News Who Was the Most Controversial U.S. President?

[Smurf]

That's strange...someone needs to edit wiki then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Taft
But thanks for the correction

:shy: No one said it was perfect...

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa whoa whoa... who dares say wikipedia is not perfect?
Public opinion as a dictionary can never be wrong

 

[Manchot]

Or just have done nothing. Japan's navy was gone and its forces shattered. Maybe they weren't a threat anymore?

It doesn't matter if they were a threat at that time or not. To simply stop fighting without formally negotiating a surrender would've been a victory for them, because given enough time, they would've been up to full strength again. Would you also suggest that once we had knocked the Nazis back to Germany's borders, we should've stopped attacking? That would've been just plain stupid.

 

[Smurf]

Would you also suggest that once we had knocked the Nazis back to Germany's borders, we should've stopped attacking? That would've been just plain stupid.

That strategy was strongly considered for most of the war. The unconditional surrender policy only took effect after the Africa campaign (i think). No, I don't think it would have really been stupid. A country doesn't regain full capacity to fight war in a few years <- THAT is stupid.

Germany was absolutely crushed: They're industry was smashed by bombing raids, they were using kids in the army for god's sake, their capable manpower was so depleted! Japan wasn't was different, but none of the affects of war are temporary, they were no better off. Besides, the USA had full control of the pacific, Japan was 0 threat to the US what-so-ever.

We can discuss this further in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=85017&page=3" if you like. Don't worry about rezzing it, that's what it's there for.

 

[russ_watters]

The unconditional surrender policy only took effect after the Africa campaign (i think). No, I don't think it would have really been stupid. A country doesn't regain full capacity to fight war in a few years <- THAT is stupid.
Germany was absolutely crushed: They're industry was smashed by bombing raids, they were using kids in the army for god's sake, their capable manpower was so depleted!

What is "a few" years? After being absolutely crushed in WWI, Germany was ready for WWII in about 20 years.

Japan wasn't was different, but none of the affects of war are temporary, they were no better off. Besides, the USA had full control of the pacific, Japan was 0 threat to the US what-so-ever.

Tactical victory is not good enough in most wars (see: Korea). The war can only really end if strategic victory is attained and that means taking down the government of the country involved in the war. Further back in history, that was a natural part of the conquer and empire-building way, but what made 20th century western leaders different is that they had no desire to take over Germany and Japan. That change did not, however, eliminate the necessity to take down the governments of Germany and Japan.

And whatever the politicians wanted at the time, hindsight shows us pretty clearly that the long-term impact of the total victory and subsequent rebuilding attained in WWII worked out much better than what was attained in WWI. The way WWI was ended was a direct cause of WWII and the way WWII ended was the direct cause of the unprecidented 60+... years of peace in the West.

 

[arildno]

Harding was also a really bad ice-skater. "My shoe-laces aren't knotted together! "

 

[wasteofo2]

Who do you think was the worst past US President, and why? I personally nominate Richard Nixon, because, well because he was an idiot in almost everything he did.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

Man, I'm no Republican or anything, but even if you were just talking about Post-Kennedy Republican Presidents, Nixon shouldn't even be close to the worst one.

For one thing, Nixon opened up China. Brilliant. Furthermore, we started getting out of Vietnam.

Look what Nixon got ousted for. He played political dirty tricks, and was implicated in it.

Gerald Ford, well, he doesn't really count.

Look at Reagan. He sold weapons to terrorists, and funded terrorists all over the world, and because he was a senile old fool, no one held him accountable. Furthermore, he oversaw the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and hardly got us out of it in any decent shape.

Bush Sr. has lots of bastardly deeds up his sleeves, they're all over the place to be found.

The current Bush is conducting probabally the most inexpert war America has conducted since Vietnam. It's almost beyond a doubt that he won Florida's electoral votes illegitimately in 2000, and rather realistic that Ohio's vote was illegitimate in 2004. He's overseeing the biggest defecit in American history, and digging us further and further into it. He noticed a hure problem in social security, then proposed a measure that would only worsen it, and has since given up on what he called a vitally important issue. Because of his war on terrorism, terrorism around the world is actually increasing.

Look at Nixon now. What'd he do? Yeah, he was a scumbag and a liar, but so is everybody else...