Worst Presidents of all Time:

[Slyhunter]

Wonder why reagan wasn't on the list what with all of his administration's indictments and outright crimes. Looks like a lot of limbaugh and hannity students voted Obama as very bad. Too funny since Obama had a spotless record.

List of Reagan administration convictions.

Spying on a Presidential Candidate.
Communicating with the Secretary of State via Email knowing she's using a unsecured server.
Benghazi
Smuggling weapons into Mexico.
Yeah spotless as a Monkeys Behind.

 

[Slyhunter]

I voted for:
John Adams (Sedition Act and XYZ Affair)
Pierce (civil war)
Bush Jr.
Obama

It's ironic that our last two president both make this list.

Here, a real poll...

Quinnipiac poll: 41% say Trump worst president since World War II

Only 41%. I'd like to see how they rated the callers.
Conservatives Can't be polled because they don't answer phones to people they don't know.

 

[rightwinger]

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

 

[Slyhunter]

Where the hell is Trump on the list?

He is MILES the worst since at least WW2

No he's the best President we have ever had. You need to get your facts straight. And thats despite the Democratic obstructionists getting in his way.

 

[SandSquid]

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 29-21 FOR the Iraq resolution among Democrats.

And I know both house and senate bills were co-sponsored by Democrats... The house had minority leader Gephart, and Senate bill had Majority leader Daschle. And Lieberman also sponsored a similar house bill to take military action against Iraq with John Edwards and others (the instead joined in the other senate bill). And the one by Hastings, calling for the US to first exhaust all peaceful solutions and to formulate an exit and transition strategy first was not brought up to the floor by either party.

 

[rightwinger]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stabilizing our currency is the best thing Wilson ever did

Gave us a modern economy

 

[rightwinger]

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

 

[rightwinger]

LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office

But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.

But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam

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.

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

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.

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

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.

To Vietnam
Communism was a better option than Colonialism

Our support of French Colonialism in Vietnam caused a war that killed millions needlessly

 

[U2Edge]

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

That's not cherry picking, its a fact. A Majority of Democratic Senators supported invading Iraq. Most Democratic Senators were opposed to the 1991 Gulf War. There was far more support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, than there was for the 1991 Gulf War, although both were supported by a majority of Americans.

Yes, a majority of democrats in the House of Representatives, who were the minority party in the House Of Representative, were against the 2003 war. But again, House Democrats on average were younger, less experienced, and less knowledgeable about Iraq and Saddam when compared to their counterparts in the Senate.

After the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussien, the American people got to render their verdict on what Bush had done in November 2004, a year and a half later. The result? The American people re-elected George W. Bush as President of the United States. Not only did they re-elect him, but they gave him the first popular vote majority victory in a Presidential election since 1988. Republicans also increased their majorities in both the United States House and Senate.

In 18 months, Joe Biden who voted for the 2003 war will be elected our next President.

 

[Thinker101]

I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).

While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

You must be thinking of all the Democrats that voted for the war before they voted against it....dumbass.

 

[MisterBeale]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stabilizing our currency is the best thing Wilson ever did

Gave us a modern economy

 

[rightwinger]

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

That's not cherry picking, its a fact. A Majority of Democratic Senators supported invading Iraq. Most Democratic Senators were opposed to the 1991 Gulf War. There was far more support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, than there was for the 1991 Gulf War, although both were supported by a majority of Americans.

Yes, a majority of democrats in the House of Representatives, who were the minority party in the House Of Representative, were against the 2003 war. But again, House Democrats on average were younger, less experienced, and less knowledgeable about Iraq and Saddam when compared to their counterparts in the Senate.

After the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussien, the American people got to render their verdict on what Bush had done in November 2004, a year and a half later. The result? The American people re-elected George W. Bush as President of the United States. Not only did they re-elect him, but they gave him the first popular vote majority victory in a Presidential election since 1988. Republicans also increased their majorities in both the United States House and Senate.

In 18 months, Joe Biden who voted for the 2003 war will be elected our next President.

Your refusal to look at all Democrat’s instead of just the Senate is cherry picking

The judgement of Bush’s catastrophic decision is not a year later but sixteen years later

Most Americans and even most Republicans consider it to be a poor decision

It defined Bush’s Presidency

 

[rightwinger]

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

You must be thinking of all the Democrats that voted for the war before they voted against it....dumbass.

Almost none of the Republicans were against the war

Boy, were they wrong

 

[U2Edge]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

To Vietnam
Communism was a better option than Colonialism

Our support of French Colonialism in Vietnam caused a war that killed millions needlessly

To North Vietnamese Elites, it was the only option and they ruthlessly imposed their will on the rest of Vietnam. I don't think French Colonialism was a good thing, but at least they had more freedom, freedom of religion, and better human rights.

My father fought in Vietnam and worked with the South Vietnamese military. You do not want to know what happened to South Vietnamese military personal and their families after the North took over in 1975. If they were not executed, they were sent to brutal Communist re-education camps for years. Find me an equivalent to these executions and communist re-education camps under French Colonialism. You won't.

Where do you think a human being as a better chance to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Vietnam or South Korea?

South Korea is one of the most modern and developed countries in the world. Its a democracy, where human rights, and freedom of religion are all respected and valued. South Vietnam had a chance to be like South Korea, but the 1973 United States Congress ruined that chance when it abandoned the country with the veto proof majority Case Church Amendment.

Defend the current communist dictatorship of Vietnam all you want. Its a sad reminder of the fate we abandoned the South Vietnamese people to. South Korea is a reminder of what South Vietnam could have been and should have been.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

You must be thinking of all the Democrats that voted for the war before they voted against it....dumbass.

Almost none of the Republicans were against the war

Boy, were they wrong

No they were right. Saddam needed to go. Pretty difficult to defend keeping Saddam in power in Iraq. Not good for Iraqi's, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, other countries in the region let alone the rest of the world.

 

[Oddball]

Stabilizing our currency is the best thing Wilson ever did

Gave us a modern economy

Also gave us the mechanism for a $21 trillion debt, fool

 

[Unkotare]

Do you know your views are in the minority...

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...

Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan

I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.

You should probably have 3 different list:

A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist

You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.

I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.

Irrelevant
They have strong criteria to judge on
If they are so biased, why would they rate Ike and Reagan so high?

It is our board conservatives who are obviously biased as they rate based on their partisan or libertarian views

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.

Ask qualified hIstorians what they think

I have already told you.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

That's not cherry picking, its a fact. A Majority of Democratic Senators supported invading Iraq. Most Democratic Senators were opposed to the 1991 Gulf War. There was far more support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, than there was for the 1991 Gulf War, although both were supported by a majority of Americans.

Yes, a majority of democrats in the House of Representatives, who were the minority party in the House Of Representative, were against the 2003 war. But again, House Democrats on average were younger, less experienced, and less knowledgeable about Iraq and Saddam when compared to their counterparts in the Senate.

After the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussien, the American people got to render their verdict on what Bush had done in November 2004, a year and a half later. The result? The American people re-elected George W. Bush as President of the United States. Not only did they re-elect him, but they gave him the first popular vote majority victory in a Presidential election since 1988. Republicans also increased their majorities in both the United States House and Senate.

In 18 months, Joe Biden who voted for the 2003 war will be elected our next President.

Your refusal to look at all Democrat’s instead of just the Senate is cherry picking

The judgement of Bush’s catastrophic decision is not a year later but sixteen years later

Most Americans and even most Republicans consider it to be a poor decision

It defined Bush’s Presidency

Your refusal to look at the importance of the 2004 election is cherry picking. Sixteen years later, when you look at the war in Iraq from every angle, it was a success. Saddam was removed. A new government was put in place that has stood the test of time. This new government is not a threat to its neighbors and is generally accepted by most Iraqi's. U.S objectives for protecting Persian Gulf Oil supply in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were met.

The last gallup poll taken showed that over 40% of the American public think invading Iraq was the right decision. Those against are around 48%. But again, as with World War I, and the Korean War, its likely over time that most Americans will come to accept again that removing Saddam was the right decision.

Most Republicans have always supported the war.

Most Active Duty veterans who served in Iraq still support the war.

Its only registered independents and registered democrats where support slipped during the difficult years after the initial invasion. I think with more time, more of them will come around to thinking it was the right decision. Defending keeping Saddam in power is just not something most rational people would be willing to do once they really give it some thought.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

 

[U2Edge]

The invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it

Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before

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.

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

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.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 29-21 FOR the Iraq resolution among Democrats.

And I know both house and senate bills were co-sponsored by Democrats... The house had minority leader Gephart, and Senate bill had Majority leader Daschle. And Lieberman also sponsored a similar house bill to take military action against Iraq with John Edwards and others (the instead joined in the other senate bill). And the one by Hastings, calling for the US to first exhaust all peaceful solutions and to formulate an exit and transition strategy first was not brought up to the floor by either party.

Sounds about right on the vote by Democrats in the Senate.