Who is the greatest US President in history?

[Rob]

Well that enslavement could have maybe never have happened.



How about the many men and women who died in the forests of Central Europe taking Red Army bullets?


And besides it wasn't called the Evil Empire untill Regan stepped in the White House. Nixon even wanted to co-operate with the Soviet Union as partners

And how would you have avoided it?

Start World War 3? Against a war machine that had more tanks than the rest of the West and the rest of the world combined, that was well hardened after a campaign against the Nazi war machine?

Seriously, how would you have avoided it?

 

[Bobby]

Well that enslavement could have maybe never have happened.



How about the many men and women who died in the forests of Central Europe taking Red Army bullets?


And besides it wasn't called the Evil Empire untill Regan stepped in the White House. Nixon even wanted to co-operate with the Soviet Union as partners

Nixon had good friends in Russia. He played for Zenit St. Petersburg in his younger days, you didn't know that? He was an outside left and wore 19.

 

[Parra Power]

Jimmy Carter, easily.

 

[Chacarita Juniors]

He still hasn't been elected...

:corn:

 

[RobbieD_PL]

And how would you have avoided it?

Start World War 3? Against a war machine that had more tanks than the rest of the West and the rest of the world combined, that was well hardened after a campaign against the Nazi war machine?

Seriously, how would you have avoided it?

Hmm for this i think we need to track back b4 WWII. (If we can go back to the end of WWII why not further?)

Well first off, in the case of Poland, our borders were badly laid out. They were constantly being disputed.

As you can see, apart from a few major cities and the majority of only Greater and Lessr Poland we also got a strip of land connecting us to the sea and to a city that became a Free City (Gdansk) so we weren't even allowed to mainitain control of our only port!
However this strip would prove very ineffective as that left us prone to attack from not one, not two, but three sides! Yes, that's right: a p*ssed off Germany for losing the war and a equally p*ssed off Soviet Union for not finishing us off along the banks of the Wisla River in 1920.
Maybe E. Prussia would have been good for defense, but the West was much more happy to see one of their fellow respected adversaries in Germany, being angered at a split in their Vaterland.

Having friendly neighbours to our north east and west, we would have thought of a regional defensive alliance with say Poland, the Baltic States Czechoslovakia, Hungary all the way down to Romania and Bulgaria with even a liberated Ukraine and Belarus would have held firm. However as this was the era of nationalism, results elsewhere forced us to attempt to enter in military alliances with distant France & Britain.

Which proved to be only a declaration of war, After Czechoslovakia had been openly and adimttedly occupied.

Oh, while that was going on in September did i mention an agreement conducted b/w the Bear and the Bald-fellowship in August, before war officially broke out? Suprising as it was that two ideologically seperate on the polilitcal polar extremes managed to come to an agreement on "Non-agreession" it's even more upsetting that this same agreement carved up C. Europe b/w the two powers for the second time in 200 years? What are the odds?

So to answer your question, a military alliance b/w the newly independent states from WWI would have stopped the occupation of the Soviets.

And now with the Druzhnya (or Friendship) Pipeline, that so happens to enter terra firma just to the west of the border of Terra Germania and Terra Polonia
{Irony anyone? } we're about to enter a new occupation, one of energy.
Unfortunately, not being supported on the issue by our fellow Europeans on common energy security, as they won't have to worry about gas being shut off in W. Europe if it is in C. Europe, has forced us to seek nuclear energy as an alternative. Scared ?
And you don't think we are, when Russia wants to hit us with their nukes for trying to defend ourselves? Honestly Russia must think that they only lost E. Germany to the Bundes-Republik after the fall of the Soviet Union. Even Gorbachev was against the Baltic States joing the EU and NATO, lest they try to mention anything to do with thier illegal (and even illegal by Soviet standards ) incorporation into the Soviet Union. :boohoo:
The insultive nature of being constantly having my country reffered to as "post Soviet" or backwards or undeveloped really pisses me off b/c of the ignorance of ppl as to the reasons why.

Did you honestly expect that:
a) We wanted the Soviets to occupy us? (No, what ever your status quo agenda maybe, it wasn't liberation from the Nazis; especially when you consider the amourous nature the Soviets treated our women, and the feeling of brotherhood you get when after fighting the Nazis for 6 years, the Soviets put a gun to your head as well)
b) We would be able to reach your economic standards after 50 years of "collectivisation for export to Russia"? I mean this is just stupid. It seems to me that ppl take for granted thier positive situation that they can't help but make a mockery of others less fortunate. And how there's a political system based on this is beyond me, we might as well be under a system of Feudalism
c) That we have to now follow US orders after our own success in removing Communism? I thought the whole idea about liberation was liberty, or for a better word, sovereignty...

Just because it happened, that doesn't make it right

EDIT: Question for you guys: How long will it take for the label of "post Soviet" to cease its existance? What needs to be done for us to be your equals in your eyes? Because we're just not feeling the love.

 

[Rob]

Hmm for this i think we need to track back b4 WWII. (If we can go back to the end of WWII why not further?)

Well first off, in the case of Poland, our borders were badly laid out. They were constantly being disputed.

As you can see, apart from a few major cities and the majority of only Greater and Lessr Poland we also got a strip of land connecting us to the sea and to a city that became a Free City (Gdansk) so we weren't even allowed to mainitain control of our only port!
However this strip would prove very ineffective as that left us prone to attack from not one, not two, but three sides! Yes, that's right: a p*ssed off Germany for losing the war and a equally p*ssed off Soviet Union for not finishing us off along the banks of the Wisla River in 1920.
Maybe E. Prussia would have been good for defense, but the West was much more happy to see one of their fellow respected adversaries in Germany, being angered at a split in their Vaterland.

Having friendly neighbours to our north east and west, we would have thought of a regional defensive alliance with say Poland, the Baltic States Czechoslovakia, Hungary all the way down to Romania and Bulgaria with even a liberated Ukraine and Belarus would have held firm. However as this was the era of nationalism, results elsewhere forced us to attempt to enter in military alliances with distant France & Britain.

Which proved to be only a declaration of war, After Czechoslovakia had been openly and adimttedly occupied.

Oh, while that was going on in September did i mention an agreement conducted b/w the Bear and the Bald-fellowship in August, before war officially broke out? Suprising as it was that two ideologically seperate on the polilitcal polar extremes managed to come to an agreement on "Non-agreession" it's even more upsetting that this same agreement carved up C. Europe b/w the two powers for the second time in 200 years? What are the odds?

So to answer your question, a military alliance b/w the newly independent states from WWI would have stopped the occupation of the Soviets.

And now with the Druzhnya (or Friendship) Pipeline, that so happens to enter terra firma just to the west of the border of Terra Germania and Terra Polonia
{Irony anyone? } we're about to enter a new occupation, one of energy.
Unfortunately, not being supported on the issue by our fellow Europeans on common energy security, as they won't have to worry about gas being shut off in W. Europe if it is in C. Europe, has forced us to seek nuclear energy as an alternative. Scared ?
And you don't think we are, when Russia wants to hit us with their nukes for trying to defend ourselves? Honestly Russia must think that they only lost E. Germany to the Bundes-Republik after the fall of the Soviet Union. Even Gorbachev was against the Baltic States joing the EU and NATO, lest they try to mention anything to do with thier illegal (and even illegal by Soviet standards ) incorporation into the Soviet Union. :boohoo:
The insultive nature of being constantly having my country reffered to as "post Soviet" or backwards or undeveloped really pisses me off b/c of the ignorance of ppl as to the reasons why.

Did you honestly expect that:
a) We wanted the Soviets to occupy us? (No, what ever your status quo agenda maybe, it wasn't liberation from the Nazis; especially when you consider the amourous nature the Soviets treated our women, and the feeling of brotherhood you get when after fighting the Nazis for 6 years, the Soviets put a gun to your head as well)
b) We would be able to reach your economic standards after 50 years of "collectivisation for export to Russia"? I mean this is just stupid. It seems to me that ppl take for granted thier positive situation that they can't help but make a mockery of others less fortunate. And how there's a political system based on this is beyond me, we might as well be under a system of Feudalism
c) That we have to now follow US orders after our own success in removing Communism? I thought the whole idea about liberation was liberty, or for a better word, sovereignty...

Just because it happened, that doesn't make it right

EDIT: Question for you guys: How long will it take for the label of "post Soviet" to cease its existance? What needs to be done for us to be your equals in your eyes? Because we're just not feeling the love.

That is the biggest load of crap I have read on this forum in the year 2007.

I don't know where to start, but a military alliance with the United States in 1920 would have protected Poland? Oh great. I love your 20/20 vision in hindsight. Consider this.

- Germany was a rubble after WW1, and became crippled with hyper-inflation and ineffective governments. This was also a Germany that the allies in WW1 also tried to impose strict regulations upon so it could never rise again and terrorise Europe. No one fore sore Adolf Hitler gaining power, and ignoring the Treaty of Versailles.
- Russia could not feed itself, and was slowly recovering after a disastrous WW1 and a revolution.
- The United States was going through a depression like Germany and the rest of the West, it was too busy looking after itself, like all countries should

The fact that these two countries (Germany and Russia) then re-generated so quickly post 1930+ was not foreseen by anybody. No one believed Stalins 5 year plans would make any in roads into modernising Russia, and no body foresaw Nazi Germany rising.

And when one considers that the United States was a continent and an entire ocean away, in 1920, when there was no such thing as modern telecommunications and aviation as we know it today, an alliance is totally unreasonable. You solution is obviously flawed, it is not well thought out.

And when one considers that alliances were one of the main reasons for plunging Europe into World War 1, your entire solution is EVEN more non-realistic for the political and economic climate of Europe post WW1+.

 

[RobbieD_PL]

That is the biggest load of crap I have read on this forum in the year 2007.

Blaming the United States for the pitfalls and Poland's woes is stupid, and ridiculous. It is the kind of attitude that is frowned upon in the United States, a self reliant country.

Now to suggest an alliance with the United States after WW1 would have prevented Soviet occupation is ******* MORONIC. Honestly, you forget that you are an entire continent and ocean away from them. They have no military bases, and were nothing of the world power they post WW2. Technological advancements also that reduce the tyranny of distance still had no been invented. Telecommunications and travel as we knew it after WW2 and as of today, did not exist in the 1920s. This fact alone makes an military alliance totally non-feasible. Not only that, Poland had a power ally, probably the most powerful country in the world at that time, Great Britain. This did not prevent anything, did it?

To suggest a military alliance with the US would have prevent Soviet rule in Poland for 40 years is a ******* joke. What utter nonsense.

Your rant on here, is baffling, illogical, and stupid. You have no idea what you are on about, and this is clear by reading your posts. It is not as if you have some different ideological point of view that is coherent with that stance, because, nothing in your post is coherent, or makes sense. Nothing appears to be well thought out, and I am just sitting here, confused, because I got no idea what provoked your rant about Eastern Europe after reading the first 2 or 3 posts.

It seems you mis-read my point completely, Rob.

I never said anything about an alliance with the US after WWI preventing the occupation, I said a defensive alliance of the newly formed countries in C. Europe from the Treaty of Versailles.

Oh and yes I mentioned the British alliance not giving anything than a declaration of war.

Try reading it again mate. If you want further clarification, just post

 

[Rob]

It seems you mis-read my point completely, Rob.

I never said anything about an alliance with the US after WWI preventing the occupation, I said a defensive alliance of the newly formed countries in C. Europe from the Treaty of Versailles.

Oh and yes I mentioned the British alliance not giving anything than a declaration of war.

Try reading it again mate. If you want further clarification, just post

Ok then, what does this have to do with United States Presidents then? Why the **** did you bring this up?

(Besides an alliance would have not prevented Poland from getting raped by the Soviets and the Nazis. No one in Europe wanted alliances, it just plunged Europe into World War One, one nation is attacked and then 6 nations are at war, that was trying to be avoided again)

 

[RobbieD_PL]

Ok then, what does this have to do with United States Presidents then? Why the **** did you bring this up?

(Besides an alliance would have not prevented Poland from getting raped by the Soviets and the Nazis)

Hows Romania going? Got electricity yet?

Mate, just to let you know I find it offensive having one country from or all of C. Europe taking crap for a system that was fellated to us after the war, as well as its subsequent results. It's the ignorance that I detest.

It's like an observer of a crime saying to the victim "How you do like those apples!". If the victim already cops it from the aggressor, does he need/deserve it from someone else?

I (hence why I mentioned the need to take E. Prussia. Silesia btw (w heavy industry) would have evened the odds too. An independent Belarus & Ukraine would have delayed the Soviets too)
II (Not really, Being smaller countries they couldn't defend themselves on thier own. They had to allign or be crushed by thier totalitarian neighbours)

Besides such an alliance wouldn't have just served my country's interest as pretty much every other C. European country was in the same boat. That's the idea of an alliance = Mutual benefit.

 

[Rob]

Mate, just to let you know I find it offensive having one country from or all of C. Europe taking crap for a system that was fellated to us after the war, as well as its subsequent results. It's the ignorance that I detest.

It's like an observer of a crime saying to the victim "How you do like those apples!". If the victim already cops it from the aggressor, does he need/deserve it from someone else?

I (hence why I mentioned the need to take E. Prussia. Silesia btw (w heavy industry) would have evened the odds too. An independent Belarus & Ukraine would have delayed the Soviets too)
II (Not really, Being smaller countries they couldn't defend themselves on thier own. They had to allign or be crushed by thier totalitarian neighbours)

Besides such an alliance wouldn't have just served my country's interest as pretty much every other C. European country was in the same boat. That's the idea of an alliance = Mutual benefit.

What, and you don't think I realise the reason behind the backwardness of Eastern Europe was caused by communism? And can you detect a smart ass comment at all that had no serious connotations attached to it?

Another thing, one is alright for me to cop a back handed comment, but not you?

And, no, alliances had no mutual benefit because with an alliance you create the security dilemma, and by creating an alliance, it is seen as a hostile action by other nations who subsquently will look to negate that dilemma by making their own alliances, tension would increase and you have a situation similar to WW1 again.

 

[RobbieD_PL]

What, and you don't think I realise the reason behind the backwardness of Eastern Europe was caused by communism? And can you detect a smart ass comment at all that had no serious connotations attached to it?

Another thing, one is alright for me to cop a back handed comment, but not you?

And, no, alliances had no mutual benefit because with an alliance you create the security dilemma, and by creating an alliance, it is seen as a hostile action by other nations who subsquently will look to negate that dilemma by making their own alliances, tension would increase and you have a situation similar to WW1 again.

Ok. The top two are self-explanitory.

But faced with aggression from the former empires (excluding the Hapsburgs) who had lost their territories after WWI, the hostile enviroment (against which an alliance would have been neccessary) was already present untowards the new nations from the remnants of WWI.

 

[::shinji::]

Ronald Reagan? Are you guys kidding me, I wanna know what you're reading. I'm old enough to have been aware during the time of his administration, this is the same Reagan that:

- started the so-called "war" on drugs that has since been completely futile and has wasted billions not to mention all the lives lost trying to enforce it.

- unjustly bombed Libya

- sent millions to the Khmer Rouge despite the fact they were an extreme leftist organization

- was involved in the environmental protection agency fiasco where funding was redirected to help certain Republican political campaigns rather than clean up toxic waste. Let a patsy take the fall..

- Supported the mass murdering, nun raping contras who eventually even executed an American journalist on camera. These same contra friends of his also freely brought cocaine into the US (I thought there was a war on drugs?)

- Iran/Contra affair: Reagan's administration sold weapons to Islamic extremists, then turned around and gave the money to...yup, the contras

- He cut funding that helped house for the poor while cutting taxes for the wealthy by a huge margin...something like 80% I think it was, maybe more.

- Reagan was very friendly to South Africa's apartheid government (he was about freedom?)

- Had the complete support of, and even campaigned to the Klu Klux Klan

- Gave weapons and financial support to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden

...and I know there's more, I just can't remember it all.

It's a shame that Hinckley didn't have better aim...

He still hasn't been elected...

Definitely...it's a shame we'll never have the pleasure of seeing him and George W in a town hall style debate. It would have been the political equivelent of me fighting Mike Tyson.

 

[Theodorakis]

An Australian who enjoys freedom.

Hows Romania going? Got electricity yet?

you literally wouldnt have any electricity in australia should UK havent made your country a worthless piece of their commonwealth.

oceania would be Asia`s greenland, then


edit: George W. Bush for me

 

[Sir Calumn]

I'm definately with shinji about Reagan, and I get the feeling Rob just started this thread to make his right wing views even clearer, just incase any of us weren't sure.

You've got to excuse the fact that I know very little, if anything, about the early Presidents of America. I'm guessing lots of people would say George Washington or Abraham Lincoln here, but I know painfully little about these guys.

Anyway, my personal favourite is Grover Cleveland, just because he is the kind of president we all dream of today. Hard working with honesty and integrety, probably the greatest fighter of corruption in American presidential history, and also a Democrat that managed to get elected in a time of seemingly total Republican control. He is responsible for vetoeing and abolishing loads of wasteful and pointless bills and he was a great opponent of expansion and imperialism, which those of us in "the rest of the world" wish could be said for all Presidents. Yet he wasnt afraid to be tough either when necessary - his use of the army against strikers during the Pullman strike prevented the US rail and mail services from grinding to a halt, which could have had a devastating effect on the economy. What wouldnt we give for a guy like that now? Someone who was genuinely honest and dependable, was highly successful in fighting corruption, could be tough when necessary yet didnt feel the need for heavy handed intervention in foriegn affairs, opposed waste and actively fought it, and also was a staunch opponent of women's voting rights

I'm also a big fan of Harry Truman, Andrew Carlos*son and John F Kennedy. I know most of you have a big downer on Kennedy, and it is true that much of what he is supposed to have done in terms of civil rights wasnt actually done by him, but it was still he who paved the way for these changes, and it was his death that allowed Lyndon to get them through. He was the final president before this new era of "dirty politics", he was an iconic figure and, in my opinion, a genuinely great man.

My favourite republican would be James Madison, purely for fathering the constitution.

 

[::shinji::]

You've got to excuse the fact that I know very little, if anything, about the early Presidents of America. I'm guessing lots of people would say George Washington or Abraham Lincoln here, but I know painfully little about these guys.
.

Lincoln was a perpetuator of genocide...he freed the slaves while his armies began the massacre of Indians by the thousands on the plains in the early 1860's

 

[Sir Calumn]

Lincoln was a perpetuator of genocide...he freed the slaves while his armies began the massacre of Indians by the thousands on the plains in the early 1860's

Well there you go, you see the extent of my knowledge about those guys

 

[Bobby]

Obama is over hyped, he's all talk. He's not the bad guy the right wing makes him out to be, but he is a lot of hype.

Hilary is just a bitch.

Edwards MUST win.

Plus I've already explained the whole USA-East Europe-USSR thing perfectly:

You have to fight The Giant yourself when DDP and Bret Hart have Kevin Nash occupied. Of course it all ended in 1991 when Nash slipped while getting The Giant up for a Carlos*knife power bomb, a result which left The Giant in 12 pieces and Nash as World Heavyweight Champion.

Why debate it?

 

[::shinji::]

yeah histoy's a sordid affair from any angle..

anyways, I don't know why I keep getting myself involved in these polital/religious type debates. If there's one thing I've learned it's that no matter how many solid points you bring up, you can't change anyone's mind and everyone ends up more closed-minded in the end.

Anyways, I don't think any president was great, in fact I can't really think of any political figure anywhere who deserves to be called a "great" human being.. who knows

 

[Avalanche]

(Reagan) started the so-called "war" on drugs that has since been completely futile and has wasted billions not to mention all the lives lost trying to enforce it.

Seriously......they should just give up and surrender. Its a proven fact that anti-drug programs don't work. We had to go through this sh*t when I was in grade school, where area police officers told us to abstain from myriad mind-altering and intoxicating substances. Those f*ckers even had the balls to tell us not to bully people. Unsuprisingly, they fooled sod all people, as we eventually toked and drank our way through high school and into college.

 

[::shinji::]

Seriously......they should just give up and surrender. Its a proven fact that anti-drug programs don't work. We had to go through this sh*t when I was in grade school, where area police officers told us to abstain from myriad mind-altering and intoxicating substances. Those f*ckers even had the balls to tell us not to bully people. Unsuprisingly, they fooled sod all people, as we eventually toked and drank our way through high school and into college.

Were you guys also subjected to the god awful Nancy Reagan "say no to drugs" commercials that plagued every decent cartoon or after school special back in the day?

Nothing like a crotchety old wealthy white woman repeatedly lecturing you about the ills of narcotics... I was only like 11, but man did I get the hankerin' for some uppers after having to sit through that crap on a daily basis.