Best US President

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"specifically, Andyfox, could you elaborate on why Nixon was far and away the worst?"

Vietnam, Watergate, Kissinger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, damn Nixon for getting us out of Nam! We should have kept going until those commies were conquered!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you approve of how Nixon managed the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never said that. The person I was responding to seemed to be implying that it was all his fault though, which it obviously wasn't. [censored] idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The person you were replying typed a whole one word ... "Vietnam". All further implications were made by you, not him. Do you really [censored] think that anybody thinks Vietnam is all one man's fault? Are you really that quick to assume andyfox is that ignorant that you'd reply with that total cheap shot after he uttered a single word? You have issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Midge. My point was that it's ridiculous to call Nixon the worst president for those reasons. If you're goig to use Vietnam as a reason then LBJ was worse. Watergate was just him getting caught for what they all do. To be fair I don't know enough about Kissinger.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. So it's wrong to have any opinion other than yours. I'm convinced. Nixon was the man. Who can argue with you on this topic as you demonstrate such deep understanding of the Nixon administration, such as not knowing much about Kissinger. And you understand the Vietnam War very trivially. Nixon was elected on a platform to get us out and then spent years (and tens of thousands of lives) expanding the war. And to suggest all Presidents do stuff like be deeply a part of a felony break-in into other campaign hotel rooms is asinine.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which Jackson killed all the indians? I vote for the other one

[/ QUOTE ]

There was only one Jackson (Andrew).

He had his flaws, but IMO one of the top 10 U.S. presidents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jackson is tough, because his flaw is really, really glaring. Genocide is tough to ignore. It's true that he opposed the national bank, but it still seems like he did it in a somewhat poor manner.

For all that he argued for states rights, he did force SCar to accept national tarrifs, and IMO helped set the stage for the civil war.

All in all, I say [censored] him.

[bnrocks]

[ QUOTE ]
The mistake most people make about ww2 is thinking that the Germans definitely would have won had we not intervened. The war would have taken longer but the Soviets still most likely would have won.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we were intervening in the war before we actually joined in. I forget the actual term for it, but we basically had a huge supply line to Russia and England. I think that without that supply line, a key battle would have swung the other way (I.E Stalingrad) and then who knows.

Also, the higher ups in America viewed Russia as an enemy before the war. There was no way FDR could let the Soviets sweep over Europe on the way back. Who knows what the reprocustions of that non-action could have been.

[Borodog]

FDR threw hundreds of millions of Europeans under the Soviet bus at Yalta.

[EricDrawback]

[ QUOTE ]
FDR threw hundreds of millions of Europeans under the Soviet bus at Yalta.

[/ QUOTE ]

It didn't help that Alger Hiss was his closest adviser during Yalta.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
US entry into ww2

[/ QUOTE ]

... This would be one of those few things I really don't have a problem with. Can't imagine how anyone would.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're being a bit results oriented. I certainly think it's up for debate whether or not it was a prudent decision to enter WW2 at the time. Looking back from 65 years in the future it's too easy to question or agree with decisions made back then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea how this could possibly be up for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Our country was supposed to be a neutral nation. The people did not want anything to do with this war. It is well documented that we were not neutral towards Japan. We cut them off from our oil and other resources. It is debatable whether or not this was right or wrong, because it directly led to the Japanese trying to attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? [censored] the Japanese, I'd rahter have just gone straight at them and Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, he did put the country at risk and lied about the US's declared neutrality. If you don't care about that then that's your prerogative. I am only saying that there is some room for debate.

[xorbie]

I think there's some debate on whether the country wanted to go to war, there may be some debate on whether he knew about/desired the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there may be some debate on whether a leader should be allowed to force his country to war despite a majority against it.

I don't think there's much debate on whether stopping Nazi and Japanese expansion was a good idea.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's much debate on whether stopping Nazi and Japanese expansion was a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
True

[andyfox]

"recognizing that we had to have some dialog with the PRC"

I give him zero credit for that since he deserves a major portion of the blame for closing off our relationship with China to begin with, and his McCarthyist tendencies kept others from reapproaching China before him.

"I also think one needs about 20 years of perspective to really rate a President."

In some respects, maybe. I'm a firm believer in what is wrongly called "revisionism" because we usually have more evidence to go by, as well as the perspective of succeeding years, well after historical events take place. But I knew Johnson as a disaster while he was president, and I knew Nixon was a crook and a pathological liar while he was president, and I knew Carter was a disaster while he was president. And I know the current Bush is a disaster.

I was born in February of 1953, so I just missed Truman. (I believe; or was the inauguration in March in those days?) This will surely get me in hot water here, I think, but I would rate Truman as just above Nixon as a horrible president. I'm not wild about Harry.

[andyfox]

What should he and Churchill have done differently?