America's greatest living statesman is dead. He was a product of a different age, in many ways a "kinder, gentler" age than the one we live in now.
The last World War II veteran to serve in the White House . . .
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/george-hw-bush-41st-president-of-the-united-states-dies-at-94/ar-BBQkkGP?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/george-hw-bush-41st-president-of-the-united-states-dies-at-94/ar-BBQkkGP?li=BBnb7Kz)
He wasn't nearly as bad a President as people thought at the time. Was a better President than his son.
Helped manage the aftermath of the downfall of the Soviet Union so that chaos was minimized. Pushed for the reunification of Germany. Handled Saddam Hussein correctly.
Even liberals found something to praise: Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Air act.
Whether you agreed with his decisions of not, he always acted with dignity.
R.I.P.
When he was President he was visiting my city and while here he heard about a young man who was in a physical therapy center regaining use of his legs after being shot (as a bystander) in a fight at his school, and despite being on a tight schedule, President Bush threw a loop in things by spontaneously going to visit this teenager there. Talk about surprise visits! I always thought that was a nice thing for Mr. Bush to do.
Obvious bait resisted.
The world does not revolve around you. I'd be surprised if this hadn't been posted regardless of you.
My favorite president, besides of Iraq incursion and New World Order gaffe
You forgot he was even there. he just did his job. I think thats why they didn't re elect him. His existence and success showed the entirety of politics as a parade of Dick Tracey villains who do "inspiration speeches" and create unnecesary conflicts to keep people from noticing their underlings stealing our $ via taxes and spending and debt.
our governor in MA Charlie Baker is a lot like him
I didn't care for his politics, but he seemed like a nice man.
Back in the 80's, the NWO thing gave me the creeps. But of course I was young and crazy and seeing snakes under every rock.
RIP President Bush.
the most understated of all the recent presidents. A quality I happen to like. hows that for a revision
I think people drastically overreacted to the NWO statement, to be honest. It WAS a New World Order - the Cold War that had defined America's foreign policy for forty years was over, and a drastic realignment was taking place. That is what he meant, nothing more.
Quote from: indianasmith on December 03, 2018, 09:07:37 PM
I think people drastically overreacted to the NWO statement, to be honest. It WAS a New World Order - the Cold War that had defined America's foreign policy for forty years was over, and a drastic realignment was taking place. That is what he meant, nothing more.
Hey- let's be honest. It wasn't the best phrasing. The New World Order=Nazis for most folks.
Ya know, because Hitler coined the term....
Of course so did the WWF...and I don't think they were Nazi's or a secret Masonic sect.
But-like I said, at the time it freaked people out.
Should Bush really have foreseen that conspiracy-theory whackjobs would take "New World Order" to mean the One World Government foretold in Revelation? At that time those people were marginalized, they weren't as loud and prominent as they are today. Alex Jones was not yet a household name.
Wasn't there the same problem after JFK? In his day NWO was a common term for the Communist countires and conspiracy theorists have ran wild with the speech he made referencing them infiltrating US society a few days before his death.
"Verily, nutjobs clad in tin foil hats shall be with thee always, unto the end of the age..."
It reflected a misunderstanding on his part. United States is republic, not an empire. the cold war was supposed to be the end of the worldwide military imprint, not a shift to a new one
Quote from: lester1/2jr on December 04, 2018, 11:31:05 AM
It reflected a misunderstanding on his part. United States is republic, not an empire. the cold war was supposed to be the end of the worldwide military imprint, not a shift to a new one
Being one doesn't mean you can't be the other too.
they are two different things.
And yet Rome managed to be both, as does the USA.
Bush's NWO was based on the idea that America shouldn't go it alone on foreign policy, but seek consensus and alliances to deal with international threats. A better paradigm than either isolationism or American hegemony, IMO. (Now, his son proved it could be abused...)
I'd agree with you there on all points Rev.
Rome proved the opposite
Back to the original topic, the sight of 95 year old Bob Dole struggling to stand so he could salute Bush41 moved me to tears today . . .
Quote from: lester1/2jr on December 04, 2018, 08:05:42 PM
Rome proved the opposite
In what way? Until after Caeser it was a republic, by which time it had been an empire for quite some time (the republic part lasted from approximately 450 years, between the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of an emperor, which was around half the lifespan of the empire. Not to mention that several of the founding fathers themselves spoke of creating an empire. (for example:
QuoteFor George Washington, the US was a "nascent empire." Thomas Jefferson thought that the Constitution of the United States was the perfect foundation on which an "extensive empire" could be built. For Alexander Hamilton, America was the "most interesting empire in the world." While a few argued that a western boundary ought to be set for the US, "the idea was thrown out" at the 1776 Constitutional Conference. What was later called Manifest Destiny would extend the Republic from sea to sea, disproving the theory that "a republic could be preserved only in a small territory." For Jefferson, the original 13 colonies were the "nest from which all America, North and South" would "be peopled." America was by "some way or other" to become "a great and mighty empire.
Just as a side note, ever wondered about the style of architecture of goverment buildings in Washington, or the name of the Senate?
An empire to me is defined by controlling a large land mass, generally taken by force from its native occupants to form a state (check). Characteristics include an ability to project power militarily (check), to a much greater degree than required to maintain it's own borders (check), sustained by a large trade network (check). It has a willingness to deploy force against nations that it feels are against it's interests, even when those countries present a minimal threat, be that on a major military scale, or through intelligence led actions.
I am genuinely interested to hear why you consider the US not to be an empire, although perhaps we should move the discussion to a seperate topic.
Quote from: indianasmith on December 04, 2018, 11:10:24 PM
Back to the original topic, the sight of 95 year old Bob Dole struggling to stand so he could salute Bush41 moved me to tears today . . .
That was incredibly sad and moving: also President Bush's service dog Sully lying by his boss's casket.
alex - where did you get that quote from? those are pretty cherry picked.
and yes I believe the US is NOW an empire but wasn't always. and will likely fall from similar ailments ( see the book of Revelation)
Quote from: lester1/2jr on December 05, 2018, 10:55:49 AM
alex - where did you get that quote from? those are pretty cherry picked.
and yes I believe the US is NOW an empire but wasn't always. and will likely fall from similar ailments ( see the book of Revelation)
The Book of Revelations? :question:
You gotta be kidding me.
May as well quote Nostrodamus.
the point being the empire is destined to fall, not that the book itself has predictive powers or something. I thought it would be more colorful than saying "we are drowning in debt, being overtaken by china as the worlds economic force and in the middle of ten different wars no one cares about"
That particular quote came from a debate, arguing that the US is a benevolent empire, and where it has inflicted harm, it has been an aberration, rather than the normal. If you are interested in that sort of thing, I'll see if I can find it again (to be honest I found it's arguments to be a bit one sided, since one person was making arguments for both sides and wasn't really making any serious attempt at being neutral). It's a subject I've been vaguely following since the mid to late 90's when a slew of books came out with titles like '"The Rise & Fall of the American Empire", and similar such things. I didn't agree at the time that it was an empire in decline, although the political infighting I've seen in the past decade is something traditionally seen before the fall of a great power and I'd be more inclined to accept it as a possibility now.
When a country spends more time fighting itself than it's enemies, it is in trouble (for example when Carthage refused to send Hannibal more troops when he was campaigning in Italy fearing if he victorious he would become powerful enough to take over the state, they signed their own death warrant as a entity, even if the death blow didn't fall until the third war between the two, Rome in its turn became embroiled in internal struggles and civil wars, combined with an increasingly incompetent aristocracy, more concerned with their own power than that of the country as a whole. The death blow may have came from outside, but ).
I find the whole thing to be very cyclic throughout history, countries rise, think they will last forever, fall and then rise again later on. Maybe it is now China's turn (although strategic analysis says that India has a strong chance of eclipsing China, after only a few years of China being the major power).
Personally I think China will overtake the US in certain area's but overall, short of losing a major war between the two nations, the US should remain as the dominant power between the two for a good while yet. Anyway, I am majorly wandering off topic here, so apologies Indy for hijacking your thread.
Quote from: Dark Alex on December 05, 2018, 12:26:16 PM
I find the whole thing to be very cyclic throughout history, countries rise, think they will last forever, fall and then rise again later on. Maybe it is now China's turn (although strategic analysis says that India has a strong chance of eclipsing China, after only a few years of China being the major power).
Oddly enough this is something I studied in a religious course, the rise and fall of civilizations through their pride. If you're not familiar with it read up on the LDS Pride Cycle, I'll clarify anything you have questions on with it.
Civilizations will rise and fall it's inevitable, none will stay on the top for long due to human nature. History is full of examples of this.
But back to the original topic. George HW Bush was a statesman that will be missed.
"Is America Gonna Fall?" has been going on for decades.
We had the Weather Underground, Patty Hearst, Vietnam, Watergate etc... in the 70's. Ain't much different.
The pollution in our major cities was worse. It was horrorfying. I could smell NYC before I could see it.
Riots in Watts, Detroit, kids getting shot on Ohio State campus. The U.S.S.R, s**t going down in the Middle East, terrorists at the Munich Olympic in '72 , s**t man.
When cops shot an unarmed man now-it's all over TV. It happened every f**king day in the 70's.
And I'm just talking about the 70's!
Oh yeah-back on topic. George Bush Sr. was a well read man, and had convictions. He wasn't in it for power or money. He was born into both. He was a Vet, he loved his wife and children, and he was kind to folks on the street.
He seemed like a very descent man.
Quote from: justme2013 on December 05, 2018, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Dark Alex on December 05, 2018, 12:26:16 PM
I find the whole thing to be very cyclic throughout history, countries rise, think they will last forever, fall and then rise again later on. Maybe it is now China's turn (although strategic analysis says that India has a strong chance of eclipsing China, after only a few years of China being the major power).
Oddly enough this is something I studied in a religious course, the rise and fall of civilizations through their pride. If you're not familiar with it read up on the LDS Pride Cycle, I'll clarify anything you have questions on with it.
Civilizations will rise and fall it's inevitable, none will stay on the top for long due to human nature. History is full of examples of this.
But back to the original topic. George HW Bush was a statesman that will be missed.
Interesting! You both have me thinking.
About GHWB I agree, as for the theory on the rise and fall of powers, I agree that this is true though offhand disagree about the Pride Cycle, with which I am not familiar.
I agree that there is a life cycle to all nations, cultures, and civilizations (except the Jews, who defy every supposed law Toynbee or his ilk ever created) but I can't agree that human pride is a significant factor.
If anything pride tends to sustain. Pride-based nationalism the hallmark of the First Turning, the high period within historical cycles. (We are in a late Third Turning right now in the US, I'd say.)
When Rome kept Roman citizenship exclusive and proudly valued it above all things, its power was on the ascendant. When Roman pride slipped to the point foreigners were welcomed into its borders with few to no limits and welfare was provided, there was a weakening of national identity that preceded the long collapse in the west. The eastern half, which sustained civic pride and did not deal with an invited influx of outsiders, fared better and lasted another thousand years in the form of the Byzantine Empire. The more open west dissolved.
Lesson? Diversity destroys, homogeneity of thought strengthens? Perhaps?
I'd say underrated factors in civilizations coming to an end tend toward being geographical and meteorological.
An example here within our own present-day national borders is the great Mesoamerican power center Cahokia, in what is now Illinois. From the 1000s AD through the late 1200s AD Cahokia was among the largest cities on the planet with thousands of villages and towns owing allegiance to it across the Mississippi and Ohio valleys. Its great earthen mound still stands and is larger than any Egyptian pyramid. To imagine the state that could build such a thing, by hand, without wheels or pack animals, awes me.
Yet this mega-empire seems to have fallen in the 1300s because a change in climate for the colder meant their long-depleted cornfields no longer thrived, crop failure increased, cheap available grains no longer filled the marketplaces and hungry people no longer stayed fed in the city center of 20,000.
Within a generation, as far as we can tell, this centuries-old culture saw its people return to the forests and again take on hunter-gatherer practices as they had not in almost half a millennium. Its hemisphere-spanning trade networks fell apart, regionalism grew, discord and war rose (as the archaeological record shows) the greatness of Cahokia was forgotten even among the descendants of its citizens, by the time of European arrival in the 1600s becoming the stuff of campfire legend. (As I've said before, never undervalue myth and legend; they often contain truth.)
Did pride play a role there in Cahokia's fall? I don't know, but we can be sure climate did.
Weather, mismanagement of resources, these are major movers of peoples. Outsiders seeking resources press inward against the borders of great civilizations, precipitating collapse. Starving people are a challenge and several times almost undermined Rome long before it finally ended.
Although I'd be interested in reading more about the LDS hypothesis you mentioned, I can't see how the psychology of the people during the high/low points of a nation can be said to play the most important role when considered against larger factors. If Pride destroys, somebody better warn the gay community, eh?
China may be eternal, Jews may always wander, but I don't think the US is going to outlast even some children alive today, and we were prouder in times past, when we were greater.
Thanks you guys for a stimulating topic within a topic!
You're getting very theological, ER.
I don't think most folks think about politics too much. They think of politics as TV.
It's like the ultimate reality show.
I won't mind if they make it legal to run people over for points, though! :drink:
Alex-I'm not much of a Roman history buff but as i understood it, they ceased being a republic when they "crossed the Rubicon" . is that not right?
It wasn't so much a comment on the qualities of the two styles of government, I just was under the impression they were different things.
When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, (in my opinion) it was the start of the death of the Republic, and I would personally date its end with his victory in the subsequent civil war but Caeser was never actually able to declare himself an emperor (and historians still argue over he would have or not, my money is on if he thought he could have gotten away with it, he would have. My old history teacher was convinced the Caesar thought he was acting in the best interests of the Republic and felt he had to act to save it). Indy, though knows a lot more about Rome than me.
Quote from: Dark Alex on December 06, 2018, 03:34:20 AM
When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, (in my opinion) it was the start of the death of the Republic, and I would personally date its end with his victory in the subsequent civil war but Caeser was never actually able to declare himself an emperor (and historians still argue over he would have or not, my money is on if he thought he could have gotten away with it, he would have. My old history teacher was convinced the Caesar thought he was acting in the best interests of the Republic and felt he had to act to save it). Indy, though knows a lot more about Rome than me.
I've always wondered if it might have been possible that Caesar deliberately provoked the senate into assassinating him as an alternative to suicide or gradually succumbing to his worsening epilepsy...
I don't think so; he was too eager to ride off into the East and defeat the Parthians to avenge his old friend Crassus.
I imagine after returning from that campaign he would've resigned the dictatorship.
I suppose we'll nefer know, I just wondered if he preferred another death to succumbing to his epilepsy.
Obviously Caligula was the coolest guy ever, don't need a history degree to know that
Quote from: lester1/2jr on December 06, 2018, 10:40:06 AM
Obviously Caligula was the coolest guy ever, don't need a history degree to know that
Um, yeah.....
Back to OT, I thought that Pres. Bush's funeral service was very beautiful, and W's tribute to his father induced me to tears.
I'm glad the funeral's over. A little Bush is fine but too much Bush and you'd swear we're back in the last century. But I guess how much Bush is too much Bush is fuzzy and leads to a split.
Honest question: was it right to shut down the government for this funeral?
Quote from: El Misfit on December 06, 2018, 11:22:57 PM
Honest question: was it right to shut down the government for this funeral?
Does it matter? It's not like they have been doing anything good lately anyway... :bluesad:
The entire government did not shut down. Congress delayed its weekly session, and that is the norm for such occasions.
The mail didn't run on Wednesday...which may be a good thing, being as it's junk flyers and bills.
Lawsy, I give up. In Galway that'd been a slow pitch.
I forgot they did that with the casket going around to all the places. its a little ostentatious