Who's the worst U.S. president ever?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
When were we beloved?

from 1945 to 1947.

Except in Latin America.

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

we don't hold all our Vietnam era presidents highly

*cough*JFK*cough*

JFK got killed before U.S. casualties in Vietnam reached triple figures (I may be technically wrong about that, but you know what I mean). If JFK had lived, served a second term and followed the same course in Vietnam as Johnson did, his reputation would have suffered just as badly as did LBJ's.

[Dis]

yep, fact is LBJ and Nixon are primarily blamed for the Vietnam war. Hell, even we started getting involved back in Truman's era by supporting the french. As usual, France is to blame for this.

[Ned]

Actually, Kennedy can be blamed for Vietnam because the Commies were emboldened by his demonstrated weakness in the Bay of Pigs incident, his acquiesence in the construction of the Berlin Wall, and his weakness during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Had he acted decisively in any of these incidents, he probably could have negotiated a deal with the North Vietnamese, as they would not have wanted to overly provoke a decisive president.

[Dis]

weakness in the cuban missile crisis? now I know you are trolling.

Kennedy was a pretty good president. Though he is overrated. I'll never understand why he was so loved. I mean, really loved. But perhaps becuse I didn't live during the time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only "good" thing JFK did was to get shot .

[Dis]

peace corp, challenge to go to the moon? standing up to the soviets? civil rights reforms (though lbj accomplished most of these), banging marlyin monroe

[Ned]

Ah, come on. The way he took half measures in the Cuban Missile Crisis is legendary. He wanted to always walk a thin line between threat and appeasement. In the end, he chose appeasement by agreeing to withdraw our missles from Turkey, which left us worse off than the status quo ante.

Had he decisively acted, Cuba would today be free. So would Vietnam.

I do agree that Kennedy was an inspirational speaker and did give the US a tremendous boost with his challenge to go to the moon. He also cut taxes and crafted the Civil Rights Act, which his segregationist successor, Johnson, actually lobbied to have passed.

In late '63, however, it looked like the next year's elections would be as close as the election of '60. Kennedy was running neck and neck in the polls against any number of Republicans including Goldwater. The Civil Rights legislation was enormously unpopular:

"
Nov. 8, 1963

The surveys' story sounded both sweet and sour to Barry Goldwater.

Since last summer, Goldwater has steadily lengthened his lead over Nelson Rockefeller in presidential preference polls. Last week the Gallup poll reported that since its last canvass in October, Goldwater has stepped out even farther ahead of Rocky among Republican voters. Michigan's Governor George Romney, too, continued to move up. The statistics among Republicans:

October Now

Goldwater 42% 45%

Rockefeller 26% 23%

Romney 15% 16%

An Associated Press poll found Goldwater the overwhelming favorite among G.O.P. state and county leaders. Of 2,916 Republicans polled, 1,404 answered the survey questions. Of those, 85.1% said they believed that "at present" Goldwater would be the party's strongest candidate in a contest with President Kennedy. Rockefeller garnered but 56 votes, 4% of the total. Asked who they believed would finally be nominated, 64.2% picked Goldwater, 4.6% Rocky.

At week's end Gallup released the results of another poll. Exploring the growing speculation that Richard Nixon may become a candidate, Gallup asked a sampling of Republicans whom they would prefer if the convention choice narrowed to Goldwater and Nixon. Result: Nixon 52%, Goldwater 48%.

Whoever the G.O.P. candidate, predicted doorbell-ringing Pollster Sam Lubell, he would now give President Kennedy a far better run for his money than seemed possible only five months ago. Then, wrote Lubell, "interviewing across the nation pointed to a landslide victory for President Kennedy." Now "the President faces a close election with only a small edge in his favor."

Lubell's explanation: with the easing of cold war tensions, the public now views civil rights strife rather than the struggle with the Soviets as the U.S.'s No. 1 political issue. "Interviews in five Eastern states,* where Kennedy should be at his strongest," wrote Lubell, "show him losing a tenth of his 1960 support—mainly because 'he gives in too much to the Negro.' "

http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...896997,00.html

[Dis]

you don't think that's reasonable? We had no business having missiles in Turkey.

You don't think that's fair?

so we lost ground, we avoided nuclear war. Isn't that a good thing?

[Bosh]

"show him losing a tenth of his 1960 support—mainly because 'he gives in too much to the Negro.' "

The horror!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's cuz he's a bad motha... Ming: Shut yo mouth!

I'm just talkin' about Bill....

[GePap]

Ned, you Cwaazy!

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Ned, you Cwaazy!

Nah. I just understand bullies. The way you handle commies is to confront them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Nah. I just understand bullies. The way you handle commies is to confront them.

Ned, your weltanschaung is so messed up that I am sure you trully think that . Its so damn easy though to feel schadenfruede at your condition.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Ned, your weltanschaung is so messed up that I am sure you trully think that . Its so damn easy though to feel schadenfruede at your condition.

GePap, I am sure you appeasers think you are right as well. But history has shown repeatedly that there are bullies in this world. Hitler was one. Saddam was another. Kruschev and his Politburo certainly were another.

You give a bully an inch and he'll take a mile. The way to avoid this is to not allow them to take that inch in the first place.

When Ronald Reagan wanted to confront the Soviet Union, everyone on the left said that this would cause a nuclear catastrophe. Instead it caused negotiations, arms reductions and an end to communism in Eastern Europe.

Appeasers are eternally wrong; and people like Ronald Reagan will always be right.

Kennedy himself appeared to be more of the Ronald Reagan type. However he surrounded himself with appeasers. As a result, his policy seemed to swerve from appeasement, to confrontation and back to appeasement almost on a daily basis. That is no way to impress a bully. Kennedy's vacillation undoubtedly invited Communist aggression during his regime.

[GePap]

Yes, Teh Regan, who traded weapons to the Ayatollahs, and appeased Hizbullah in lebanon. He stood tought!

HA!

Oh, and the notion that hitler would have stopped if confronted- care to give Proof? HItler was bent on war, and war we got.

And how come the likes of you never bring up Japan? The US stood up to Japan, placing a crippling embargo on Japan to make it stop its activities in Indochina and for its China Policy. What happened? We got war with Japan, who in a lightning campaign conquered much of Europe's and the US East Asian colonies.

BUt people like you never bring this up.

Lets just be glad people with simplistic worldviews rarely make it into power- those who do are a disaster for the world, like Hitler.

[Ned]

GePap, we didn't "stand up" against Japan until after it had joined the Axis. Japan attacked when it looked as if Germany had beaten the USSR and the war in Europe was about over.

This is not my idea of a stitch in time.

As to what Hitler may or may not have done, clearly by the time England DID stand up to Hitler, Hitler was not dissuaded. Clearly, prior appeasements incent further aggression until drawing a line in the sand is no longer possible. Appeasement guarantees war.

[Patroklos]

Lets just be glad people with simplistic worldviews rarely make it into power- those who do are a disaster for the world, like Hitler.

So Japan and Germany can be assumed to act the same because they were both totalitarian?

How can you say something like that and then accuse someone of having simplistic views?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Patroklos


So Japan and Germany can be assumed to act the same because they were both totalitarian?

How can you say something like that and then accuse someone of having simplistic views?

Um, isn't that the point GePap is making?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, we didn't "stand up" against Japan until after it had joined the Axis. Japan attacked when it looked as if Germany had beaten the USSR and the war in Europe was about over.

This is not my idea of a stitch in time.

Japan joined "the Axis" in 1940, yet did nothing to aid its ally Germany and did not attack the USSR. Anyways, the US did nothing about the Axis until after attacked. The point is that when Japan moved into French Indochina in July '41 the US placed a crippling oil and metal embargo on japan, which had few local supplies and relied heavily on trade with the US-the embargo had teeth, real teeth, and since Japan was unwilling to give up its policies to cave under US pressure it decided on war.

As to what Hitler may or may not have done, clearly by the time England DID stand up to Hitler, Hitler was not dissuaded. Clearly, prior appeasements incent further aggression until drawing a line in the sand is no longer possible. Appeasement guarantees war.

No, it does not. The aims of the aggressive party equal war- "standing up" to Hitler earlier would just have meant an earlier war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


So Japan and Germany can be assumed to act the same because they were both totalitarian?

How can you say something like that and then accuse someone of having simplistic views?

No, that was not what I said Patticakes. Please do keep up.

Ned said that if you 'stand up to bullies' they back down. bull- some might stand down, some might hit you, some might beat the living crap out of you. Depends on the Bully.

Oh,

[Ned]

GePap, our attitude regarding Japan hardened considerably after they joined the Axis. Until that time, we tried to be a broker between Japan and China. After, we began demanding that Japan withdraw from China.

As to Hitler, we will never know what might have happened if the Allies stood their ground in 1936. If it meant war then, England and France surely would have won easily, preventing a larger war. But, they chose the path to appeasement. The end result was a lot of dead Englishmen, Frenchmen, and of course, Germans.

[SpencerH]

What is known from a variety of sources was that the german army were not prepared for war prior to 1939 and that Hitler and the general staff were extremely nervous that England and France would react to any of the provocations (conscription 1935, invasions of the Rhineland 1936 and Sudetenland 1938) that occurred prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939.

What would have eventually happened if we had stood up to Hitler earlier? Who knows? There is evidence to suggest that Hitler wanted to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 and that the high command said no (and were willing to remove him from power if he gave the order). Given that Hitlers grasp on power was not secured until after 1938 and that the German army was still re-fitting, the world may have indeed have benefited from confronting Germany earlier.

[Tattila the Hun]

Worst prez?
This man:

GWB

[Odin]

Originally posted by Smiley

we don't hold all our Vietnam era presidents highly.

I think LBJ gets a bad rap, Not going to Vietnam would of opened him up to accusations of being "soft on Communism". He was screwed either way. Besides vietnam, he was a great president.

Great Society:

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
What is known from a variety of sources was that the german army were not prepared for war prior to 1939 and that Hitler and the general staff were extremely nervous that England and France would react to any of the provocations (conscription 1935, invasions of the Rhineland 1936 and Sudetenland 1938) that occurred prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939.

What would have eventually happened if we had stood up to Hitler earlier? Who knows? There is evidence to suggest that Hitler wanted to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 and that the high command said no (and were willing to remove him from power if he gave the order). Given that Hitlers grasp on power was not secured until after 1938 and that the German army was still re-fitting, the world may have indeed have benefited from confronting Germany earlier.

There are a series of large problems with these post date speculations:

1. The assumption that the 1935 and 36 actions were enough to force the UK or France to react to- we don;t know how pervesive the view that the Versailles systems was not working was, so why should the dmeocraticly elected leaders of France and the UK seek what at the time would have been severely unpopular actions against the Germans for internal German actions.

By the time we get to 1938, things change significantly- the assumption that hitler's power was not assured is based on what, really? BY the time he carries out the Anschluss, I can't see why anyone would not think his leadership secure. Why also assume the UK and France were stronger than the Germans in 1938 than 1939, when specially the UK was not really on a military buildingh spree UNTIL 1938. Add to that the question of whether the French forces would have been any better in 1938 than 1939 or 1940.

The best you guys can do then is make the statement that you believe that a war in 1938 or earlier would have ended faster, in the favor of the allies, and with less damage, or if the French and UK had acted way back in 1935, no war. Fine, you can make that statement, but know that it is purely speculation.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Has there been a good one yet? I dont vote so i wouldnt know i guess.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


There are a series of large problems with these post date speculations:

1. The assumption that the 1935 and 36 actions were enough to force the UK or France to react to- we don;t know how pervesive the view that the Versailles systems was not working was, so why should the dmeocraticly elected leaders of France and the UK seek what at the time would have been severely unpopular actions against the Germans for internal German actions.

That's rather the point isnt it! Whether something is popular or not amongst either the population or the government is no reason for the countries leadership to abdicate their responsibilities.

By the time we get to 1938, things change significantly- the assumption that hitler's power was not assured is based on what, really? BY the time he carries out the Anschluss, I can't see why anyone would not think his leadership secure.

I'd say the fact that he defered to his military commanders over Czechoslovakia in 1938 was an indication that he didnt have the same degree over control as he eventually had.

Why also assume the UK and France were stronger than the Germans in 1938 than 1939, when specially the UK was not really on a military buildingh spree UNTIL 1938. Add to that the question of whether the French forces would have been any better in 1938 than 1939 or 1940.

The key point is that Germany's military strength especially in tanks and aircraft was improving at a much faster rate than England's or France's. If we had gone to war with Germany prior to 1939 we would not have faced 'the blitzkrieg' since (for example) even the lightly armoured PzKpfw III was not produced in any numbers until 1939 (and only 100 in 1939). By the invasion of France however the allies faced the more capable and heavier PzKpfw IV as well as better PzKpfw III's.

The best you guys can do then is make the statement that you believe that a war in 1938 or earlier would have ended faster, in the favor of the allies, and with less damage, or if the French and UK had acted way back in 1935, no war. Fine, you can make that statement, but know that it is purely speculation.

Of course it's speculation but we do know that we did nothing and paid a heavy price.

Germany broke the Treaty of Versaille in 1935 -> no reaction
Germany invades the Rhineland 1936 -> no reaction
Germany demands the Sudetenland 1938-> Chamberlain says no then says OK
Germany invades Czechoslovakia-> no reaction
Germany invades Poland-> WWII

[RGBVideo]

No, it does not. The aims of the aggressive party equal war- "standing up" to Hitler earlier would just have meant an earlier war.

Hitler's goal certainly was not waging a war against France / UK / USA. In fact, he and his cabinet members micromanagered the war early on (Dunkirk, Battle of Britain), trying gain a peace treaty again with UK (with disastrous results). Hitler's main goals were purely ideological.

EDIT: Spencer Very good post there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


That's rather the point isnt it! Whether something is popular or not amongst either the population or the government is no reason for the countries leadership to abdicate their responsibilities.

Germany broke the Treaty of Versaille in 1935 -> no reaction
Germany invades the Rhineland 1936 -> no reaction
Germany demands the Sudetenland 1938-> Chamberlain says no then says OK
Germany invades Czechoslovakia-> no reaction
Germany invades Poland-> WWII

Their responsiblities? What do you think the responsibilities of a democratically elected leader are? Was it the responsibility of states to get involved in Spain at that time? A state can chose to look the other way when someone breaks an agreement- prior to the UN system there was no responsiblity when it came to the International system.

I'd say the fact that he defered to his military commanders over Czechoslovakia in 1938 was an indication that he didnt have the same degree over control as he eventually had.

Or maybe it meant he was not as confident yet of his action-that is different from fearing anyone, or that his power was not secure.

The key point is that Germany's military strength especially in tanks and aircraft was improving at a much faster rate than England's or France's. If we had gone to war with Germany prior to 1939 we would not have faced 'the blitzkrieg' since (for example) even the lightly armoured PzKpfw III was not produced in any numbers until 1939 (and only 100 in 1939). By the invasion of France however the allies faced the more capable and heavier PzKpfw IV as well as better PzKpfw III's.

And the French still had more and better tanks in 1940- it was doctrine, not equipment that won it for the Germans.

Certainly getting the czech weapons factories made things harder later given how much the Germans relied on Pz35's and Pz38's throught their later campaigns. But again, we don't know the state of say UK forces.

Of course it's speculation but we do know that we did nothing and paid a heavy price.

And we know the US stood up to the japanese, and paid a heavy price as well. And perhaps had war begun in 1938 a heavy price would have been claimed as well.

The issue is whether Ned's simplistic "appeasement" arguement is valid. It is really the mirror vision of the "blame America first crowd" he always rails against- thinking that all effects are based on your actions, not the other guys.

Hitler was hell bent on war- war was coming, at one point or another.