Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Carter - Worst President Ever?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:12 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote: I'm willing to bet that ANY claim you can make about Carter being a terrible President, I can counter-claim something bigger and worse from the current Executive. Example: "Carter got Americans held hostage in Iran." Counterpoint: Bush got over 3000 Americans killed on 9/11, and over 4000 American soldiers killed since then in Iraq. Example: "Carter was responsible for the highest gas prices we'd ever seen up to that time." Counterpoint: $5.39 per gallon. 'Nuff said. See? It's fun. Let's play!
Quote:First of all I consider Carter the worst President ever. I also consider him among the best ex-Presidents ever, which is kind of unusual. So you ask why he was bad: 1. He was a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress who from day one was unable to pass meaningful legislation because he could not get along with his own party's Congressional leadership. 2. He mishandled Iran's leadership crisis leading to the revolution and the hostage crisis...which he mishandled. 3. 14% Interest rates, 12% unemployment, double digit inflation...and those were the good numbers. 4. Billy Beer 5. He let the Commies roll him again and again. Completely failed to appreciate the nature and scope of the Communist threat. 6. He allowed the military to deteriorate to the point where ships could not put to sea and planes could not fly because of lack of trained personel or spare parts. We also lacked the ability to respond militarily to any crisis of any size. 7. Camp David laid the groundwork for much of the Isreal-Palestine problems we face today. It goes on, but three major problems Carter failed to deal with properly were the Commies, the Economy, and military preparedness. The rest are normal policy and crisis responses that every President faces. The Commies ran the table on us in the late '70s, the military needed reinvestment after Vietnam that they didn't get till Reagan came along. The economy was what got him in the end (and a lot of us too). It was unsustainable and compared to today, was several orders of magnatude worse then where we are. H
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:43 AM
CANTTAKESKY
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: whenever he wasn't drunker than nine hundred indians?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:00 AM
KIRKULES
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:12 AM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:13 AM
CHRISISALL
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:29 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I'm impressed. 14 per cent interest rates? 12 per cent unemployment? I'm shocked. Maybe it just wasn't that bad in Texas, but I can't remember anyone in my family ever having a hard time finding a job or keeping a roof over our heads...
Quote: As for double-digit inflation - have you checked the price of oil lately? It's gone from $30 a barrel the day before we invaded Iraq, ot over $100 a barrel today. Wouldn't that be TRIPLE-DIGIT inflation?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:38 AM
Quote:I personally measure stinky Presidents on my Needless Kill-o-meter. On that yardstick Bush ain't THE worst...close but no ceegar.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Truman for Korea, not for nuking Japan - which I don't consider "needless". It was a hard choice he had to make, and I think he made the *right* one.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: There is fear there and it translates into global economics and instability. But we'll ride it out.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:58 AM
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:09 PM
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:12 PM
HIXIE129
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:20 PM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Oh Chris, I like your meters.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:45 PM
RIVERLOVE
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Riverlove: You can read all the history books ever written, but until you see the HBO film " White Light, Black Rain" you cannot possibly have the slightest idea of what occured at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. That one movie totally changed my opinions of the events, and totally changed my beliefs about many things.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:09 PM
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: -and before I hear any "it was necessary"'s, a pre-emptive effue to all of you that take the stance that these major decisions are made by men of knowledge & wisdom. They're idiots, just like you & me, that kissed ass enough to be in a position of power. They sometimes know LESS than the moderately informed citizen.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:21 PM
TANKOBITE
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:39 PM
Quote:Okinawa was the largest amphibious invasion of the Pacific campaign and the last major campaign of the Pacific War. More ships were used, more troops put ashore, more supplies transported, more bombs dropped, more naval guns fired against shore targets than any other operation in the Pacific. More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:31 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:08 AM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:35 AM
JONGSSTRAW
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by Riverlove: You can read all the history books ever written, but until you see the HBO film " White Light, Black Rain" you cannot possibly have the slightest idea of what occured at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. That one movie totally changed my opinions of the events, and totally changed my beliefs about many things.Personally, I already feel that the civilian deaths there were as close as one can get to serving Satan- give a radio call; vapourize so many...not the Capital...not an anchored fleet...not an airstrip, but cities of innocents. Hitler wasn't the only monster, just the most singularly identifiable. -and before I hear any "it was necessary"'s, a pre-emptive effue to all of you that take the stance that these major decisions are made by men of knowledge & wisdom. They're idiots, just like you & me, that kissed ass enough to be in a position of power. They sometimes know LESS than the moderately informed citizen. Chrisisall
Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:37 AM
PIRATECAT
Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:59 AM
Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: I think he could have achieved the high "HOLY S**T" factor without zapping so many civies, though...
Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:42 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: You still pretend that people in power are “monsters.”
Quote:While Hitler might have been, those that chose to drop the bomb did not do so because they wanted to exterminate a people
Quote:, but because they saw the hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers killed in the Pacific, they saw the millions of Japanese killed, and they were tired of the nearly quarter of billion total deaths, the total destruction of much of Europe, Japan and surrounding islands. And they wanted it to be over.
Quote: The truth is, as self-righteous as the anti-war types are, put in the position of being told you have the power to end this right now, you would say “yes” in a heart beat, even though you’ll lie right now and say you wouldn’t.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: I note for the record, Hiroshima was largely untouched by conventional bombing till that point. It was an industrial city, headquarters of the 2nd Imperial Army, an army supply and training base, and conduit for the movement of troops and supplies. The City also contained no POW camps and there was a chemical weapons plant located nearby.
Quote: As you can see, the use of the bombs was far more then merely a 'Holy Shit' demonstration. It was, as Truman said, a promise that "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." It was a demand of immediate and unconditional surrender that, when accepted, allowed us to be as generous in our victory as we were determined in the midst of battle.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw: Don't be so hard on Truman or the others who made the decision to drop the bombs. They really had no idea of what they were doing in terms of the forces that would be unleashed in those cities. They had no idea about radiation and its' "after the event" lingering effects of death, disfigurement, and torturous agony. Doctors had no idea what they were seeing and dealing with...it was just an un-imaginable horror that words can't describe. I think Truman and the military just thought that it was a big bomb...you know...lots of TNT value. They were clueless as to what it really was.
Quote: The US did make a lot of "restitution" in the form of medical assistance and flying victims to the US for plastic surgery
Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: So...kill a million civies...good idea.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:18 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Tankobite: Please see my post about actual casualty rates of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings vs. the battle of Okinawa. Not a million civvies were killed, not even close.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:44 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:Truman could have dropped them on some deserted island in front of witnesses. But the point was not merely to demonstrate a new weapon. We were at war, so the point must have been to utterly destroy the enemy's ability to fight.
Quote: The Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov informed Tokyo of the Soviet Union's unilateral abrogation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. Two minutes past midnight on August 9 {three days after the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug 6) Tokyo time, Soviet infantry, armor, and air forces launched an invasion of Manchuria. Four hours later, word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:46 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: I think he could have achieved the high "HOLY S**T" factor without zapping so many civies, though... Truman could have dropped them on some deserted island in front of witnesses. But the point was not merely to demonstrate a new weapon. We were at war, so the point must have been to utterly destroy the enemy's ability to fight. If Japan had not surrendered then further conflict and perhaps large scale invasion would have commenced. I note for the record, Hiroshima was largely untouched by conventional bombing till that point. It was an industrial city, headquarters of the 2nd Imperial Army, an army supply and training base, and conduit for the movement of troops and supplies. The City also contained no POW camps and there was a chemical weapons plant located nearby. Hiroshima was not the first choice. Kyoto was chosen by the committee because it was Japan's intellectual center, but it was removed because it was a cultural and not a military target. I further note regarding Nagasaki. The city was a major seaport. It was an industrial city that produced ships, weapons, and all sorts of war materials for the Japanese military. Those industries were well dispersed throughout the City to lessen the effects of conventional attack. A prior bombing had caused the large scale evacuation of the City's children before the atomic bomb. I lastly note the projected casualties for Operation Downfall estimated a 60-90 campaign resulting in as many as 1.2 million Allied casualties including over 250,000 dead. That did not include naval losses from the expected Kamikaze attacks. Japan estimated a 1 in 6 ratio of hits per plane (better then the 1 in 9 at Okinawa) and estimated American losses to be approximately 400 ships. General Groves was planning for additional bombs (7-10) to be available to support allied operations, there effectivness would likely have been devestating to the Japanese mainland and civilian population far in excess of what they suffered by the two bombs that were used. As you can see, the use of the bombs was far more then merely a 'Holy Shit' demonstration. It was, as Truman said, a promise that "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." It was a demand of immediate and unconditional surrender that, when accepted, allowed us to be as generous in our victory as we were determined in the midst of battle. H
Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: I just have a hard time wrapping my head around such awesome lethal force being unleashed where non-combatants are concerned.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:15 AM
Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:26 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw: Kamakazes would never have been a factor like they were at Okinawa due to the fact that we destroyed almost their entire air force in that battle.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:30 AM
Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:38 AM
Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:40 AM
Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:09 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Your moral sensitivity is touching, but it comes about because such wars were fought and won by the United States thus preserving the principals of liberty and the freedom to allow humanity to reevaluate how we conduct our affairs.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:25 AM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Your moral sensitivity is touching, but it comes about because such wars were fought and won by the United States thus preserving the principals of liberty and the freedom to allow humanity to reevaluate how we conduct our affairs. Hero! Yer freakin' me out here with your lucid eloquence!!! Astonished Chrisisall
Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:26 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: whenever he wasn't drunker than nine hundred indians?Was that an ethnic slur? Shame on you. However, if you change it to "900 Frenchmen," all will be forgiven. The French are ok to slur. (And I know I don't have to tell you about satire.) Other than that, I have no intelligent comment on the Carter presidency. All presidents look alike to me. -------------------------- When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. --P. J. O'Rourke
Quote:All presidents look alike to me.
Friday, March 28, 2008 4:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Hero! Yer freakin' me out here with your lucid eloquence!!!
Friday, March 28, 2008 4:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: All presidents look alike to me.
Friday, March 28, 2008 6:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: That is the feeling of an open mind. I have not changed, it is you who are seeing the light of reason for the first time.
Quote: I'm sure that if you take the time and really listen to my arguments you'll be out there shouting 'FOUR MORE YEARS!' during President Bush's speech to the Republican Convention.
Friday, March 28, 2008 8:27 AM
AVENGINGWATCHER
Friday, March 28, 2008 2:28 PM
Friday, March 28, 2008 6:41 PM
Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:06 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Ah - but WHOM did I slur?
Monday, March 31, 2008 8:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Ah - but WHOM did I slur? 900 indians apparently.
Monday, March 31, 2008 3:14 PM
FREMDFIRMA
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL