Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2022, 12:30 AM
 
8,894 posts, read 5,376,871 times
Reputation: 5697

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousgeorge5 View Post
Al Gore was a loser? Wasn't he much more intelligent and sincere than W?
Nope. I would think just about anyone could come up with a better excuse than excessive consumption of iced tea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2022, 05:54 AM
 
5,429 posts, read 4,462,822 times
Reputation: 7268
I don't think Bush could have won. I was 9 when this election and this is the first election that I was old enough to remember.

Bill Clinton had much better energy than George HW Bush. Clinton was 45-46 during the 1992 election cycle and Bush was 67-68. Most 45-46 year olds are more energetic than 67-68 year olds. A similar thing happened in 2008 with 46-47 year old Obama going up against 71-72 year old McCain.

The early 1990s recession is what ended any hopes of a Bush re-election. The incumbent parties always get blamed for bad economic conditions at the times of election. It happened in 1980, 1992, 2000 (the early stages of the dot com bust), and 2008. The early 1990s recession was a joke though compared to future recessions. I graduated from my MBA program in the 2007-08 school year, the WORST YEAR in history to be a new MBA graduate. I felt 2008 immensely. However, at the time, people were displeased with the early 1990s recession.

Bush didn't keep his campaign promise of "Read My Lips, No New Taxes".

Bush as Commander in Chief failed to have the US military get a corpse for Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2022, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
5,818 posts, read 2,673,051 times
Reputation: 5707
He probably would have, if not for Perot.

However, Clinton stole the show with his charisma. Bush looked like an old, inept, out-of-touch rich guy compared to Clinton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2022, 08:04 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,218 posts, read 107,977,655 times
Reputation: 116167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SerlingHitchcockJPeele View Post
Bill Clinton won because of Ross Perot
Clinton won because it WAS "the economy, Stupid", after Reagan had denied in debate with Carter that there was anything wrong with the economy, then back-pedaling in the Presidency, sheepishly acknowledging that there were serious problems with the economy. He then proceeded to make the problems even worse, and hand them down to his successors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2022, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Southwest
2,599 posts, read 2,325,568 times
Reputation: 1976
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312 View Post
...Bush as Commander in Chief failed to have the US military get a corpse for Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War.
He didn't have the military try to get Hussein.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2022, 11:27 AM
 
2,194 posts, read 1,141,307 times
Reputation: 5827
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
Perot stole some of Bush's votes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister 7 View Post
He probably would have, if not for Perot.
Post #22 people, so we can at least have some quit parroting this falsehood. Why come here if you're not going to read the other replies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2022, 03:24 AM
 
Location: HONOLULU
1,014 posts, read 480,268 times
Reputation: 333
I thought George Bush wasn't for the military. How much people died in the Gulf War? Not as much as the Vietnam war, but enough to make a dent that families felt the hurt after their son or daughter didn't come back. Well maybe not daughter then, but son. Ronald Reagan was for the military. But he was an actor. So the trouble politically during 1980s and Guantanamo bay, Cuba have existed after Ronald Reagan got elected. The military during that time was in high demand. Though no draft for the military was ever implemented during the Reagan years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2022, 07:31 AM
 
14,400 posts, read 14,318,816 times
Reputation: 45732
Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousgeorge5 View Post
He didn't have the military try to get Hussein.
Bush had a great deal of foresight. He realized the problems that might result if Hussein was deposed as the leader in Iraq. He understood the USA would end up administering Iraq and that it would be a difficult job. That is why he ordered his generals to stop once Hussein's army had been pushed out of Kuwait. Unfortunately, his son didn't have the same ability and the second war in Iraq was costly in terms of money and human lives for this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2022, 07:49 AM
 
8,420 posts, read 7,422,672 times
Reputation: 8769
Regarding MarkG's post above, Bush I was also limited by the fact that the other leaders in the coalition had joined to drive the Iraqi army from Kuwait and to liberate it, not to overthrow Saddam Hussein. If Bush had ordered US forces into Iraq on a mission of regime change, the other forces would not have followed.

What Bush did do after Kuwait was liberated was broadcast propaganda into Iraq calling for a revolt against Saddam Hussein. The goal was to get the Iraqi Army to depose Hussein via military coup. Instead, the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq rose up in a people's revolt, expecting the US forces to support them. Instead, the US sat on the side lines and the Iraqi Army under Hussein crushed the Marsh Arabs. In hindsight, the call for Hussein's overthrow was a humanitarian failure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2022, 08:27 AM
 
5,429 posts, read 4,462,822 times
Reputation: 7268
Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousgeorge5 View Post
He didn't have the military try to get Hussein.
Getting a corpse is essential to a war effort. Hitler and Mussolini were killed as a result of World War II. World War II was more successful than the Persian Gulf War but not entirely successful. World War II was ended too soon. General MacArthur was correct that there were still issues in Asia that justified an ongoing war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top