Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest President Ever
#1
Posted 26 April 2005 - 08:03 PM
Member since March 25, 2005.
#2
Posted 26 April 2005 - 09:54 PM
VERY unconstitutional
of course if he had his way, it wouldnt even be unconstitutional because his cronies would declare it alright

#3
Posted 26 April 2005 - 10:55 PM
#5
Posted 26 April 2005 - 11:37 PM
his presidency was short, so he didnt have that much time to mess up, but he still did. great work in the missile crisis though. he kept a clear head and was thinking straight even with some general yelling, nuke them (cuba) , in his right ear and probably another general in his left ear yelling, nuke them (ussr)

#7
Posted 27 April 2005 - 09:57 AM
Member since March 25, 2005.
#10 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 27 April 2005 - 07:24 PM
Anyway, I have to agree with HermIMHero. Washington was really important in showing restraint. In all probability, he could have made himself President for Life. He didn't, and he showed all of his predecessors how to act.
Alos, I can't count many presidents from the last hundred or so years (Democrats and Republicans). As much as I like some of them, the President was never meant to have the power that they have today. The two system party has lead to the President being the head of the party and therefore the leader of half the country. These days, Presidents are telling Congress and the Courts how to act. Instead of being a figurehead for the country, it is a position of power over everyone.
#11
Posted 27 April 2005 - 10:18 PM
I love Reagan. People seem to either love or hate him.
#12
Posted 27 April 2005 - 10:24 PM
Roosevelt and Wilson in the 1st half of the 20th
Lincoln in the 19th.
-Henry Kissinger; White House Years
#13 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 27 April 2005 - 11:31 PM
And, to me, Reagan is one of the worst presidents. He was more directly responsable for so many of the world's current problems than any other president.
Where is my Philosopher King?
#15 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 27 April 2005 - 11:58 PM
A:people who say communism can't succed say that Reagan nixed it.
Reagan gave a speech as the USSR (Communism is still around as far as I can tell) was falling (from years of mismanagment on many levels amongst other reasons) and wound up looking good for it. There is a huge difference between showing up for the climax and making it happen.
B:Nixon got us out of Vietnam.
Basically for the same reason. Presidents from recent history seem to claim their biggest wins from or blame their biggest losses on their predecessors. Carter is considered a bad president, but what can be expected after Nixon, Ford, and LBJ? Bush blames the economy and 911 on Clinton, as if they both didn't blow it. Hell, just arguing this is going against what I think is right. Best president? How about best legislature?
Nixon had Agnew as his vicepresident...please. Maybe he looked like less of a crook with him around, I don't know.
And tomorrow, when I've had less Rum and it isn't pass midnight, I'll take Reagan apart for real...maybe Grant too. Frickin war criminal...
#16
Posted 28 April 2005 - 12:34 AM
And, to me, Reagan is one of the worst presidents. He was more directly responsable for so many of the world's current problems than any other president.
Nixon came to power at a time when America was getting fed up with the world, and in true US isolationist tradition withdrawing into itself.
Nixon had inherited a war from Johnson that had divided the country, damaged the economy, and had put the US strategically on the defensive in the face of growing Soviet military power. This with half a million American military personnel in Vietnam. Most of the Muslim Arab countries has broken off relations wwith the US during the Johnson administration, and the Soviet Union and the US had broken off diplomatic negotiations during Johnson's disastrous administration.
During Nixon's term, he brought peace to the Middle East by demonstrating to the Arabs that Soviet led radicalism of the Middle East would give the arabs less than cooperation with the US. The example of the resolution of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the resulting peace efforts by Anwar Sadat in Egypt are the ultimate symbol.
Under his policy of detente Nixon also was the first president to limit strategic nuclear weapons with the SALT I treaty and the ABM treaty. This halted a rapidly spiraling nuclear weapons race that would have increased the danger of nuclear conflict.
Nixon facilitated the transition from US global dominance to leadership in a time when America's allies were doubting the US's desire to maintain its commitments, coupled with thier growing economic power. The Helsinki Final Acts, which established the foundation of human rights as an international issue, Tri-lateral diplomacy, which recognized the importance of Europe and Japan as equal actors in maintaining global stability.
Nixon restored and improved America's strategic position following the US withdrwal from Vietnam. The opening of relations with China were not notable just for his going there, but what resulted from it: Chinese and Soviet competition for better relations with the US, with Nixon manipulating the antagonisms of each other, enabling the withdrawl of US forces in a manner that ensured the survival of South Vietnam, which was compromised by the Congress' mendacious acts of reducing and finally cutting off aid from SVN for a year before the NVA final invasion.
Reagan had reversed the trend of the late 70's, detente was only sustainable if the US maintianed its military and political will to either cooperate and confront Soviet assertiveness. The Soviet Union had taken advantage of Carter's equivocating policies and had invaded Afghanistan, was about to invade Poland, and had established puppet regimes in Africa with the help of its Cuban surrogate, as well as Latin America. The collapse of the friendly regime of the Shah in Iran and the hostage crisis, and the Soviet policy of asertveness had put self imposed non interested America on the defensive, and our allies were threatening to seek an independent accomodation with the Soviets if America continued to fail in maintaining *beep* leadership position.
Reagan was a panacea for the strategic mailaise of the Carter-late Ford years. He used the Soviet strategy of supporting small insurgent movements against costly support of allied governments. Afghanistan, Cambodia, Africa, Central America, etc. His position of stregnth enabled him to deal with the Soviets in an advantageous position while contributing greatly to the collapse of the SU.
I'll assume your comments on Reagan include an implication of the Afghan- Taliban issue. The Taliban did not exist during the period of the Soviet Invasion, Bin Laden was there, but was primarily a financier, although he did see combat when Soviet forces trapped his organization on the frontier with Pakistan.
When the Cold War ended, the US withdrew into our typical self imposed isolation. Instead of moderating the vying faction for power within the mujahhedin, the only arbiter, the US had left, the inevitable chaos and civil war that had continued for almost 10 years facilitated the creation of the Taliban during 1992-93.
"Philosopher King"? Hardly, I am just a practitioner of statecraft.
-Henry Kissinger; White House Years
#17
Posted 28 April 2005 - 12:47 AM
Reagan gave a speech as the USSR (Communism is still around as far as I can tell) was falling (from years of mismanagment on many levels amongst other reasons) and wound up looking good for it. There is a huge difference between showing up for the climax and making it happen.
Reagan had been declaring for years in many public statements both as Govenor of California, during his failed bid for the republican nomination in '76, and his radio show from '74-'80 before his ascent to the presidency that the Soviet Union was in danger of collapsing. The cost of maintaining its empire, funding its expansion and supporting its allies was too high especially for an underdeveloped country.
At the time, prominent academic and political elites proclaimed that Reagan's declarations were too "simplistic", "cowboy-ish" and "incomprehensible". People from Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Brent Scowcroft, Edward Kennedy proclaimed that Regan's belief of an imminent collapse were "insane" "ignorant" , or blown "out of proportion". Anti-Reagan movies such as "The Day After", which implied that Reagan's policies would invevitably create a nuclear holocaust were prevalent. But Reagan refused to be disuaded from his course of action.
-Henry Kissinger; White House Years
#18
Posted 28 April 2005 - 06:01 AM
I didn't like Reagan, he fell asleep in board meetings and bombed Libya for not much of a reason.
Member since March 25, 2005.
#19
Posted 28 April 2005 - 06:14 AM
Clinton can hardly be called a man
"It's like going from Alcatraz to Dorney Park."

It is better to destroy than create what is meaningless, so the picture will not be finished.
erikcoleman#26
#20
Posted 28 April 2005 - 08:38 AM
Not much of a reason? Quadaffi had ordered a series of terrorist attacks on Americans, attacking US personnel in Germany and Attacking US ships and aircraft in the Gulf of Sidra, and sponsoring the seizure of US civillians as hostages in Lebannon.
What finally caused the attack was the bombing of the La Belle club in West Germany, killing a handful of US servicemen and German civillians.
Operation El Dorado Canyon destroyed the operational HQ of the Libyan intelligence service and the Libyan military. The operation would not have been possible if British Prime Minister Margeret Thatcher had not given the US rights to using British airfields for the attack on Libya.
The results speak for themselves. For almost 20 years, since 1986 Quadaffi was isolated and neutralized, terrorist activity from Libya against the United States was nonexistent.
Since the majority of us are too young to remeber the Cold War, the the Soviet Union, or the threat of immiment nuclear holocaust, the bitter opean state of war that had destabilized the Middle East, let alone Vietnam, I would think the it would be easy to make such a statement. What I wrote about his accomplishments was significant, they were historic.
Watergate was his downfall, but we also have to take into consideration his historic accomplishments, for his legacy still lives with us today.
-Henry Kissinger; White House Years

Sign In
Register
Help




MultiQuote









