Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Watch america's untold history documentary
Watch the Loose Change documentary. It exposes George W. Bush as a criminal mastermind unlike anything the world has ever seen.
Watch america's untold history documentary
Dropping the bombs were necessary to win the war.
Why? He was a racist piece of shit that got us involved in WWI for no reason and then failed to even get his own League of Nations through Congress.
Watch the Loose Change documentary. It exposes George W. Bush as a criminal mastermind unlike anything the world has ever seen.
Half true.
Read the post from the person he was responding to.
Lower than Ronald Reagan? Get the fuck out of here.
Except, I don't buy any of that because the League of Nations failed and Teddy Roosevelt existed at the same time. Who was, you know, not the massive piece of shit that Wilson was.
as an ignorant non-American asking, would he be higher if the Republicans weren't such 100% obstructionists trying to block everything Obama tried to do? didn't they essentially try to sabotage his presidency from day 1, to make sure he wasn't considered a good president at the end, even if it came at a great cost to the nation?
from an outsider's perspective Obama was pretty good (and fucking AMAZING compared what you have now lol), he seemed like he was really pro-science and listened to factual advice, was super respectful of allies, wanted to protect the environment, obviously for equal rights for everyone... i would preferred another 8 years of him to be honest, even with the obstructionism.
those drone killing campaigns though.. hundreds of innocent women and children blown to bits from invisible weapons from the sky. but even that would have probably been 20 times worse with any Republican president. oh god.. i don't even want to think of all the shit an inhuman monster like Trump is authorizing... ugh probably mass torture going on right now in secret black sites...
as an ignorant non-American asking, would he be higher if the Republicans weren't such 100% obstructionists trying to block everything Obama tried to do? didn't they essentially try to sabotage his presidency from day 1, to make sure he wasn't considered a good president at the end, even if it came at a great cost to the nation?
from an outsider's perspective Obama was pretty good (and fucking AMAZING compared what you have now lol), he seemed like he was really pro-science and listened to factual advice, was super respectful of allies, wanted to protect the environment, obviously for equal rights for everyone... i would preferred another 8 years of him to be honest, even with the obstructionism...
People keep saying he's mediocre, likely because he didn't pass enough major bills to his name like "Obamacare." But, you realize an effective Presidency is more than that? Why do you think George Washington and Lincoln are ranked so high? Washington set the precedent for the entire Presidency and Lincoln saved the Republic. Obama kept the country from economic collapse, pulled us out of two foreign wars, killed Osama Bin Laden, all the while passing through the largest overhaul of America's healthcare system since LBJ's Greater Society.
Reagan screamed at Gorbachev's stupid purple forehead to tear down the wall. And when he refused, Reagan just punched it until it fell.
I agree Wilson probably wasn't the nicest person, but I also agree with the person who said you have to view these people thru the prism of their time. Otherwise, slave-owning Washington is rated way too high. As is pretty much every pre-20th century man on that list.
And yes, the LoN failed. But it set the table for the success (as it were) of the UN. So there's that.
I disagree with the rankings on some of those but with those metrics the listings make more sense as to why it is the way it is
Like public persuasion. Reagan might even be too low. He sold his crap policy like no one else.
Where Obama was really really bad at that. He never really did well at selling his legislation or plans. He should have come out with some graphs and shit or something.
I also think syria brings Obama down a lot. Can't just overlook how the worst human displacement crisis since World War 2 happened under his watch
The guy you quoted was referring to Eisenhower. And I think you are referring to Regan.
He could have handled the situation differently.How so? How was that in any way his fault or under his control?
I think part of the reason Reagan is remembered so fondly is because the '80s were the last real boom times. (Never mind that the boom was only outwardly visible, and was the result of burning American industry to the ground for Wall Street gains.)
It's going to take some time before historians have a better grasp on Obama but even now I don't think it's a stretch to see him being ranked much higher and looked upon much more favorably in the near future. I'll just quote myself from earlier:
Oh I do, it's just that during Wilson's time there were plenty of non-racist or at least much less people around, such as TR. High ranking individuals that advocated for equality, so the whole "he was a man of his time" doesn't fly straight with me. He was a garbage person who had some lofty ideas he couldn't actually execute on. FDR is the true hero, not Wilson.
He could have handled the situation differently.
A no fly zone should have been implemented to stop assads sectarian geonocide and barrel bombing.
He also bluffed and it blew up in his face and that hurt our credibility. You can't draw a red line and say "don't cross it or else", and then do nothing when they do.
It was an incredibly difficult situation and there was no easy answer but it's hard to argue on the side of "he made all the right decisions" on this situation. Every other person on that list had something like this happened under them it would absolutely been factored in to their overall rating
Thought that was the clinton years?
The Clinton years were prosperous, but not really on the same level in terms of visibility. There was a certain amount of self awareness that decade. The '80s on the other hand are synonymous with yuppies and over the top exuberance.
1) 1.5 Million Soviet troops invading Manchuria and Korea in the two weeks before the surrender (coinciding with the nukes) and getting as far as South Korea in a mere 2 weeks, which made the Japanese situation completely hopeless, as it prevented any reinforcements from the Asian mainland, those several million Red Army troops would have eventually invaded the Japanese islands and...What's the other half? Unless you're saying it wasn't "necessary" just more effective as opposed to wasting possibly hundreds of thousands of American lives on an invasion of Japan.
This is actually referenced in Wolfenstein The New Order where the Nazis nuked American cities to "prevent unecessary loss of life on both sides that would have been caused by a ground invasion".Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?
A great mediator... He allowed a full blown race riot to occur literally on the front steps of his White House because he refused to mediate. He screened Birth of a Nation in his White House and stood by while the Klan reconstituted itself by the millions.I fucking hate stupid posts like this. "X Person was a piece of shit." Please come up with a list of world leaders from 1918 who would qualify as not pieces of shit? You can't isolate a man from history and judge him exclusively under a modern lense. If we judged historical figures on the basis of our modern prejudices, then Donald Trump may very well be considered less of a piece of shit than Abraham Lincoln, and that's ridiculous.
Wilson was a great mediator, had strong domestic policy, and provided a framework of peace for Western democracies. The concept of the United Nations was derived from his philosophy of statecraft, and while Republicans have maligned the UN for 30 years, its has secured a lasting peace for some 70 years, something that no other international framework has ever provided before or after it. If there is one president who can be credited with making the modern world, behind FDR, it's Woodrow Wilson.
The fact that Kennedy is so high and Jefferson is so low makes me question that list. Obama is about where he should be.
It's all opinion, but yeah.
Defiance of the law caused Jefferson to seek a drastic solution, the First Enforcement Act, in April 1808.175 It required all vessels of any size in the nation to receive clearance to sail, and to load its cargo under the supervision of a federal treasury official. No ship with cargo could leave a port near foreign territory, for any reason, without the permission of the President himself. Congress authorized naval vessels and smaller gunboats to stop any vessel and search it if officials suspected an intent to evade the ban. Federal officials could seize domestic goods in any area near foreign territory until a bond was posted to guarantee their delivery within the country. Congress did not require warrants or any judicial review for the search and seizure of ships or goods on land
lol @ Reagan's International RelationsReagan vs Obama
the drop points of the bombs weren't over strategic military targets but civilian urban centres.
But the target point of the bomb literally was the civilian urban center. The military headquarters survived mostly intact and the supply depots and military port (both several kilometres away from ground zero) mostly suffered superficial damage. Usually strategic bombing is aimed directly at military installations with hits on civilian target being a side effect of the inaccuracy of carpet bombing.Civilian casualties as a result of strategic bombing are inevitable.
Hiroshima was a staging area for troops, had 2 military headquarters, had a military port, had a great deal of military industry and supplies, and had 40,000 troops stationed there.
If you feel the overwhelming need to moralize every single thing that happened in the past I suggest becoming a university professor so you can lecture your countrymen.
But the target point of the bomb literally was the civilian urban center. The military headquarters survived mostly intact and the supply depots and military port (both several kilometres away from ground zero) mostly suffered superficial damage. Usually strategic bombing is aimed directly at military installations with hits on civilian target being a side effect of the inaccuracy of carpet bombing.
I also like how you ignored my other points in favor of giving me a sermon about morals.
How in the hell is he only 7th in moral authority ?
Obama is probably the best human being to ever be president since Roosevelt. I fail to see any better man than him except maybe John Adams and Lincoln.
Obama should be TOP 3 easily in that category.
John Adams, what? After reading a few Washington and Hamilton biographies I can't see how anyone would consider John Adams a good man.
Those still mostly directly targeted military targets and industry, at least more so than the nukes themselves. Also not a fan of bombing civilian centers in any form so I don't see it as a valid excuse for dropping the nukes either, especially not on the target points that were picked for them.How did you feel about the fire bombing campaign conducted throughout the majority of the war?
But the target point of the bomb literally was the civilian urban center. The military headquarters survived mostly intact and the supply depots and military port (both several kilometres away from ground zero) mostly suffered superficial damage. Usually strategic bombing is aimed directly at military installations with hits on civilian target being a side effect of the inaccuracy of carpet bombing.
You also ignore how the fact that the Soviet Union joined in and made the entire situation hopeless for the Japanese by itself might have lead to a surrender.
I also like how you ignored all my other points in favor of giving me a sermon about morals.
Those still mostly directly targeted military targets and industry, at least more so than the nukes themselves. Also not a fan of bombing civilian centers in any form so I don't see it as a valid excuse for dropping the nukes either, especially not on the target points that were picked for them.
See also the fact that US prosecutors didn't press charges for German carpet and fire bombings at the Nuremberg trials as a result of the morality issues and civilian casualties as a result of their own bombing campaigns (e.g. Dresden).
There is zero evidence that Japan was willing to surrender
Huh? Reagan's policy was absolute dogshit but his ability to work with Tip O'Neill was pretty instrumental to him getting anything done over his presidency, he never had a Republican congress to work with.lol @ Reagan's International Relations
double lol @ "Relations with Congress"
Why? He was a racist piece of shit that got us involved in WWI for no reason and then failed to even get his own League of Nations through Congress.
Except, I don't buy any of that because the League of Nations failed and Teddy Roosevelt existed at the same time. Who was, you know, not the massive piece of shit that Wilson was.
Someone needs to do a full on documentary series detailing the ups and downs of each individual president. It would be a 45 part series, so each president (other than maybe William Henry Harrison) would get a full episode. I think that would be fascinating.
And would likely cost way too much.
Nah, Teddy had his own shitty views on black people and whatnot. Literally all of our leaders did until probably Carter. Lincoln has his famous "I in no way support the equality of the white and black races" line.
We can (and should) judge them very harshly for these views, but if you're doing a ranking, you kind of have to grade on a curve because otherwise it just defeats the point. If I hold that racist views knock you down below the non-racists, then we're essentially just saying that only Carter, HW, Clinton, and Obama get to vie for the top 4 spots. Not really a good exercise.