USA: Best President?

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

Who was the Best President?

Bush Jr
0
No votes
Clinton
7
18%
Bush Sr.
1
3%
Reagan
14
36%
Carter
2
5%
Ford
0
No votes
Nixon
1
3%
Johnson
0
No votes
Kennedy
4
10%
Eisenhower
10
26%
 
Total votes : 39

Postby RYP » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:16 am

You can thank Reagan for the taliban and bin laden. They emerged as a backlash to the corrupt war lords and the Saudis pouring 3 billion (matching our 3 billion) to fund foriegn and afghan jihadis.

Reagan was a big fan of proxy armies Which kept the killing and cost out of the news but created some pretty strange killers.
User avatar
RYP
Ownerus Websiteus Authorus
 
Posts: 27758
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:42 am

Postby Romeo247 » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:22 am

I gotta vote for Thomas Jefferson...

one of those guys who created what the hell was that "piece of paper" called?

The Constitution ;-)

Gotta run I can hear the big DHS (department of homeland security) Hueys {black ones} coming in the distance...

See you all in the camps!! hehehe ;-P

Ciao

Rome...
User avatar
Romeo247
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: Detroit, USA

Postby ReptilianKittenEater » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:37 am

Probably Lincoln and Kennedy. But you had to like Reagen's sense of humour (if nothing else)
User avatar
ReptilianKittenEater
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 2938
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:18 am
Location: St. Catharines, ON, Canada

Postby DawnC71 » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:38 am

LMAO...the camps...yeah we can start a new movement called the
Talib-americ-an

Cheers,
DawnC
Passion is necessity. It is not diligence, or simply being committed to a goal. Passion consumes you while you chase down your goal. Passion should always be your natural state of mind for it is what sparks momentum and sets the pace.
User avatar
DawnC71
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:17 pm
Location: stickitupyourarsenya

Yeah ole Ronnie was a GREAT LEADER/HERO...not....

Postby DawnC71 » Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:51 am

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam



Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:


A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."
U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.
The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."
Passion is necessity. It is not diligence, or simply being committed to a goal. Passion consumes you while you chase down your goal. Passion should always be your natural state of mind for it is what sparks momentum and sets the pace.
User avatar
DawnC71
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:17 pm
Location: stickitupyourarsenya

Am I just shallow?

Postby Tejas » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:43 am

What about Madison starting up the central bank? You have to respect the man who looked at Franklin and even then knew it was all about the Benjamins.
"Every year you get worse. More booze, more bullshit, more buttfucking"- Marcus (Bad Santa)
Tejas
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:32 am

Postby patriot » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:33 am

What about Madison starting up the central bank? You have to respect the man who looked at Franklin and even then knew it was all about the Benjamins.


So true. If Benjamin had ever ran he'd be my nomination for best President. There's no doubt he would have been the best President ever, but alas, he was too brillant to be President. But since he never took office, I'll have to give my nomination to Washington for giving tyrany a slap in the face for centuries to come.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Bill Clinton = God Awful President

Postby Sir Pancreas » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:35 am

Bill Clinton was one of the worst presidents.
He cut CIA funding big-time. I also heard that he disbanded many intelligence operations going on in the Middle East. I suspect he sold all our jobs to the Chinese and that's one of the reasons we've lost so many manufacturing jobs. How can someone who was receiving oral sex while giving orders to a general in Bosnia be a good president? The guy was a total sleazeball. History will judge. Sudan offered Bin Laden and Clinton turned them down. He just rode the dot-com phenomenon and took all the credit for it. The economy began to decline while he was in office and you can't blame it all on George W. I can't believe 1 in 5 people think Clinton was the best president of the latter 20th century.

On another note I think Oman's Sultan Qaboos bin Said is quite possibly the best leader in the modern world. Absolute monarch or not he is an amazing man and very overlooked.
Sir Pancreas
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:24 am
Location: CT

Postby Shining Eye » Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:35 pm

Washington. If it weren't for Washington, we wouldn't have an America as we know it. He lost most of his battles in the Revolution, but understood as long as he had an army in the field, he had a revolution. He wore the Brits down as public opinion turned against the war in England. After the war, he gave the sword back to the civilians instead of setting himself up as emperor or dictator or king. Ceasar, Cromwell and Napolean all failed to do what Washington did. Napolean, on his deathbed, lamented:" They wanted me to be another Washington...". When word of Washington's death reached Europe, the British Fleet fired off a salute in the English Channel.
Image
User avatar
Shining Eye
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:55 pm

Re: I had to pick Eisenhower

Postby Buzzsaw » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:01 pm

Kurt wrote:
I also Like Chester Arthur...just because no one knows what the hell he did, so he must have done something right.


Chester Arthur reformed the Civil Service by signing the Pendleton Act. It was a VERY big deal that put strict controls on the spoils system in Federal Government.
Buzzsaw
Gynecology Enthusiast
 
Posts: 5296
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lavaca

Postby Tarkan » Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:52 pm

Who are the idiots that voted for Clinton? I mean, really, by what criteria were you judging by? And can I have some of those drugs you were smoking?
User avatar
Tarkan
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:57 am
Location: Texas

Postby Buzzsaw » Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:17 pm

Tark, they must have been impressed by that strong stand he took on gays in the military.
Buzzsaw
Gynecology Enthusiast
 
Posts: 5296
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lavaca

Re: Bill Clinton = God Awful President

Postby Aegis » Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:53 pm

Sir Pancreas wrote:Bill Clinton was one of the worst presidents.
He cut CIA funding big-time. I also heard that he disbanded many intelligence operations going on in the Middle East. I suspect he sold all our jobs to the Chinese and that's one of the reasons we've lost so many manufacturing jobs. How can someone who was receiving oral sex while giving orders to a general in Bosnia be a good president? The guy was a total sleazeball. History will judge. Sudan offered Bin Laden and Clinton turned them down. He just rode the dot-com phenomenon and took all the credit for it. The economy began to decline while he was in office and you can't blame it all on George W. I can't believe 1 in 5 people think Clinton was the best president of the latter 20th century.

On another note I think Oman's Sultan Qaboos bin Said is quite possibly the best leader in the modern world. Absolute monarch or not he is an amazing man and very overlooked.


Meh, the "1:5" thing always happens when people look back to "better times." The mass of the population has no historical perspective whatsoever, which is why Historians write the history books, instead of letting any joe off the street do it.

Clinton will go down as a bit of a Warren G. Harding figure. Rode out a good economic period without fucking it up entirely, kept our "foriegn entanglements" relatively low-key, but also noted for a licencious nature. Honestly not "one of the worst," but far from being one of the best.
"[R]emember, Roman, these will be your arts: to teach the ways of peace to those you conquer, to spare defeated peoples, tame the proud."

-Virgil, the Aeneid
User avatar
Aegis
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:32 am
Location: The dark heart of "Red" Oregon... or I guess its "Blue" Oregon now.

Postby Jäeger » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:57 pm

My List:

Thomas Jefferson- Declaration of Independence, Constitiutional assembly, Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark..... not too bad

Abraham Lincoln- Not a fan of his methods, but he kept the country together when all hell was breaking loose (and we think post 9-11 is bad) civil war, draft riots, and violations of the constition that made the Patriot Act look enlightened, nutty wife, etc... gotta count for something

George Washington- For all of the reasons previously mentioned in this thread

Harry Truman- Did pretty well considering that he was not elected first term, stood up to the soviets (and MacArthur), and reasserted the authority of the presidential office

Dwight Eisenhower- gotta love a General bitchin about the military-industrial complex



Andy Jackson- Just had to include one real good ol' boy LOL

Overall I believe it is an impossible question to answer. EVERY president was simply a product of his times and can only be judged in context of those times. Jefferson of "all men created equal" fame was a slave owner. Lincoln did some things during the war between the states that had the forerunners of the militia boys up in arms and was only fighting a war that he inherited brought on by unresolved state's rights issues and a bit of British maneuvering. Washington to his credit didn't want to be a king, however, probably wouldn't have been able to if he did. This was due to the ruggedly individualistic pioneer spirit of that time. Don't forget there were quite a few rebellions after the revolution. Truman used nuclear weapons, not necessarily a popular thing today, yet at the time bringing peace to a war-weary population. Most of the cold war Presidents had to make their decisions against a backdrop of "imminent nuclear conflict" with the "evil empire" (remember duck and cover drills in school,,,, wasn't that long ago).
Hindsight is 20/20. I believe that it is essential to criticize our officials. Yet, it's an exercise in futility to judge past presidents too harshly, as most of them made the only decisions possible at that time (remember congress played a part in most of these decisions too). Afterall, Being of Russian background, I know quite a few folks that think FDR picked the wrong side in WWII. And who knows what historians will be saying about Bush in 50 years...... he could be a hero or a goat. Only time will tell.
User avatar
Jäeger
In Last Chance Saloon
 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 10:13 pm
Location: Just the other side of nowhere....

Previous

Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest