[golgiaparatus]

Who it be?

I'm voting either Nixon or Regan (though Im pretty young to make the call at 27)... Bush is getting close to the top in my book as well.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Im going with Grover Cleveland.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Who it be?

I'm voting either Nixon or Regan (though Im pretty young to make the call at 27)... Bush is getting close to the top in my book as well.

I am 31 and wouldn't disagree with the current Bush, and do not have enough info to comment on Nixon era (other than the whole scandal thing) but Regan? I mean no matter where you draw your party lines and idealogies don't you have to give some credit to the Pres for the economic and political state of the union during his 8 years in office?

I mean there was some scandal and maybe Nancy was in charge, but 8 years of no war and economic growth is sounding pretty darn good right about now.

 

[Spud]

I'll play. Though not among the worst, but clearly a disapointment.

Clinton never lived up to his potential. He had democratic control of the House and Senate when he entered office. Some of the first things he did was put Hillary in charge of health care reform and started messing with gays in the military. These were ill-conceived strategies that predictably opened his presidency to attack. Further, he wouldn’t back his Supreme Court nominees resulting in moderates who will be struggling with Reagan and Bush hardliners.

Favor his politics or not, he squandered enormous opportunities early on and never recovered.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Originally posted by Spud
I'll play. Though not among the worst, but clearly a disapointment.

Favor his politics or not, he squandered enormous opportunities early on and never recovered.

Well he recovered enough to get re-elected?

He certainly could of picked a hotter intern

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Mtb_Rob_FL
I am 31 and wouldn't disagree with the current Bush, and do not have enough info to comment on Nixon era (other than the whole scandal thing) but Regan? I mean no matter where you draw your party lines and idealogies don't you have to give some credit to the Pres for the economic and political state of the union during his 8 years in office?

I mean there was some scandal and maybe Nancy was in charge, but 8 years of no war and economic growth is sounding pretty darn good right about now.

And lets not forget about Star Wars....and his and ole Gorbie's relationship that helped bring about the end of the cold war (sorry foreign policy advocate here)

 

[Silver]

Keep in mind, we do have Reagan to thank for the idea that (in the words of the current Vice-President) "deficits don't matter."

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Originally posted by Silver
Keep in mind, we do have Reagan to thank for the idea that (in the words of the current Vice-President) "deficits don't matter."

Having deficits is not the issue, its being able to service them

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by Mtb_Rob_FL
Well he recovered enough to get re-elected?

To face a Republican controlled House and Senate and a second term filled with Paula and Monica diversions plus impeachment proceedings.

This lib would have been happier with 4 years of Clinton if it resulted in health care reform and a better legacy on the Supreme Court.

He sold out health care reform to advance Hillary's political career.

 

[Tenchiro]

I dunno if he was the worst overall, but Truman was the one who decided to drop nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians. In my book that is pretty dispicable.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
I dunno if he was the worst overall, but Truman was the one who decided to drop nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians. In my book that is pretty dispicable.

It won a war against an enemy that killed many more than those bombs did.
Id still call it the right call.

 

[$tinkle]

james earl carter.
Lordy, Lordy, Jim Jack Gordy!

for:

• undermining any & all efforts by this administration to do well (specifically, writing to the UN sec council & asking them to stall the US in the run-up to the war)
• hypocritical in his baptist faith & calling the church to task for worldly (vice biblical) reasons
• hostages in iran
• sidling up with Haiti, Cuba, China & N. Korea
• constantly leveraging/exploiting the office of POTUS to cheerlead for globalism
• trying to claim the Camp David accords was his orchestrating (the deal was long worked out by Sadat & Begin)
• b!tching about getting passed over for the nobel peace prize
• his anti-israel stance (wayyy too chummy w/ arafat)
• selective human rights advocacy (democracies: yes! communism: no!)
• his pro-sandinista stance

but, that habitat for humanity thing is cool.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
It won a war against an enemy that killed many more than those bombs did.
Id still call it the right call.

Just as many people would have died if we had tried to take them by storm, and it would have lasted, forever.

[imho, neither was right however: Im all about the gov't leader fight to the death. You wanna war, do it your damn self]

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Just as many people would have died if we had tried to take them by storm, and it would have lasted, forever.

[imho, neither was right however: Im all about the gov't leader fight to the death. You wanna war, do it your damn self]

I think i read that military experts estimated that it would have taken a million-man invasion to actually beat japan. I imagine more would have died than in the bombings that way as well.

Tench, ask the chinese if the bombing was a good idea.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I think i read that military experts estimated that it would have taken a million-man invasion to actually beat japan. I imagine more would have died than in the bombings that way as well.

Tench, ask the chinese if the bombing was a good idea.

Exactly what I was saying.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I think i read that military experts estimated that it would have taken a million-man invasion to actually beat japan. I imagine more would have died than in the bombings that way as well.

Tench, ask the chinese if the bombing was a good idea.

Yeah dropping the bomb probably saved lives. If you look at the invasion of Okinawa not only did a lot of Japanese and American soldiers died but Japanese civilians tried to fight and thousands of others commited suicide. Dropping the bomb was no more deadly than the firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden. WWII was an open war, including civilians. The Germans bombed London, the Brits and US performed night carpet bombing raids on German cities. It truly was one of many dark points in human history.

 

[Westy]

I hear that Jimmy Carter sucked balls. Not so much for his policies but that he refused to delegate responsibility. He tried to do everything himself and in the end could not accomplish anything.

 

[Tenchiro]

From what I understand of that period, is that the war in the Pacific was all but over. With Japan out of desperation training anyone they could find to pilot planes long enough to fly them into American ships. I know that America had a choice between invasion or simply dropping nukes.

Now the bombings may have saved lives in the long run, but doing something that horrible to a civilian population is just unspeakable.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro


Now the bombings may have saved lives in the long run, but doing something that horrible to a civilian population is just unspeakable.

Well, its obviously typeable

No man, read the stuff we just wrote. Id be willing to be that more civilians would die in the invasion.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
From what I understand of that period, is that the war in the Pacific was all but over. With Japan out of desperation training anyone they could find to pilot planes long enough to fly them into American ships. I know that America had a choice between invasion or simply dropping nukes.

Now the bombings may have saved lives in the long run, but doing something that horrible to a civilian population is just unspeakable.

The thing that a lot of people find disturbing was that the bomb was dropped right in the centre of the city. There was no attempt at finding a military target. It was designed purely and simply to kill as many people as possible. That was the explicit aim of Le May's bombing campaign, including the fire bombing of Tokyo. I don't think there is much doubt though that it stopped the war. Whether the end justifies the means is another story but I sort of go blank when people start talking about what the Japanese did in the war. The allies have just as much blood on their hands.
As an aside where I live in Japan is only about 30 miles as the crow flies from Hiroshima. My wife's grandmother told me the day the bomb was dropped she was working in her garden when she saw a huge flash followed by a kind of rumbling noise then she could see the cloud. History doesn't get much more vivid than that.
If you are ever in Hiroshima, I suggest a visit to the peace park and to the peace museum. A sobering experience to say the least.

 

[BurlyShirley]

well, the allies didnt exactly instigate the conflict, but whatever.

Id rather go to "the banana show" than some hippie park.

 

[splat]

The dumbest would have to be Harrison ,took the oath of office in a freezing rain storm refused to wear a coat , Got sick died 33 days later

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
It won a war against an enemy that killed many more than those bombs did.
Id still call it the right call.

That would be the enemy that was trying to surrender?

Hiroshima is debatable, the decision to bomb Nagasaki is indefensible.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
the decision to bomb Nagasaki is indefensible.

most of what i know is from US productions a-la History Channel, so you know what i've been exposed to.

I've never heard your argument, however. Would you indulge me?

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by fluff
That would be the enemy that was trying to surrender?

Hiroshima is debatable, the decision to bomb Nagasaki is indefensible.

Dont you mean unindefensible Sorry, still thinking about the grand fanale of the bush shootem-up game

 

[MikeD]

Boy, just had the Japan debate HERE

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by fluff
That would be the enemy that was trying to surrender?

Hiroshima is debatable, the decision to bomb Nagasaki is indefensible.

If you subscribe to ends justifies the means realpolitik, I'd say the decision to bomb Nagasaki makes perfect sense.