Worst President

Hmm , he was an average student who got into a an ivy league university, because of his dad. He joined the national guard to skip Vietnam , and even then he was a beetle bailey. He then got in trouble for DUi's. Then he ran a bunch of well off oil companies into the ground. He then became governor , and executed more prisoners in his term then any other president. He became president by getting the evangelicals and corporations to support him. He waged a war to get oil, and the oil companies that supported him got to harvest the oil over there. Not to mention he got a higher amount of votes in the second term because of the war in Iraq. Your suppossed to keep a president in during a time of war.

A cant think of anything good to say bout Bush. Thats what I think of him in a nutshell.

 

Let's see, I never said the Brits weren't (or were) highly regarded in the area, perception and realitya re not always the same thing in any case. It can also be summed in "those were the good old days".
It is a gross over simplification to say it is all the US fault ofr the last 50 years. All the major powers, including the USSR, Brtis, France, as well as the loccals have had some small part to play. The area was/is not a vacum in which the US alone can act or have an effect. There is no way to know what a different course of action by the US would ahve produced.
How do you see it that the only possible course of action open to Islamists to attack the West? And how is this the fault of the US? Why is only the US expected to do what is best for teh rest of the world while everyone else pursues what is in their best interests?

By the way, I know of aware of Ike's speech and the Dulle's role in the US governement, you don't need to get insulting. Some of what you are implying lays between legimate speculation and conspiracy theory. I think you are giving the US "puppet master" powers it has never possessed. the Egyptians and Israeli's were quite capable of going to war without the US. There are other nations in the world with their own agendas.

 

Majorwoody wrote:

I find him highly overated. He was a nobody compared to Meade (the commander in charge of the Army of the Potomac from the end of June, 1863, to the end of the war; he was the first Union commander able to consistently defeat the Confederates), Longstreet, "Stonewall" Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, and of course Robert E. Lee.

If there is one thing I would credit Grant with, its was his strategy of "sending an overwhelming number of troops strait at the enemy, many will die but many more will make it" which Zhukov may have copied for use in the Great Patriotic War.

 

Then you don't understand Grant's campiagns. Meade was at best in tactical charge of the Army of the Potamac from 1864 on, and he was more responsible for the mass troop charges than Grant. It was really more a product of the times and no European (or Japanese) general did any better, not in 1853, 1870, 1905 or in 1914-1918. Following the battle of the Wilderness in 1864, Meade would have retreated and re-grouped. Grant choose to move forward, thereby denying Lee a victory. Meade is still much criticized for allowing Lee to escape without a pursuit followi ng Gettysburgh, Meade's only great independant victory.
Grant's campaigns in the west were masterful, in the east he consistently put the Army of the Potomac in position to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV; R.E. Lee commanding), and he ensured that the full power of the Union was applied against the CSA. Contrary to popular belief, the Army of the Potomac never had overwhelming numbers to apply against the ANV. The logistics and command problems of the day worked against armies much larger than 100,000 - 200,000. What he did have was access to huge industry and replacements. Once these were systematically applied, there was no hope for the CSA.
Eisenhower actually patterened much of his strategy on Grant. I think Grant is vastly under-rated and unjustly charged with the "butcher" label, and I think Lee is over-rated. Grant's primary objective was always the destruction of the opposing army, not possesion of territory, unlike most other Generals of his day, including Meade. Given room to manuver, good sub-ordinates, and a little luck, Grant routinely defeated the Confederate forces in front of him. He made his share of mistakes, but so did Napolean. Bruce Catton's two volumes on Grant, "Grant Takes Command" and "Grant Moves South" are excellent and you should give them a read when you have time.

 

Crash course in history:

After military cue against the king Farouk in Egypt US backs nationalistic colonels (Nasser). They are considered as US men in mid east. Egypt was also only arab country that was ready to recognise Israel (no territorial claims against Israel). US guaranties a loan for building Assuan dam. I effort to gain fothold in the area SSSR sells a small quantity of infantry weapons to Egypt (mostly light infantry weapons and portable infantry AT weapons ). Egyptian military badly needed modernising as it was eqipped with british weapons from ww2 (except now completly outdated Vampire fighter bombers that were backbone of their AF). USSR was supporting Israel to that point that was at the time considered as a rogue terrorist state by West ( King David hotel bombing, murder of count Bernadotte, British high commisioner for Palestine...). As consequence to weapons deal with SSSR, Dulles backs down US guarranties for Egyptian loan without consulting president Ike thus pissing him off. To gain finances for the loan Egypt nationalises Suez canal company thus clashing with UK and French interests. As result of falling out with UK and US (and british gearing for war) Egypt buys a large quantity af SSSR weapons (tanks, MiG-15 fighters, Il-28 bombers...) with complement of Soviet specialist (training personell). With that moment they suddenly had more modern planes than UK and French forcing them to invade Egypt before this systems become fully operational (i.e. before crews become fully trained) at the same time they come close to top of US shit list for buying soviet weapons and inviting soviet miltary personell.
Secret (becouse British public would go crazy becouse of King David bombing) agreament is reached between UK, France and Israel according to which Israel invades Egypt (all with blessing of the US) in excgange for UK and French support. Egptian army (especialy its AF) is relativly succesfull against Israel. UK and France invade Egypt under guise of ending conflict. Military and political leadership decides it will not opose Franco-British invasion and thus becoming victim in the eyes of the world. Egyptian AF is destroyed on the ground by RAF and Aeronavale, thus enabling Israel to gain air supremacy over the battlefield.
UK & France are forced to leave Egypt by international pressure (Soviet block).

With that SSSR gains foothold in the Arab world (even today Russia mantains small naval base in Syria). Since US, UK, France are now backing Israel (previously shunned terrorist state), soviet block is backing most of its Arab neigbours (Egypt, Syria, Iraq) that are now even more pissed about Israel. Some of them are trying to remain more or less neutral ( Jordan, Libanon).

After that Israel got carte blanche in its dealings with the neigbours (with generous US financial support). And that my fiend is root of all of the problems in the area.
On the other hand US and its allies ( France, Saudi Arabia) was quite happy backing Iraq in the bloody war against Iran. And they backed Pakistan and Afgan fighters (later backbone of Al Quida) in their war against SSSR and Afgan communist regime (watch Rambo III and see who the bad guys are).

Becouse they have a qite big grudge againts the west.

 

Keep your insulting crash course in history to yourself. History is open to interpretation and is rarely as clean and straight forward as you would like to project.

Terrorism is not the only possible answer to having a big grudge against the againts the west, and back to the original point, Bush I was not the reason.

 

:roll: :roll: So they just woke one nice morning and decided: Hey let's hate and bomb West in general and America and Israel in particular.

Papa Bush was chief of CIA in crushal part of the cold war (and one does not become chief of one of most influental inteligence agencies during cold war out of the blue), vice president toward it's end and the president at the end. Off course he is blameless. :roll: How can't i see it? (this is rethorical question, no need to anwer it)

So why are you insulted? And history is never clean and straight forward and i didn't projcet it like that. Point is that Israel and Egyp were not quite capable to go to war by themselves, and that every action has a reaction.

 

I'm insulted by the tone and the fact you seem to think I need a history lesson (that use of langauge alone is insulting). You've glossed over vast tracts of middle east history and background to lay all blame on the US. You've only included what you think backs up your side.
The Brits were in control adn there strategy offended no one (Egypt, Iraq and Iran all problems with British policy long before 1945)? All the problems only started in 1956 (like the middle East had been a picture of peace up to that point? Egypt was ready to buddy buddy with US until they bought a few requried rifles form the USSR? The USSR was going to be a supporter of Israel unitl the US got in the way? htese are all kind of hard to agree with, and don't exactly amtch the observed events.

TISO, in general I like your posts (and usually agree with them). But you've got your own agenda with the US in general and Bush in particular (never thought I'd even indirectly end up defending either of them!). I'm unashamed and unapolgetic about my support for the US, so I guess I've got my own agenda.
Let's just agree to disagree and keep it on friendly terms.

 

A little sidetrack

Guys,i sincerely hope this wouldn't offend you,but it is giving me a headache to read your posts because of the spelling and the lack of appropriate punctuations.

Before you guys think i am insulting you(of which i am innocent),i am interrupting what has potential to be a great discussion only because its potential is not realised due to what i have mentioned.Also,it would be appreciated that some of you should just give and take a little.Arguments will get heated up and let's just be a gentlemen(or lady) and be gracious.Of course that doesn't mean the other party should take advantage of that goodwill of whose behaviour i am sure Roel and Ricky will help monitor.

Other than that,i enjoy reading this discussion and regret not participating in it because of my indifference to US policies and history.[/u]

 

the jews feel that they were not well protected in europe...pogroms and ovens make them skittish...they felt they needed their OWN miltary force sooo ..they returned to judea where they lived for thousands of years before there was a mohamed...their neighbors are hostile religious zealots who want to kill them...we in the usa feel that jews should have life ,liberty and the pursuite of happyness....(WE SECRETLY WISH THIS ON ALL PEOPLES)...we tend to support israel the mideasts only democracy and for that moslims hate us...its that simple,really.. islam was exported to other lands with swoards and ponies...many muslims would happily spread the koran worldwide by whatever means are necesary..as they are pushing in africa right now..killing kaffirs or agnostic westerners is all good.. the jews live in a tiny island surrounded by a sea of hostiles...may allah protect them....sry guys for my spelling,someday ill figure out how to use spellcheck.

 

No agenda really. OK i admmit that i get attack of sarcasm and cynicysm when talking/writing about US policies in general and Dubya in particular. As a side note i don't trust anyone claiming that he/she is unbiased (OK you may call me a cynic).

I never claimed that they did not offend no one. But after British pull out from mid east, there was a good chance for normal relations with the west, and that was runied in 1956. None of Israel's neighbours realy cared about Palestinians (they mostly still don't).

Oh come on. They settled Judea by kicking out Philisteans and Phoenitians in the first place ( a nice little ethnic cleansing) and they were in turn kicked out by Romans (another little etnhic cleansing). Come on this argument about one having right to land becouse his/her ancestors lived there 2000 years ago is a bit far fetched.
Now i'm going to be sarcastic (again :roll: ).
If you take that stance (for last 2000 years):
All Americans (south and North) have to be kicked out (but we have to be carefull where we send them) and leave both continents to Native Americans, we have to kick Brits off their nice island (some to Scandinavia, some to Italy ) and let Welsh, Scots, Irish and Bretons (Celts) settle all around Europe. French (most of them) have to be kicked back to Italy and Baltic, Slavs (Poles, Czeh, Slovenes, Serbs, Croats...) back to steppes, North Italy has to be emptied so Irish/Bretons/Welsh can settle it... In effect in Europe only Basques, Celts, Scandinavians, Greeks and Germans can stay where they are and Italians can keep central Italy all others must move. You see where such bad ideas are heading? With such ideas one legitimises claims of groups like ETA and IRA and nullifies 2000 years of traditions in war's and ethnic cleansing (now we can't have that).

Well some of Israeli actions are a small indicator that they are not so democratic as some think. And nothing is simple.

We did spread christianity with fire and sword couple of hundred years ago, so nothing new here.

They do have a lot in common (substitute koran with bible and muslims with christians) with some poeple appearing on FOX news.

 

My short list of less-than-effective presidents in the last century would most definitely include Richard Nixon "I am not a crook" ... and Jimmy Carter: "When they make a peanut-farmer president..."
Carter may have been a veteran of the US "Nuclear Navy" (submarines) but he was an amateur when it came to foreign policy. His brother Billy garnered much press for urinating on the airfield when he visited Libya.
Richard Nixon was forced to resign his presidency.
Bill Clinton had opportunties to get Bin Laden. he was ineffective... but quite an eloquent speaker... even when lying to the American public.

I don't believe history will remember Bush JR as being as ineffective as most of you imagine. He waged a brilliant campaign in Afganistan... time will tell in regards to Iraq. Same holds true with Tony Blair. I believe he and the British people have been the staunchest of allies and friends to the American people, and I respect the man that is Tony Blair.

Tim

 

Actually, if you go back that far you will have to kick the 'Native Americans' out too - analysis of ancient bones taken from their burial grounds (which has caused big legal battles) discovered that their 'ancestors' were actually Caucasians - so the Native Americans had grabbed the land before us Europeans & Americans took it back

 

HMMM. You are right, i forgot If i remember correctly they had most in common to Kuril island natives. But Native americans grabed land from them some 8000 years ago. This brings us to the question where can we find enough of them to populate America and enough Celts to populate most of Europe .
And i forgot Albanians can also stay where they are ( but only in Albania as Kosovo is part of Greece and Tracia).

 

Canambridge wrote

I think you are very right there. There has always been something about that man, I don't know what it is, but I care nothing for him and obviously display that ignorance when discussing him. Thank you anyways, Canambridge, for that interesting and informative post. I will admit that Grant did an infintesimably better job at leading than some of the Potomac Army commanders, such as McDowell (who had some colorful ideas, but far too complex for his novice army) and Burnside (is there even a need to mention Fredricksburg here?. :lol: ).

May I ask where you have found this? From what I understand, the Confederates held a heavy numerical superiority at the Battle of First Bull Run and Cedar Mountain, but were outnumbered by more than 10,000 at the 7 Days Battle, 25,000 at the 2nd Battle of Bull Run, 20,000 at Antietam, 30,000 at Fredricksburg, and some 60-70,000 during the Wilderness campaign. I am sure that these numbers will be lower taking into account such factors as equipment shortages, forgotten about reserves (*cough*McClellan*cough*), uncommitted troups, and staff following the Army of the Potomac, but even then it looks as if the Union still had the numerous advantage.

I think so too, but there is a romantic and respectable shroud around his choice to leave his Army to command that of his birth state. I think it is this that makes him so popular among US Generals, that and the credit he recieved from his subordinates' victories.

I will definitely do that good sir.

 

Zhukov_2005:

Regarding the numerical imbalance of forces between the ANV and The AoP, you are right. The AoP did (almost) always outnumber the ANV, but not in large enough terms for the tactics of times, and I was more specifically thinking of Grant's campaigns against Lee (1864-1865). At best the AoP had a 2:1 advantage, but never enough to really make a difference. Don't forget Meade outnumbered Lee at Gettysburg (83,000 to 75,000).
Of 125,000 in the AoP on April 30, 1864, Meade felt only 60,000 were avaiable for action, the rest I suppose being sick, on leave or garrison duty. By June 30 the total was at 86,000. At the end of August 1864 the AoP and the Army of the James (Ben Butler) combined had 44,000 (infantry only?). By the end of September they had 64,000 infantry and at the end of October 1864 the total was about 90,000 (including cavalry, provost gurads, garrions and other supernumeries).
During the same time period the ANV had roughly 60,000-50,000.

Comparive strengths at major battles during the Overland or 40 Days Campaign of May - June 1864:
Wilderness, May 5-7 1864
USA = 102,000 (18,000 casualties) CSA = 61,000 (11,000 casualties)
Spotsylvania Court house, May 8-21
USA = 100,000 (18,000); CSA 52,000 (12,000)
Cold Harbor, June 3-4 1864
USA = 108,000 (13,000) CSA 62,000 (2,500)

Both Armies lost about 40% of their original strength during the campaign. The difference was that Grant could get replacements and Lee couldn't.

Shelby Foote's three massive volumes on the Civil War are also a good read and a good Conferederate counter weight to Catton's Union view of the war.
Grant's Memoirs are also an amazingly good read and not just about the Civil War. His views on the War with Mexico for example, are quite surprising. Despite his participation in it, Grant felt it was an unjust war.

 

Not trying to highjack the original thread (maybe we could split this), but I feel Lee was a very good commander and not so over rated. He a lot with little and it did take the US 4 years and 5 commanders to defeat him. Now, we must understand that Lee had the best field commanders in the war. Longstreet, Hill, Stuart, and Jackson we able to make Lee's army operate to the fullest.

I feel the problem with the Middle East goes back to the beginnings of time. Back to Abraham and his sons, Isaac and Ismail. Jews, and later the Christians, are from the line of Isaac and Muslims are from the line of Ismail.

 

I agree and I admitted my bias. I am farily cynical (and sarcastic) myself.

[quote ="TISO"]... after British pull out from mid east, there was a good chance for normal relations with the west, and that was runied in 1956. None of Israel's neighbours realy cared about Palestinians (they mostly still don't).[/quote]

I think the problems are deeper and started earlier, at least 1948. I don't really see where there was a great opportunity for middle east peace in 1956. The Arab world may not really care about the Palestinains (I fully agree), but they really do hate the Jews and Israel and as long as the US supports Israel they will suffer from gulit by association (and by choice of the US).

The main area where I have problem with your views is that terrorism is the only, or best, or proper, Arab response to a US policy they don't agree with, and secondarily tha Bush I is the cause. I think what passes for policy makers in the mosques and Arab capitals have more to do with terrorism than Bush I's reign at the CIA.

Note to Kasier: I'm a lousy typist and speller and I'm too lazy to spend much time on proof reading. I'll try to improve my typing quality.

 

intolerance and bigotry are always loathed and condemed by people in this forum...as they should be.....however ,there are some otherwise lucid and educated members who seem to make an exception for muslim bigotry and intolerance....their culture ,their experiance...its ok ..its their religious upbringing...nonsense...prejudice and bigotry is what drives muslim hate of the west and of israel...we in the west were just as insufferable 400 years ago...modern weapons make muslim hatred very dangerous...can we wait hundreds of years for them to see the light of secularism?. (wink) ..i think not.

 

You know that one: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It all depends from point of view.
I don't agree that it is best or proper response to US. But somethimes it is the only possible way of ressistance. But one has to be carefull who one call's terrorist as line between terrorist and freedom fighter is blurred at best. If you use modern Israeli, US, Russian.... classification of terrorism, all resistance movements during WW2 were nothing else as nasty terrorist groups and Germans had every right to use SS and Wehrmacht and their overhelming force to eradicate them (reprisals, anti partisan operations).

I already explained my beef with papa Bush. And i sincerly belive that he was and still is one of the thinkers behind US mid east foreign policies. In my opinion all is connected. Unfortunatly foreign policies in mid east is nothing like physic (when apllying force one gets opposite reaction in equal messure of force) since over reactions are norm of the day.
So who did west (mostly US) support in the area during the cold war? Saudi Arabia and gulf states (sunni fundamentalist states) becouse of oil, North Jemen (right wing Sunni fundamentalists) in their conflicts against South Jemen (marxists) and Israel in their conflicts against its neighbours ( all secular regimes)
But in early 1950's all mid east regimes (except of Saudi Arabia and small Gulf states) were nationalistic and strictly secular. So what is the couse of rise of muslim funadamentalism in mid east? By my opinion it was frustration over economic and military ineficiancy of their secular regimes and endemic poverty of most of population (religion is bread of starving) which resulted in most money being channeled into weapons (for fighting Israel)

Problems are much older than 1948. First time Funadmentalists came in power was after the crusades (mameluks).
Lets face it Israel's actions before and after 1948 did a lot to frustrate arabs in the area. Western support to Israel after 1956, convinced many Arabs and especcialy Palestinians that terrorism is the answer in their fight figuring that if Israelis and later Algerians were succesfull why shouln't they be.

No i don't. But i do consider that western and Israeli bigotry and intolerance ( that is generally forgotten in this kind of discussions) has a lot to do with this problem as well.

No it is frustration. Some of Israel's actions (Sabra & Shatilla, torture of prisoners, excessive use of force against civilian population...) could be tried in international war crimes court. Poeple were hanged for far less than that. But it seems that US gave Israel carte blanche in such matters.
If you want to talk about biggotry take a closer look. Ask yourself who invented modern day terrorism?