fact that America refused to join.

 

[Jadg Wolf]

Zakalwe, you aren't providing any evidence either. Zack's statements sound more likely than yours, but maybe that's just because I'm an American.

 

[Zack]

The 14 points would have stopped World War 2 before it ever started. Hitler wouldn't have had a way to take over without the economic distress. The reason the 14 points failed can be directly attributed to the rest of the 'allies'

 

[Zakalwe]

I am quite willing to agree that you disagree solely on our different nationalities, and thus the different ways we have been brought up and educated.

I would give evidence but the history text book which has all the relevant information in it is by a stagering co-incedence around at somone elses house and would be quite hard to access at this time of night.

In my words I am not trying to be against America, or pro European, I will defend my country from any verbal attack, but will try to make it rational. How did you vote by the way Jadg?

 

[Zack]

That would be from my history teacher. The book puts some blame on the US but then again revisionist history books suck. They tend to gloss over the good and magnify the bad.

 

[Jadg Wolf]

I didn't vote. I don't think I know enough about him to make an intelligent decision.

 

[Zakalwe]

You can say that if the 14 points had been followed to the letter, and all of Winstons other plans had been put into action Hitler wouldn't have risen to power, however you could just as easily say if all the things that Clemenceau wanted where taken up Germany would never have posed a threat again, it would have been split up into the individual kingdoms from which it came and wouldn't have bothered anyone. Not that I support that extreme either. However I believe that the German people are far more to blame for the First World War than for the Second, where the Nazis had their campaign of terror and controlled all of the media, and I really don't think it would have been right after so many French and English soldiers had died that the Germans got off too lightly.

 

[Zack]

If you split them up, then the world would have dived right into a global depression just like after WW1 and hitler would still have something to go on with the whole 'blame the jews, germany is great, yadda yadda,' WW2 still would have happened.

 

[Zakalwe]

Not exactly. His ability to suceed in one of the nations would be likely, however the unifaction with others would have been far more unlikely, as with the French ways being passed Clemenceau and his party would likely have stayed in power and the policy of apeasment wouldn't have been as great. Also the great depression that was directly after World War I was because of bad policy and the stupidity of the government trying to throw money at the problem. With several nations the likelyhood of all of them doing this would be very low. Austria for example had a similar poblem but dealt with it very well. The second great depression was due to the Wall Street Crash and would have occured in any eventuality thanks to the huge stock culture in America.

 

[I'm Only Dancing]

Its an interesting thing that it is a political advantage to seem average and less educated than your opponent...

 

[Zakalwe]

This is true. It was put well in a very good comedy sketch I watched during the election period where Kerry's aides told him that he had to dumn down if he wanted to win the election. It centred on the fact he shouldn't know the name of the president of Afghanistan or something like that.

It is of course a completely mad opinion, becuase it is the most intelligant and educated person who you would expect would be able to run the country the best. In england we have been spared this to some degree as every single one of out Prime Ministers who went to university went to either Oxford or Cambridge (the two best universities), and the ones who didn't where intelligant in any case (Churchill and Calahan spring to mind). It's sometimes hard to tell that Blair has a brain, but he does, he went to Oxford. And his parents aren't rich, and at the time admisions where free so it wasn't his wealth or parents influence that bought him a place.

And right now it is 5 declaring he's below average and corrupt, to three saying he's intelligant and competant.

 

[Zakalwe]

Alright I don't think anyone else is going to vote, so I'm going to stick out a limb and declare the most of the people on this site think that George W. Bush is ...

A below average IQ leader who is corrupt - 5 votes

And not to forget the runner up which was:

A effective and intelligant leader - 3 votes

And the minority which believe he was:

Daddy's boy - 1 vote

 

[Wes]

^_^; Er, thread locked, since the discussion's over (please?).