Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,681
- 3,635
Worst Presidents of all Time:
- Thread starter The2ndAmendment
- Start date
Bruce_T_Laney
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #242
Oh Lard!
Well tell me did Mueller tell you that, oh wait he said Russia did not do anything that would have changed the outcome of the 2016 election..
So your opinion is based on what Rachel Maddow tell you and not reality as usual.
Is Trump perfect?
No!
Now with that written it seem you prefer a President that lies you into war or one that allowed genocide of Cambodians over Trump and why?
MSM has convinced you Trump is Putin *****...
Well then Obama was China, North Korea, and Iran ***** with the blessing of Putin and Hillary reset button...
Comey cost Hillary the election and not Putin nor Wikileaks...
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,077
- 2,605
Actually, Adams did exactly the right thing in the XYZ Affair. He refused to pay a bribe to the French to get them stop attacking our ships. Instead, he prepared for war rather than be cowed. Good for him.
As for the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 signed by Adams, that was to keep out Irish immigrants. Adams famously said, "When they send their people, they aren't sending their best. They bring crime, they bring drugs. And some, I assume, are good people."
\
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
Ike, was President 60 years ago. Reagan was President over 30 years ago. That's part of the reason they may get ranked higher. The distance from now allows for more objective views to creep in, even if the list is being put together by primarily registered democrats. As you get closer to the current time period though, you'll see more bias creep in. Another thing with Ike's time in office is that relative to other Presidential administration's, there was not a lot of conflict or division. You had the last 6 months of the Korean war and maybe the start of desegregation in the south, but it was mostly smooth sailing when compared to the past and the future.
Again, take 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist and have them rank the Presidents.
Then take 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist and have them rank the Presidents.
You will likely get very different results for Presidents over the most recent 30 years. Lets so it appears as you go further back in time based on some data I've seen.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,344
- 263,282
- 3,615
Ask qualified hIstorians what they think
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
Again, we need to see their party registration first. Are they qualified historians who are registered democrats or qualified historians who are registered republicans. Historians often disagree on many things, and often some of these disagreements are rooted in political party identity.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,344
- 263,282
- 3,615
Truman and Eisenhower were responsible for postwar alliances. After WWII, Vietnam expected to be free of their colonial bonds. Both Truman and Eisenhower supported France in restablishing their IndoChina holdings.
Selling out the Vietnamese people pushed Ho Chi Minh into the hands of the Communists
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
The invasion of Iraq had heavy support from both Republicans and Democrats. The majority of Democrats in the Senate supported the invasion. Overall public support for the invasion of Iraq prior to the start of the war was higher than support for the 1991 Gulf War before hostilities began.
In 1991, public support and support in Congress was much more divided about going to war at the time. In the aftermath, future presidential hopefuls like Senator Sam Nunn payed a price for not voting to support the first Gulf War.
Today, support for Operation Iraqi Freedom is split with those still supporting in the low 40s, and those against it in the high 40s. You get reverse results when you ask the veterans who fought in Iraq, with a very slight plurality or majority supporting it.
But that was the same with World War I and Korea. After those conflicts were completed a slight majority were against them for many years. But over time, the evolved into a majority saying involvement in those conflicts was a good thing.
Iraq will likely end up the same way. At the end of the day, there was nothing good about Saddam. He was evil and had caused everyone problems for decades. Few people will be willing to defend or stand up for Saddam in the years ahead. Iraq's standard of living is increasing, ahead of Morocco now. The murder rate in Iraq for 2018 was less than the murder rate in California for 1990. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are much safer with Saddam gone. People become frustrated with the unexpected cost and duration of the conflict at the time, but ultimately in the long run its likely most people will judge that It was worth it.
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
Ho Chi Minh was already in the hands of the Communist. Ho Chi Minh did much of his studying and training in Russia. Ho Chi Minh had no interest in democracy, freedom of religion, or human rights. He was dedicated to Soviet style authoritarian communism which is what Vietnam is ruled by today.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,344
- 263,282
- 3,615
Most Democrats in Congress voted against an Iraq invasion.
That is an undeniable fact
Iraq was a decision of George W Bush
If it was a success, he would deserve credit. Since it was a dismal failure, he holds the blame
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,344
- 263,282
- 3,615
Actually, he initially went to the US to support his pleas for independence. The US decided to back DeGauls claims to Vietnam
That decision cost France 100,000 lives, the US 60,000 lives and the poor people of Vietnam, several million lives
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
Iraq did have one of the most extensive stock piles of WMD in the world. They had failed to fully verifiably disarm of all this WMD per UN Security Council resolutions after the first Gulf War. In 1996 they began harassing UN inspectors so much that they functionally could no do their job. Inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 because they could not function under Saddam's restrictions. The United States had been bombing Iraq for violations and other reasons annually since 1991 through 2003. The reality is that the 1991 Gulf War never really ended. There was a ceacefire in March 1991, but this was broken multiple times over the next 12 years due to Saddam's violations. In March 2003, the United States and other coalition partners finally finished the job after failing to get Saddam to comply with 15 different UN Security Council resolutions over the past 12 years.
While evidence was not found that Saddam had built new WMD weapons, program related activities that were forbidden were found. In addition, bio/chem capable artillery shells over time were found all over Iraq during the occupation. At first, those found were just a trickle. But then it turned into a flood. Over 10,000 155 mm shells filled with sarin gas, likely produced and filled with sarin gas during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s have been found since the 2003 invasion. Some of these artillery shells with sarin gas have been eroded and their purity levels are not much of a threat. But some of the sarin gas in these artillery shells still have 90% to 95% purity. Just one 155 mm artillery shell filled with sarin gas at 90% to 95% purity could kill over a thousand people if used in an urban area.
In addition, sanctions and the weapons embargo meant to prevent Saddam from re-arming and rebuilding his military through sell of Iraq's massive oil reserves had largely eroded by 2002. It was only a matter of time at that point before Saddam would rebuild his capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Another reason that removing Saddam in 2003 was a necessity.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,344
- 263,282
- 3,615
WMDs were a fake issue
Still are
Bush lied about the threat to justify his invasion. A reason he is our worst modern President
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
NOT in the United States Senate. In the United States Senate, a majority of Democratic Senators supported the war.
Its only in the House Of Representatives, typically where you will have younger, less experienced people, where a majority of Democrats were against the war.
The war in Iraq was a success in every relevant respect. Saddam was removed from power. A new government was successfully put in place. That new government is not a threat to its neighbors and is not interested in the production and manufacture of WMD. Stability inside the country was initially a problem, but that seems to be in the past now. In 2019, the government in Iraq is viewed primarily as stable and respecting most of its tribes and ethnic groups. It is not a threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It is seen as a possible bridge between Saudi Arabia and Iran in terms of relations and resolving conflicts and political differences.
United States losses in Iraq were a tiny fraction of what it lost in similar sized wars like Korea, Vietnam, World War I, and World War II. 3,500 killed by hostile fire in Iraq compared to 48,000 killed by hostile fire in Vietnam. Total civilian casualties are also much lower at around 200,000, mostly as a result of terrorist bombings and insurgency. Much lower than the millions of civilians that died in the other wars. 16 years after the invasion, Iraq is a thriving developing country with a murder rate lower than California's murder rate in 1990. It is not a threat to any of its neighbors unlike Saddam's Iraq. The Iraq war has been a success by any measure. But all wars have their cost. But the cost have been light relative to similar wars and conflicts in the past.
In addition, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP averaged less than 5% during the whole period from 2001 to 2019. During the peacetime of the 1980s, U.S. defense spending averaged 6% of GDP. So the financial strain on the country and the economy has been much less than similar size wars the United States has engaged in the past.
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
No one lied about anything. There was a lot of intelligence on WMD's that proved to be inaccurate. But its an indisputable fact that Iraq still had thousands of Artillery Shells from the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s that were filled with Sarin Gas. These artillery shells were found gradually over time during the U.S. occupation of Iraq from 2003 through the end of 2011. U.S. military personal that have been involved with the removal and disposal of these artillery shells have been injured and become sick from handling degraded artillery shells that were filled with Sarin Gas. Luckily in these cases the purity level of the sarin was very low.
Iraq and Saddam claimed it was not in possession of any of these old artillery shells dating from the Iran/Iraq war in the mid-1980s back in 2002. That was obviously incorrect, regardless of whether it was a lie or an accounting error. Over 10,000 of these artillery shells were gradually found in the decade after the invasion. In 2019, thousands of these shells are still awaiting proper disposal.
U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,342
- 1,260
- 130
Of course the U.S. supported DeGual. DeGual was better than communist dictatorship and all the deaths and human rights abuses associated with communist dictatorship. In later years, failure to stand up for the new country of South Vietnam would have been dangerous for the United States elsewhere in the world. If the Soviet Union sensed weakness of resolve by the United States over Vietnam, it may have challenged the United States over West Berlin in the late 1960s again. A new Berlin crises with the Soviets having near nuclear parity with the United States could have resulted in a dangerous situation that could have led to armed conflict in Germany and then escalated to the use of nuclear weapons in Europe and then a worldwide nuclear war. The stakes were high during the cold war and could never be isolated to one region or country.
The fault for the for the Vietnam War lays with the North Vietnamese Authoritarian Communists supported by the Soviet Union and China. They were against any sort of democracy, were against human rights, and against freedom of religion. It was not enough for them to just enslave the north of Vietnam, they wanted the south to as well as their neighbors and they were willing to do anything to get it. This was about a communist elite imposing their will over all the people's of southeast asia. Sadly, they succeeded in this attempt because the 1973 United States congress decided to abandoned South Vietnam.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 75,371
- 72,430
- 3,605
Giving socialism to the elites off the back of the poor? There is not contest on this one. One President single handedly destroyed the nation.
Woodrow Wilson, 1916, said: "A great industrial nation controlled by its system of credit. Our System of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are In the hands of a few men. We have come to he one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world-no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
President Wilson, in advocating the Federal Reserve Act, said: "We must have a currency, not rigid as now, but really elastic, responsive to sound credit, the expanding and controlling credit of everyday transactions, the normal ebb and flow of personal and corporate dealings. Our banking laws must mobilize reserves; must not permit the contraction anywhere in a few hands of the monetary resources of the country or their use for speculative purposes in such volume as to hinder or impede or stand in the way of other legitimate more fruitful uses. And the control of the system of banking and of Issues which our new law is to set up must be public, not private, must be vested in the government itself, so that banks may be instruments, not masters, of business and of the individual enterprise and Initiative."
http://ia800300.us.archive.org/27/i...States/NationalEconomyAndTheBankingSystem.pdf
. . . and here comes WWI and a GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woodrow Wilson, 1916, said: "A great industrial nation controlled by its system of credit. Our System of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are In the hands of a few men. We have come to he one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world-no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
President Wilson, in advocating the Federal Reserve Act, said: "We must have a currency, not rigid as now, but really elastic, responsive to sound credit, the expanding and controlling credit of everyday transactions, the normal ebb and flow of personal and corporate dealings. Our banking laws must mobilize reserves; must not permit the contraction anywhere in a few hands of the monetary resources of the country or their use for speculative purposes in such volume as to hinder or impede or stand in the way of other legitimate more fruitful uses. And the control of the system of banking and of Issues which our new law is to set up must be public, not private, must be vested in the government itself, so that banks may be instruments, not masters, of business and of the individual enterprise and Initiative."
http://ia800300.us.archive.org/27/i...States/NationalEconomyAndTheBankingSystem.pdf
. . . and here comes WWI and a GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
-
-
Zone1 Ever have a moment of stress and then you just sense that G-d is there for you and has your back?- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 3
-
