• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

who is the worse president in our history?

jfuh said:
The lack of understanding is that you can not admit that the referendum was utterly defeated because Chen could not get enough support for his agenda. It's just that simple. The rules are set, you want to play, you follow by the rules. I was pissed that Chen got elected, but hey, the rules are set the way they are.

Once again, the referendum wasn't defeated. It was non-binding. About 90% of people who voted voted in favor, but only 45% of the electorate voted.

Not on his pro-independence ideology. We don't exactly want war you know.

So, Taiwan should just wait and in the future, when China orders Taiwan to join it or there will be war, you will lead the "Join Communist China for Peace" brigades?

Did the US sign a treaty with the Native americans to aquire any part of the east coast? Did any colony sign any treaty with the Native Americans to take over thier land?

The U.S. signed a treaty with Britain, the internationally recognized sovereign over the territory. Tough fact of life, but in the international law of that era, only states were recognized as having sovereign authority and the Indian tribes were not recognized as states.

Again more proof your partisanship blinds your judgement.
Cairo and Postdam are far more then just memos of understanding by heads of government. The declarations were accepted by Japan in its surrender. Those documents clearly state that Taiwan was to be returned to Chinese sovereignty at the end of World War II.

That is EXACTLY what Cairo and Potsdam were. They were nonbinding. As for the Instrument of Surrender, who signed it? GENERALS. Not elected leaders and they sure as heck were not ratified treaties. Certainly does NOT meet the requirement of a ratified peace treaty being necessary for the transfer of soveregnty.

Did the SF treaty include or not include the nullification of 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki?

No it did not.

If it didn't then by your own guidlines the treaty of Taipei is completely valid. The treaty of Shimonoseki is the only international treaty that binds authority of Japan over Taiwan.

You don't get it, do you. Japan did indeed gain sovereignty over Taiwan through the Treaty of Shimonoseki, but LOST it in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco. That was ratified and in effect BEFORE the Treaty of Taipei (which China doesn't recognize) was even signed. You CAN'T assign sovereignty over a territory that you no longer have sovereignty over. For your argument to hold water, Japan would still have to have de jure sovereignty over Taiwan when the treaty was signed in 1952. It clearly did not as per the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

But then seeing as no representative from neither the ROC nor PRC was present at the SF signing because of recognition of who is China. As such there was no official peace treaty between ROC and Japan and as such, 1945 was officially a ceasefire between the two nations.

Irrelevant. Japan can sign a treaty with whomever they like. As Taiwan was their sovereign territory, the presence or absense of Chinese delegates is quite irrelevant. They could have signed a treaty with the Philippines if they wanted to and it would have been perfectly valid.

THe Treaty of Taipei thus officially ended the war between Japan and China.

True, but Taiwan's disposition had already occurred. Japan no longer had sovereignty over the island. Thus, any provision involving sovereignty over the island is null and void as Japan had no standing.

You have absolutely no understanding of this but your partisanship.
It's fun how you always bring up the SF treaty but never bring up the Treaty of Taipei.

The Treaty of Taipei is completely irrelevant. Funny how your KMT boys want to keep the San Francisco Peace Treaty out of Taiwanese history textbooks.

As the ROC government did not ratify the terms of the SF Peace treaty, the terms are non-binding and cannot alter the validity of the claims by the ROC.

Wrong. Japan had the right to sign a treaty with anyone they wanted over the sovereignty of Taiwan. The ROC had no standing because it wasn't the de jure sovereign authority over the island, Japan was.

Which is why the Taipei peace treaty was required.

Again, wrong. Japan gave up its sovereign authority over Taiwan in the SFPT. It no longer had standing to sign documents regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan.

The proclamation of Taiwan retrocession in 1945 by the ROC was entirely uncontested. By international laws, which you hold so high over your head, had another party been sovereign over Taiwan, that party would have had a period of years in which to protest, and its failure to do so represents cession of rights.

Doesn't quite work that way. Japan still had de jure sovereignty and the ROC was administering the island ON BEHALF of the Allies. The Taiwanese people weren't given the opportunity to speak. In case you don't remember the bloody history of the KMT - 2/28 and the White Terror kept most people silent.

That was my question. Yes what relevance do medial portrayals have over how the administration really is? I'll cite you an old proverb: "Actions speak louder then words"

And President CHen has disappointed me on many fronts.

Actually it's that I don't care for the difference in your flags when the agendas are similar.

But one is the DPP flag and the other is the flag of the World Taiwanese Congress. That you couldn't tell the different between the two is telling that you are perhaps more ignorant about things here than you want people to believe. It is obvious that you don't know much about basic international law.

Why do I not want the nut heads to declare independence or even hold such a referendum? ARe you kidding? Because I do not want the PLA to start launching a full blown assault on the island that's why, you want to bet money down on this? How much you want to bet that if the island regardless of pass or not pass, simply declared to hold a referendum on declaration of independence that the PLA is going to start shooting over missles and sending in the red stars?

So, once again, ten or fifteen years from now, when Red China demands unification or war, will you be on the "Unify with China for Peace" bandwagon too?

Secondly, Taiwan is China, you know, aka The Republic of China.

THat is completely absurd. The only islands that the ROC has legal de jure sovereignty over are Matsu and Kinmen and the other handful of offshore islands that are formally part of Fujian Province.
 
ludahai said:
Once again, the referendum wasn't defeated. It was non-binding. About 90% of people who voted voted in favor, but only 45% of the electorate voted.
You win, or you loose; you're victorious, or you're defeated. Chen's referendum was defeated. Spin it all you like.

ludahai said:
So, Taiwan should just wait and in the future, when China orders Taiwan to join it or there will be war, you will lead the "Join Communist China for Peace" brigades?
I'd like to See Beijing try and order Taiwan to join. In the mean time though I'm not going to do anything on my part to bring unneccesary risk to my friends and family.

ludahai said:
The U.S. signed a treaty with Britain, the internationally recognized sovereign over the territory. Tough fact of life, but in the international law of that era, only states were recognized as having sovereign authority and the Indian tribes were not recognized as states.
Wait wait wait, excuse me, even with the US signing with britain, that is only a small part of what is the US of today. More importantly who did the British sign any treaty with? Who has the authority to recognize who is and who are not states.
Oh wait, I see, when it is European whites settling it's binding, however any other ethnicity and it's non-binding or doesn't exist as a state by the rules set up by, hmm who was it, oh right, europeans.
Funny you would make such an argument because Taiwan was never in any time a nation state.

ludahai said:
That is EXACTLY what Cairo and Potsdam were. They were nonbinding. As for the Instrument of Surrender, who signed it? GENERALS. Not elected leaders and they sure as heck were not ratified treaties. Certainly does NOT meet the requirement of a ratified peace treaty being necessary for the transfer of soveregnty.
Postdamn and Cairo were the conditions for surrender that the Japanese accepted, thus it includes the reference towards returning taiwan and penghu to China - a condition of surrender.
Also China, as one of the warring states with Japan did they sign the peace treaty of SF? Was China even invited?

ludahai said:
No it did not.

You don't get it, do you. Japan did indeed gain sovereignty over Taiwan through the Treaty of Shimonoseki, but LOST it in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco. That was ratified and in effect BEFORE the Treaty of Taipei (which China doesn't recognize) was even signed. You CAN'T assign sovereignty over a territory that you no longer have sovereignty over. For your argument to hold water, Japan would still have to have de jure sovereignty over Taiwan when the treaty was signed in 1952. It clearly did not as per the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
For a peace treaty between two nations to be binding, both nations need to be present. Thus Without the presence of China at the SF peace treaty, the treaty is non-binding between China and Japan. The US nor any other foreign nation has a say so over what 3rd nation has authority over which foriegn nation's territory belongs to who.


ludahai said:
Irrelevant. Japan can sign a treaty with whomever they like. As Taiwan was their sovereign territory, the presence or absense of Chinese delegates is quite irrelevant. They could have signed a treaty with the Philippines if they wanted to and it would have been perfectly valid.
Then China and Japan were still at war. Japan can sign a treaty with anyone of course, however signing a treaty with the US or GB stating it is at peace with them is non-binding towards a peace treaty between China. The terms signed between China and Japan for cease fire were very clear as to who's authority Taiwan and Penghu islands would be returned to.

ludahai said:
True, but Taiwan's disposition had already occurred. Japan no longer had sovereignty over the island. Thus, any provision involving sovereignty over the island is null and void as Japan had no standing.
The terms of the cease fire between Taiwan and Japan explicitly note of whom Taiwan and penghu would be returned to. Including Section A of article 15 of the SF peace treaty:
(a) Upon application made within nine months of the coming into force of the present Treaty between Japan and the Allied Power concerned, Japan will, within six months of the date of such application, return the property, tangible and intangible, and all rights or interests of any kind in Japan of each Allied Power and its nationals which was within Japan at any time between 7 December 1941 and 2 September 1945, unless the owner has freely disposed thereof without duress or fraud.
China was an allied power.

ludahai said:
The Treaty of Taipei is completely irrelevant. Funny how your KMT boys want to keep the San Francisco Peace Treaty out of Taiwanese history textbooks.
Interesting then how Ma would make a speech about it at Stanford.

ludahai said:
Wrong. Japan had the right to sign a treaty with anyone they wanted over the sovereignty of Taiwan. The ROC had no standing because it wasn't the de jure sovereign authority over the island, Japan was.
If you're going to say so then by default, Taiwan is unclaimed except by China - ROC. Thus is very much officially and internationally legally ROC.

ludahai said:
Again, wrong. Japan gave up its sovereign authority over Taiwan in the SFPT. It no longer had standing to sign documents regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan.
Article 15 of SF.

ludahai said:
Doesn't quite work that way. Japan still had de jure sovereignty and the ROC was administering the island ON BEHALF of the Allies. The Taiwanese people weren't given the opportunity to speak. In case you don't remember the bloody history of the KMT - 2/28 and the White Terror kept most people silent.
:lamo, ROC was the ALLIES. The Taiwanese ppl did not represent any sovereing state neither, and only states are recognized in international treaties, as per dicated by european powers.
2/28 happened in 1947 not 1951; that's not white terror. Which in either case the issue is about sovereignty which you claim ROC does not have, nothing about human rights here. The native americans were not given a voice neither. Your partisanship is showing.

ludahai said:
And President CHen has disappointed me on many fronts.
As I'm sure Bush has, yet admist so, you continue to support these ppl.

ludahai said:
But one is the DPP flag and the other is the flag of the World Taiwanese Congress. That you couldn't tell the different between the two is telling that you are perhaps more ignorant about things here than you want people to believe. It is obvious that you don't know much about basic international law.
No, this is not ignorance, this is arrogance at best. You're attempt to tie my arrogance towards the subtle differences between the WTC and the DPP flags amounts to zero validity of argument towards international law arguments. It is clear that you pick only international laws that side with you and ignore others. They're applicable for some ppl, but not others.

ludahai said:
So, once again, ten or fifteen years from now, when Red China demands unification or war, will you be on the "Unify with China for Peace" bandwagon too?
If Red China demands Unification over something it has no stake or governance over, I will probably be one of the first to be at the front line. However my actions and character are completely irrelevent to the argument at hand and nor is the hypothetical and improbable case of Red China demanding unification. A nice red herring you're presenting here but as all herrings go, invalid.

ludahai said:
THat is completely absurd. The only islands that the ROC has legal de jure sovereignty over are Matsu and Kinmen and the other handful of offshore islands that are formally part of Fujian Province.
Simply yelling so without any valid proofs does not validate your claim.

Just thought I'd point this out, but very few ppl except for the fundamenalists still hold that Taiwan is not legally and officially ROC. Of course though, numbers are irrelevent to validity.
 
jfuh said:
You win, or you loose; you're victorious, or you're defeated. Chen's referendum was defeated. Spin it all you like.

You are the one who is full of spin. Apparently the vagaries of electoral law are beyond you. The referendum was invalid, thus NONBINDING. Again, if this is the logic you use for the arms sale referendum, why not the negotiations with China referendum? Your KMT buddies don't seem to follow their own twisted logic on THAT one.

I'd like to See Beijing try and order Taiwan to join. In the mean time though I'm not going to do anything on my part to bring unneccesary risk to my friends and family.

You are missing my point (surprise, surprise). I didn't say now, I said 15 years from now when they have a significant edge over Taiwan militarily. You are only delaying the inevitable, only it will be worse then. Taiwan will NOT be able to stand up to Taiwan (partly due to the refusal of your buddies to authorized the arms purchase) and it is possible that the US may be completely alienated by then due to the actions of the pan Blue.

Wait wait wait, excuse me, even with the US signing with britain, that is only a small part of what is the US of today. More importantly who did the British sign any treaty with? Who has the authority to recognize who is and who are not states.

Well, that would be all of the US east of the Mississippi except for Florida.
The international community recognized states, at that time being the Great Powers. The Great Powers recognized China as a state, granting China protections and rights not possessed by other smaller kingdoms in Asia. There WERE no states as such in North America north of Mexico. Also, in the 17th and 18th century, conquest was also considered a valid way to axxex territory without the benefit of a peace treaty.

Again, do some reading into the evolution of international law. Besides, this sidetrack is COMPLETELY irrelevant to Taiwan. China recognized the validity of international law in the early 1860s and Japan did with the Meiji Restoration. So, your claim is moot.

Oh wait, I see, when it is European whites settling it's binding, however any other ethnicity and it's non-binding or doesn't exist as a state by the rules set up by, hmm who was it, oh right, europeans.
Funny you would make such an argument because Taiwan was never in any time a nation state.

Again, irrelevant. There have been numerous territories through history that became nations following wars. The best example is after World War I. How many new states emerged (largely from the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy) that were never before states. Your claim doesn't hold water at all. Many of the new states post WWII and through decolonialization era have no or very weak historical antecedants.

Postdamn and Cairo were the conditions for surrender that the Japanese accepted, thus it includes the reference towards returning taiwan and penghu to China - a condition of surrender.

Once again, no ratified treaty, no transfer of territory. Basic component of international law.

Also China, as one of the warring states with Japan did they sign the peace treaty of SF? Was China even invited?

Irrelevant. Japan could have a signed a treaty with the Philippines and ceded the territory to them if they wanted. China was not an essential party to the treaty because Taiwan was Japan's sovereign territory. THEY and THEY alone have the right to choose who to conclude a treaty with.

For a peace treaty between two nations to be binding, both nations need to be present. Thus Without the presence of China at the SF peace treaty, the treaty is non-binding between China and Japan. The US nor any other foreign nation has a say so over what 3rd nation has authority over which foriegn nation's territory belongs to who.

The treaty is binding. There were some two dozen nations present. They signed and ratified the treaty. That China was NOT one of them is completely irrelevant. The territory of Taiwan wasn't a part of China, it was legally a part of Japan. Thus, China has NO STANDING unless Japan includes them in the negotiations and signs a treaty with them. They didn't until AFTER they had already surrendered the territory. Your understanding of international law is incredibly limited.

Then China and Japan were still at war. Japan can sign a treaty with anyone of course, however signing a treaty with the US or GB stating it is at peace with them is non-binding towards a peace treaty between China. The terms signed between China and Japan for cease fire were very clear as to who's authority Taiwan and Penghu islands would be returned to.

So? Japan had no authority to conduct a treaty conderning Taiwan and the Pescadores because JAPAN NO LONGER HAD SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY over those islands! Why can't you get that?!?!? Very basic! We are talking the first week of International Law 601 here.

The terms of the cease fire between Taiwan and Japan explicitly note of whom Taiwan and penghu would be returned to. Including Section A of article 15 of the SF peace treaty:
China was an allied power.

But not a party to the peace treaty.

Interesting then how Ma would make a speech about it at Stanford.

Ma, like the rest of the KMT, is completely blind to the existance of the SFPT. They don't even want it in Taiwanese textbooks.

If you're going to say so then by default, Taiwan is unclaimed except by China - ROC. Thus is very much officially and internationally legally ROC.

I am afraid that if this went before the ICJ, you would be sorely disappointed.

Article 15 of SF.

:lamo, ROC was the ALLIES. The Taiwanese ppl did not represent any sovereing state neither, and only states are recognized in international treaties, as per dicated by european powers.

Not relevant. The UN Charter refers to self determination of PEOPLES - not states. This is a carry-over from Wilson's Fourteen Points, which said the same thing.

2/28 happened in 1947 not 1951; that's not white terror. Which in either case the issue is about sovereignty which you claim ROC does not have, nothing about human rights here. The native americans were not given a voice neither. Your partisanship is showing.

When did I say 2/28 happened in 1951? I know it happened in 1947. I was identifying events that happened with the KMT, I was NOT saying that they were one and the same. Shesh!! YOU are the LAST person on this board who should be saying anything about partainship.

As for native Americans, once again, international law has evolved over time. The whole self-determination of peoples idea didn't become codifed into international law until after World War II. Furthermore, Taiwan was left terra derelicta by the Japanese. That is exactly the same state East Timor (now Timor Leste) was left in by the Portuguese. The UN and the International Community never truly recognized the illegal annexation by Indonesia. They got their referendum, and they are now an independent country. Western Sahara will eventually get their referendum as well. The international community DOES NOT recognize Morocco's claim to the territory that Spain left terra derelicta.


No, this is not ignorance, this is arrogance at best. You're attempt to tie my arrogance towards the subtle differences between the WTC and the DPP flags amounts to zero validity of argument towards international law arguments. It is clear that you pick only international laws that side with you and ignore others. They're applicable for some ppl, but not others.

Well, you have shown scant knowledge of international law at best. You accused me of being a DPP member (which I am not) based on the WRONG flag. Perhaps you should do a little bit of research and reading before coming back. I am tired of this very simple review of the first two weeks of International Law 601.

If Red China demands Unification over something it has no stake or governance over, I will probably be one of the first to be at the front line. However my actions and character are completely irrelevent to the argument at hand and nor is the hypothetical and improbable case of Red China demanding unification. A nice red herring you're presenting here but as all herrings go, invalid.

Not invalid, just more exposure of your hypocrisy and your complete lack of faith in the Taiwanese people to choose their own path. Funny that I, a foreigner, have more faith in the decision of the Taiwanese people than you do.

Just thought I'd point this out, but very few ppl except for the fundamenalists still hold that Taiwan is not legally and officially ROC. Of course though, numbers are irrelevent to validity.

I agree with the last four words, numbers are completely irrelevant. Perhaps you should talk with Richard Hartzell who believes that the U.S. is the legal military occupying authority over Taiwan. I have sparred with him in the past on that position as I completely disagree with him. However, he has a much better handle on international law than YOU do.
 
Jimmy 'Down On The Farm' Carter with WillieJeff a close second. Oddly enough, they both have a connection with Navy Blue :rofl
 
Lincoln, hands down.
 
ludahai said:
I have already point out to you that domestic considerations (including suspensions of constitutions) have no consideration under pre-WWII international law. The Texans were dealing with the president of Mexico in good faith, and the fact that Santa Anna suspended the Constitution has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. It would treat him and the system IN PLACE AT THAT TIME as legalling binding vis a vis others. Here is the basic concept behind it, if governments didn't have a reasonable expectation that agreements would be honored by successor regimes, then you would simply pummel your opposition into the ground, causing immeasurable additional suffering. I would suggest the works of Hugo Grotius and other scholars of international law as a starting point on the history and development of public international law.

If that's what you were saying, then wouldn't he have to be in control of the government at the time then?

A revolution went on, his country declares another system of government of which Anna has no part. This new government actually controls the country, Santa Anna was in a prison in the United States.

Between Janurary 27, 1835 and March, 18 1839 he was not in control of the country, he had no power whatsoever. The treaty of Valasco was written in 1836.
 
Only 2 Presidents in HISTORY have been Impeached - both Democrats! That limits the debate to 2, depending on the criteria. 1 Betrayed his nation by SELLING the enemy's military the missile technology they needed to reach this country with its nuclear arsenal, thereby giving it the power to threaten our existence in the future and FRY millions of Americans in the process.
Case Closed.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
If that's what you were saying, then wouldn't he have to be in control of the government at the time then?

A revolution went on, his country declares another system of government of which Anna has no part. This new government actually controls the country, Santa Anna was in a prison in the United States.

Between Janurary 27, 1835 and March, 18 1839 he was not in control of the country, he had no power whatsoever. The treaty of Valasco was written in 1836.

According to two books I have on Mexican history, Santa Anna was the legally recognized head of state in Mexico until shortly AFTER the signing of the Treaty of Velasco when a coup overthrew his government. Also, he was NOT in a U.S. jail. Amazing how you go out of your way to distort history to make the U.S. out to be the bad guy. Prime symptom of Leftist Syndrome.
 
ludahai said:
According to two books I have on Mexican history, Santa Anna was the legally recognized head of state in Mexico until shortly AFTER the signing of the Treaty of Velasco when a coup overthrew his government. Also, he was NOT in a U.S. jail. Amazing how you go out of your way to distort history to make the U.S. out to be the bad guy. Prime symptom of Leftist Syndrome.

It's the fact that rightist call me leftist and leftist call me rightist that makes me so creditable.

Get this, Anna was captive in Texas at the signing of the treaty, why else would his release be outlined in it? He had no real power over Mexico to do so, and no legal power because the Mexican legislature never ratified it.
 
What does "creditable" mean? Does it mean you have a good credit score and can receive loans easily? I prefer credibility over creditability.:lol:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
What does "creditable" mean? Does it mean you have a good credit score and can receive loans easily? I prefer credibility over creditability.:lol:

However my grammer and spelling is... less than perfect :D
 
-Demosthenes- said:
However my grammer and spelling is... less than perfect :D

No hard feelings. It is an all to common mistake. That is why I had my micro-rant. You aren't the first, or the last, to make this mistake.:2razz:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
No hard feelings. It is an all to common mistake. That is why I had my micro-rant. You aren't the first, or the last, to make this mistake.:2razz:
:ranton: You aren't the first, NOR the last to make this mistake:rantoff: :2wave:
 
jfuh said:
:ranton: You aren't the first, NOR the last to make this mistake:rantoff: :2wave:

Touche:doh
 
-Demosthenes- said:
It's the fact that rightist call me leftist and leftist call me rightist that makes me so creditable.

In your dreams perhaps. Since when is ignorance of basic principles of international law made one credible?

Get this, Anna was captive in Texas at the signing of the treaty, why else would his release be outlined in it? He had no real power over Mexico to do so, and no legal power because the Mexican legislature never ratified it.
He was still the head of state. The Mexican constitution had been suspended. In accordance with international law, he had the authority to sign treaties on behalf of Mexico.

Further, as the Mexican government didn't act on any claims regarding Texas FOR TEN YEARS, that is tacit acceptance of Texan independence, something also acceptable under pre-WWII public international law.
 
jfuh said:
:ranton: You aren't the first, NOR the last to make this mistake:rantoff: :2wave:

Actually, Independent Thinker's usage was correct. Or OR nor can be used in that instance.

http://www.bartleby.com/68/8/4108.html

Both nor and or are Standard after an initial no or not, although or is more frequent today: No running nor [or] shouting is permitted in the corridors. Not wheedling nor [or] threatening could move her. Typically nor is Standard after neither, particularly in Oratorical contexts, Edited English, and other Formal uses, as in Neither her father nor her mother attended her recital. But or can also occur there. Nor is also Standard in other negative statements, as in I didn’t want dessert, nor did I want coffee. Nor meaning than is Nonstandard and regional at best, and many would label it Substandard instead: She’s no brighter nor I am.
 
ludahai said:
Actually, Independent Thinker's usage was correct. Or OR nor can be used in that instance.

http://www.bartleby.com/68/8/4108.html
First: Notice the rant on and rant off images?:roll:

Though neither or is acceptable in conversation, however in formal writing it's the conjugation neither....nor that is the proper subject and verb agreement grammatically [2].
As is also noted in your citation
Typically nor is Standard after neither, particularly in Oratorical contexts, Edited English, and other Formal uses
 
jfuh said:
First: Notice the rant on and rant off images?:roll:

Though neither or is acceptable in conversation, however in formal writing it's the conjugation neither....nor that is the proper subject and verb agreement grammatically [2].
As is also noted in your citation

I am merely pointing out that the original usage was correct, WHICH IT IS! What is your problem, anyway?
 
What's his name? Harding? He's definitely. Carter didn't do so great but no way he's as bad as Harding.
 
Bush hasn't done so bad. Economy's up, taken out two anti-U.S. regimes. It's not fun doing that but it was Clinton's inaction that may have led to Bush having to do this.
 
I agree that we should at least wait before Bush is out of office before we analyze his perfomance in office. Interestingly enough, U.S. involvement in any war we have been involved in can be justified as some under the democratic peace theory. However, I submit that Franklin Pierce may have been the, if not at least one of the worst presidents in U.S. History, simply because he did nothing to try and stop the Civil War.
 
Hmm.... not bothering to sift through 11 pages with a slow-as-mollasses browser; I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet, but I would guess that the worst president of all time was James Buchanan.

He essentially ignored the beginning of the Civil War, and turned the other way as the nation spiraled into the bloodiest conflict in its history. Of course, he gave us one of the greates presidential quotes of all time as he left the whitehouse.

(To Abraham Lincoln): "Sir, if you are as happy upon entering this office as I am upon leaving it, then you are a very happy man indeed."

And with a young nation crumbling around him, who wouldn't be happy to cast off the responsibility? Okay, second worst president all time...? I want to say Jimmy Carter. He ruined the economy, let inflation run rampant, and stood helpless as Americans were taken hostage in the Iranian embassy. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.
 
He was still the head of state. The Mexican constitution had been suspended. In accordance with international law, he had the authority to sign treaties on behalf of Mexico.

Further, as the Mexican government didn't act on any claims regarding Texas FOR TEN YEARS, that is tacit acceptance of Texan independence, something also acceptable under pre-WWII public international law.

That I find much more convincing, but I still don't see the treaty as completely valid. Somehow if we were in the position Mexico was now, we would see things very differently.
 
Back
Top Bottom