Author |
Topic: History :) (v.long) (Read 163 times) |
|
Simon
New Board Veteran
 
Gender: 
Posts: 123
|
 |
History :) (v.long)
« on: Jun 26th, 2004, 5:40am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I was feeling a little bored this morning, and felt that I should brush up on my modern American history. It seems from what I read here that things are not as simple as they sound. With a little careful editing, and research here and elsewhere I have made a start at three sections. I have tried to include what I am told are called “buzz-words”, apparently an important thing in getting to the truth in American literature. I was extremely puzzled to find that there seemed to be two distinct versions, and I wonder if you might help me decide which is correct. I have separated them by giving them two different authors, a Ms. Libera L’Vota and a Prof. G.O.P. Trenchant. (His appears in post 2)
Partly a reaction to the evils of McCarthyism, and partly the undignified appearance of Nixon in the infamous TV debate, showing his dissolute and unreliable character, the youthful and clean-living Kennedy fortunately won the election. Refreshingly he took an active role in the problems of the South because of his belief that he should do what was right, despite any personal considerations. All that he did he managed to do despite health problems which would have incapacitated a lesser man. Soviet adventurism gave him the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his youth and determination enabled him to face down Kruschev over this….
…The period of Vietnam was a tragedy in our nation’s history. Many diplomatic avenues were left unexplored and the Military Industrial Complex was allowed to flex its muscles in a futile and unnecessary adventure. Young men (“draftees”) were dragged off to a part of the world they had never heard of, to fight a war they didn’t believe in, against an enemy that has subsequently proved to have been far less of a threat than it was portrayed at the time. Democracy at home was more threatened, and with those who bravely protested against the war were some who had fought, even throwing medals they had won to show their rejection of a cause and a Government that did their country no credit. Despite thousands of deaths among our own soldiers and countless more amongst the civilian population, little was really achieved….
…Succeeding presidencies were marred by a series of controversies which have led to a debate on the “personal” vs the “professional”. How much should a president be judged on how successfully he lives his own life, and how much on how effective he is at his job? Sex, lying, cover-ups, economic booms, international relations and America’s role in the world all come into this. It is clear that nearly all Americans are of the opinion that one’s private life is a matter for oneself and one’s family. Issues of divorce, affairs, and sexuality are ever-present in modern life and obviously give no sign of how well a President might cope with more important matters – it is certainly worth remembering that such things are legal. Indeed it might be argued that some experience of such things gives a more rounded understanding of the average American. The hounding of Clinton over his affair however, and the way it risked disabling his presidency, embarrassed the US. (Elsewhere things are viewed differently – Mitterand’s commonly-acknowledged mistress and his widow were both at his funeral –this French attitude might explain why they sometimes regard US policy as potentially suspect too…) Where questions of legality come in, it is strange how our priorities sometimes get warped. Hound Clinton, pardon Nixon? A President’s respect has to be judged at home and abroad, and his life continues after the Oval Office. The two ex-Presidents with most international clout are Carter and Clinton – this seems unlikely to change in the near future.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 26th, 2004, 5:42am by Simon » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Simon
New Board Veteran
Gender:
Posts: 123
|
|
Re: History :)
« Reply #1 on: Jun 26th, 2004, 5:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
Part 2... (sorry folks)
Despite Senator MacCarthy doing his best to expose the evils of the Communist-dominated Democrats, they managed soon after to rig the 1960 election, despite the efforts of right-minded voters. This led to a womanising and self-serving leader, who managed to muzzle the free press to avoid his dirty laundry being exposed. His contempt for the First Amendment further showed in the way he hid his health problems, and drug dependence, to deceive a great nation. He only helped the blacks in the so-called “Civil Rights” period in order to secure his own electoral chances. Clearly as a priveleged product of the political class, this could not have been out of any real sympathy. A more experienced politician would not have allowed the Russians to get near Cuba in the first place and his so-called “heroics” should not have been necessary…
…Vietnam was a divisive period for the nation. Most young men were prepared to stand up and bravely be counted with their Government in a fight against the evils of World Communism. Some, however, were always going to take their chance to spit in the face of authority and reject this fight to protect American values – disgracefully, some military personnel were seen with these draft-dodging liberals. Their disrespect to their colleagues was shown as they even threw their medals away at such rallies. It is clear that some had even managed to pull strings to avoid real danger and yet take part in these stunts. Though the solution to this conflict was not as clear cut as it might have been because of left-wing and international interference, the advance of the Evil Empire was halted….
…Succeeding presidencies were marred by a series of controversies which have led to a debate on the “personal” vs the “professional”. How much should a president be judged on how successfully he lives his own life, and how much on how effective he is at his job? Sex, lying, cover-ups, economic booms, international relations and America’s role in the world all come into this. It is clear that nearly all Americans are of the opinion that [strangely both versions are the same to here – ed] one’s private life affects all aspects of how one sees the world. Having a dubious private life clearly suggests that other aspects might be dubious too. Can we trust an adulterer with the nuclear trigger? Most Americans disapprove of an “unconventional” domestic set-up, and it would be an embarrassment when dealing with other world leaders. The role of the Presidency is too important for one man to damage. Clinton embarrassed himself, but more importantly, he embarrassed America. How difficult was it for parents to answer their children’ questions about their own President? It is obvious though that lengthy and complicated legal cases might damage the US, and it was right that President Ford should be able to begin his time in office with a clean slate. The Constitution demands that the President should protect his office – that includes its reputation. Decisive leadership is the main political legacy of our national leaders, along with a respect for values, family or national. Reagan and two Bushes are fine examples of this from the past few years.
Can you help me?
Dolly
(PS. Just in case – I hope you appreciate the joke – I don’t want to offend (much...))
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Member Map
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
test rss