|
MrRodgers -> RE: PRESIDENT OBAMA ... (5/4/2016 2:32:46 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
For even just 1 term, you'd very hard pressed, for two...nobody.
Grant. Carter. Adams II.
I think grant is pretty much a given but how would you substantiate carter and quincy?
I agree. Yes, Grant was supposed to have had a very corrupt admin. but so what else is new ? Adams II don't know enough about to say he was anywhere near as bad as W given what happened in [his] 8 years and still just can't see all of this denigration of Carter at all.
Carter did many good things, helped demonstrably and every bit as much or more than Reagan to win the cold war and was a victim of oil embargoes (yes both) and what was, is and always has been an fight between the obstinate Palestinians and Israelis and yet still got what is a successful peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
Carter virtually lost the cold war. He accepted a secondary role for the US and advocated the concept that the world belonged to the Soviets, the Chinese and the Arabs and that our only course of action was to make the best deal we could to keep them from coming after us. He destroyed the intelligence system on the ground that we had in the Mid East which was directly responsible fot the disaster at the Marine barracks. Everything he touched turn to shit. Keep in mind that his last two years had the two of the four worst years we have every had for inflation in out history. His actions required that military buildup under Regan.
Quite a nice revision of history. With respect to the Soviet union, Carter did no such thing and in no way, advocated that the 'world belonged to the Soviets.'
It was Carter that even in the face of great European public and political dissent, got the agreement to install Pershing II intermediate range nuke missiles on the ground there. (Soviet generals knew the whole game was up by then) Carter also having served under him, completed the modern technological upgrade of first the navy and then the remainder of the military that Rickover had long pursued. Those actions are not at all the by-product of a policy of advocating that the 'world belonged to the Soviets.'
Oil went from $13+ a bbl. in 1976 to $37+ by 1980 after the second embargo. Tell me what any president is supposed to do ? The resulting inflation in all facets of any economy with such wide use of oil, was the same that plagued the Ford admin. (recall the 'WIN' button) 'win over inflation now,' after the first embargo.
Furthermore, as for our ME intelligence, what Carter did or didn't do had nothing whatever to do with what was an Oct. 1983 attack on our marines in Beirut. Did Reagan sleep for 3 years or, as likely this: Following the election in November 1980, former Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird offered the following advice to the incoming Reagan team: "The worst thing that could happen is for the nation to go on a defense spending binge that will create economic havoc at home and confusion abroad, and that cannot be dealt with wisely by the Pentagon." The Reagan Administration chose not to heed Laird’s warning. HERE
Add to that, was SDI, the so-called Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars missile defense to knock down Soviet nuke missiles. That is in itself now at $247 billion and slated to get an increase of $8.4 this year and because of a fourth failed N. Korean long-range missile test. Plus, the Star Wars part of spaced based or missile vs missile defense...still doesn't work.
Plus, all Reagan was doing in the ME was throwing our military weight around in what was very accurately described as 'gun boat diplomacy' and due to his military's narrow function, i.e., uselessness of stationing those marines in Beirut in the first place, showed their and Reagan's utter incompetence by leaving them completely exposed to a lone suicide truck bomber.
(for comparison, I read where, when Eisenhower sought and obtained approval from congress for the 1956 Suez canal crises, it included a contingency plan for a 30,000 troop total armored div. complete with all of the necessary vehicles) Now to do just what ? To protect our perimeter. Where in the world was Reagan's plan to 'protect our perimeter ?'
Nothing Carter did required any military build up, it was nothing more than a spending binge and as particularly reflected in brining back 2 battleships that was a complete waste of money and just created more enemies in the ME for exanple, by throwing shells at Lebanese civilians.
|
|
|
|
