Best President Thread

#101
#101
OrangeEmpire said:
I dunno, they would rebuild their carriers.
Click to expand...

1. This reduces back to the question of whether disarmament should be a justification for war. We may just have a fundamental disagreement on this issue; however, I think you are opposed, since you are opposed to going to war with Iran to keep them from getting nuclear weapons.

2. The Japanese did not build a single aircraft carrier after 1941 (and each of these ships took two to three years to construct).

3. With what resources was Japan going to build an entire fleet of aircraft carriers? Such an endeavor, at that time, would have meant a reconquest of the islands they had already lost at that point; with their commitment in China, this would have been nearly impossible.

4. Had we packed up and went home in 1942, they most likely would not have had the navy to project power across the Pacific until at least 1945; at that point, they would have been fighting off the Russians.

5. I believe that the Russians, post 1945 (at least post 1950), had submarine and surface-naval fleets that could project power across the Pacific.

We would have been in no worse danger facing a rebuilt Japanese Fleet in 1945-46 than we were in facing Russian fleets from 1946 onward.
 
#102
#102
Not sure who the Best is, but I can tell you who isnt

• The share of Americans who've been out of work a long time — now at 42% of the unemployed — is the highest since the Great Depression (source: Labor Department).
• The proportion of the civilian working-age population actually working, at 58%, is the smallest since the Carter era (Labor Department).
• Growth in nonfarm payroll jobs since the recovery began in June 2009 is the slowest of any comparable recovery since World War II (Hoover Institution).
• The rate of new business startups — the engine of job growth — has plunged to an all-time low of 7.87% of all businesses (Census Bureau).
• 3 in 10 young adults can't find jobs and live with their parents, highest since the 1950s (Pew Research).
• 54% of bachelor's degree-holders under the age of 25 are jobless or underemployed, the highest share in decades (Northeastern University).
• Black teen unemployment, now at 37%, is near Depression-era highs (Labor Department).
• Almost 1 in 6 Americans are now poor — the highest ratio in 30 years — and the total number of poor, at 49.1 million, is the largest on record (Census).
• The share of Hispanics in poverty has topped that of blacks for the first time, 28.2% to 25.4% (Census).
• The number of Americans on food stamps — 45 million recipients, or 1 in 7 residents — also is the highest on record (Congressional Budget Office).
• Total government dependency — defined as the share of Americans receiving one or more federal benefit payments — is now at 47%, highest ever (Hoover).
• The share of Americans paying no income tax, at 49.5%, is the highest ever (Heritage Foundation, IRS).
• The national homeownership rate, now at 65.4%, is the lowest in 15 years (Census).
• The 30-point gap between black and white Americans who own their own homes is the widest in two decades and one of the widest on record (Census).
• Federal spending, now at 23.4% of GDP, is the highest since WWII (CBO).
• Excluding defense and interest payments, spending is the highest in American history, at 17.6% of the economy (First Trust Economics).
• The federal debt, at 69% of GDP, is the highest since just after WWII (CBO).
• The U.S. budget deficit, now at 9.5% of the economy, is the highest since WWII (CBO).
• U.S. Treasury debt has been downgraded for the first time in history, meaning the U.S. government no longer ranks among risk-free borrowers (S&P).
Click to expand...

Obama Racks Up Dubious Economic Distinctions From Failed Policies - Investors.com
 
#107
#107
therealUT said:
1. This reduces back to the question of whether disarmament should be a justification for war. We may just have a fundamental disagreement on this issue; however, I think you are opposed, since you are opposed to going to war with Iran to keep them from getting nuclear weapons.

2. The Japanese did not build a single aircraft carrier after 1941 (and each of these ships took two to three years to construct).

3. With what resources was Japan going to build an entire fleet of aircraft carriers? Such an endeavor, at that time, would have meant a reconquest of the islands they had already lost at that point; with their commitment in China, this would have been nearly impossible. China, Burma, Thailand, Korea, Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Singapore, etc, lots of resources and building capability available to Japan in 1942.

4. Had we packed up and went home in 1942, they most likely would not have had the navy to project power across the Pacific until at least 1945; at that point, they would have been fighting off the Russians.

This part I don't understand. Midway was June 42, at that point Japan still controlled a huge portion of Asia and the Pacific. Had we called it a game after Midway, they would have been free to consolidate their gains and reinforce their control. By 43 or 44, they could easily have established themselves as a true super power to rival us and the Soviets. In my view, Japan's biggest mistake was the attack on Pearl Harbor as I don't think we intended to enter the war without provocation. Had they skipped Pearl and perhaps The Philippines, they could have controlled a huge amount of resources to include upwards of a billion people without our interference.

5. I believe that the Russians, post 1945 (at least post 1950), had submarine and surface-naval fleets that could project power across the Pacific.

We would have been in no worse danger facing a rebuilt Japanese Fleet in 1945-46 than we were in facing Russian fleets from 1946 onward. There is a difference between facing the Soviets who had more land and resources and only wanted to keep us busy and Japan who had genuine concern about resources and the ever important "maintaining face." A Japanese Superpower fueled by successful bushido may have been much more dangerous to us than the Russians.
Click to expand...

see bold
 
#110
#110
therealUT said:
I have no interest in protecting nations that cannot protect themselves, and protecting colonies (which is what the Philippines was) is very low on my list of things to die for.
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't have fought in Europe, either?

There may be some merit to your idea that we could have done something short of an outright invasion of Japan, but we couldn't just "go home" one year into the war.
 
#112
#112
Velo Vol said:
So you wouldn't have fought in Europe, either?
Click to expand...

Definitely not.

Velo Vol said:
There may be some merit to your idea that we could have done something short of an outright invasion of Japan, but we couldn't just "go home" one year into the war.
Click to expand...

Of course we could have; there is no minimum duration that wars must last else punishment ensues.
 
#113
#113
Lot easier to talk isolationism now than it was while thousands of Americans were being killed, and millions of others around the globe.
 
#114
#114
Velo Vol said:
Lot easier to talk isolationism now than it was while thousands of Americans were being killed, and millions of others around the globe.
Click to expand...

It is a lot easier to talk of noble expeditionary wars when one has never been in combat.
 
#116
#116
OrangeEmpire said:
Hang on, the pacific was a noble cause?
Click to expand...

No; Europe was (not in terms of stopping the Holocaust, as I do not think that was ever a justification; but in terms of protecting our ally...FDR was just waiting for a reason to get involved, the attack on Pearl, and Germany's subsequent declaration of war, gave him that reason). The Pacific was, until the end of 1942, arguably a war of self-defense.
 
#117
#117
therealUT said:
No; Europe was (not in terms of stopping the Holocaust, as I do not think that was ever a justification; but in terms of protecting our ally...FDR was just waiting for a reason to get involved, the attack on Pearl, and Germany's subsequent declaration of war, gave him that reason). The Pacific was, until the end of 1942, arguably a war of self-defense.
Click to expand...

Ok, I was about to say you lost me.
 
#118
#118
DefenseisDesire said:
Man was a Tennessee Volunteer
Click to expand...

Shamefully so. He started out as a beloved son but his attempt at genocide pretty much cancels out any good he did IMO. Amazing how this little nugget is so often overlooked.
 
#120
#120
Weezer said:
Shamefully so. He started out as a beloved son but his attempt at genocide pretty much cancels out any good he did IMO. Amazing how this little nugget is so often overlooked.
Click to expand...

I would say he is responsible for fewer lives being lost than many presidents
 
#121
#121
Polk was the first president photographed in office, so he has that going for him.

polk_mini.jpeg
 
#122
#122
heartvols said:
I think Andrew Jackson is on the list of best presidents because he got us completely out of debt, and was the ONLY president ever to do so. BUt I recently read he was racist and mistreated native Americans sooo I don't know.
Click to expand...

That pretty much describes most presidents up until the modern era. Even Lincoln was an ignorant racist by today's standards.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top