The Presidents how I feel they rate in history
Jack Stanley
I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be
great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts.
George Washington 10
John Adams 9
Thomas Jefferson 8
James Madison 6
James Monroe 7
John Q Adams 8
Andrew Jackson 8
Martin Van Buren 5
William H Harrison can't even guess, but he was pretty much a creation
of the Wig party, so the rating would have been low maybe?
John Tyler 8
James K Polk 5
Zac. Taylor 4
Millard Filmore 6
Franklin Pierce 5
James Bucannon 3
Abraham Lincoln 10
Andrew Johnson 7
U.S. Grant 1
R B Hayes 7
James A Garfield 5 ????
Chester A Arthur 8
Grover Cleavland 7 1885-89
Benj. Harrison 4
Grover Cleavland 5
William McKinley 6
Theodore Roosevelt 8
William H Taft 8
Woodrow Wilson 7
Warren G Harding 1
Calvin Coolidge 5
Herbert Hoover 5
F D Roosevelt 9
Harry S Truman 8
D D Eisenhower(sp) 6
J F Kennedy 5
L B Johnson 5
Richard M Nixon 6
Gerald Ford 5
James E Carter 5
Ronald Regan 6
Please share your views on this subject.
Thanks Jack Stanley
Peter Osgood
>I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be
>
>great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts.
Gee! I'm so glad you asked.
JACK STANLEY'S OPINION PETER OSGOOD'S OPINION
>George Washington 10 only a 7, he was an elitist
and allowed almost total elimination
of the armed forces
>
>John Adams 9 5; a more effective political leader
than GW but less receptive to interal
needs and affairs;
>
>Thomas Jefferson 8 9; I would have given him a 10
but for his belief that only the
"Wise, welborn and worthy" should
govern. (that is a direct quote)
>
>James Madison 6 6
>
>James Monroe 7 8; best president on foreign affairs
to take office
>
>John Q Adams 8 4; very much overrated
>
>Andrew Jackson 8 8
>
>Martin Van Buren 5
>
>William H Harrison can't even guess, but he was pretty much a creation
> of the Wig party, so the rating would have been low maybe?
> --shortest term as president ever; 1 month
>John Tyler 8 5; no good reason, just don't think he's
worth an 8
>
>James K Polk 5 5; maybe lower, expansionist, imperialist,
little regard for those who served him
>
>Zac. Taylor 4 4; ex-generals make lousy Presidents
>
>Millard Filmore 6 4; was a "no nothing"; when put on
the spot he and his party would say
"we know nothing of this"
>
>Franklin Pierce 5 2; probably the worst president ever, can't
name a single major innovation of his office;
he hated slavery but hated the idea of
of offending his party worse.
>
>James Buchanan 3 2; last of the Federalists, believed
America is for Americans, not all those
immigrants
>
>Abraham Lincoln 10 10; can't argue this one!
>
>Andrew Johnson 7 7; least understood president ever and
most unfairly maligned
>
>U.S. Grant 1 1; ditto Taylor only Grant should have
been impeached and then court marshalled!!
>
>R B Hayes 7 7
>
>James A Garfield 5 ???? 4; compromise pres. over Grant, Blaine and
Sherman. Didn't do much while he was in
and then was assasinated
>
>Chester A Arthur 8 7; just don't think he's quite an 8
>
>Grover Cleavland 7 1885-89 7
>
>Benj. Harrison 4 7; another poorly understood pres.;
was intrumental in getting major legis-
lation thru congress;
>
>Grover Cleavland 5 5
>
>William McKinley 6 6
>
>Theodore Roosevelt 8 8
>
>William H Taft 8 8
>
>Woodrow Wilson 7 9; never really wanted to be pres.
was dragged out of NJ by his party
(democrat) because they felt they
could manipulate him, they couldn't;
one of our more intelligent presidents;
>
>Warren G Harding 1 4; aw cumon, ole Warren was that bad,
he just liked to party a little and
subscribed to patronage (patronage
very common in that day; not necessarily
bad either)
>
>Calvin Coolidge 5 5; good ole stone face, second only
to Buster Keaton
>
>Herbert Hoover 5 7; he warned all the pol's that we
were headed for trouble in '29 but
no one would listen, but they sure
knew who to blame; bad rap
>
>F D Roosevelt 9 9 maybe even a 10
>
>Harry S Truman 8 10; if Barry Goldwater, a man who opposed
Truman while in office, says he's a 10
I'm not going to argue
>
>D D Eisenhower(sp) 6 4; joke(s) of the day were "wind up
an Ike doke and watch it do nothing";
"wind up an Ike doll and watch it
throw out its back on the golf course";
a well deserved reputation
>
>J F Kennedy 5 8; social reformer of the 60's; look
at Ronnie, he's still trying to take
credit for things JFK started; RR also
tries to compare himself to JFK
>
>L B Johnson 5 6; a little power hungry but was too
frequently submarined by his own
democatic congress (tried to end the
Vietnam War by saturation bombing of
N. Vietnam, this worked in Germany
WWII, but he was stopped short by
congress)
>
>Richard M Nixon 6 7; I really don't like this man but
he was excellent when it came to making
decisions of foreign policy, not bad
with interal affirs either; had he not
lied and disgraced his office he would
probably go down as one of the best ever.
>
>Gerald Ford 5 6; restored honor to the office
>
>James E Carter 5 7; most honest pres. since Truman
(this probably hurt him), poor choices
for cabinet members was his undoing
>
>Ronald Regan 6 6; so far, but dropping; bad foreign
policy; very very little regard for
social programs; elitist; totally
out of touch with the working class;
If George Bush is elected President in '88 I'm moving to Canada!
Although, at the rate RR is going that may be a moot point.
---peter osgood---
j...@calmasd.uucp
> I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be
> great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts.
George Washington 10 I say 5, maybe 6. He wasn't a particularly
great president, mostly famous for being 1st.
Abraham Lincoln 10 6 at most, he delayed the construction of the
trans-continental railroads, and was in favor
of war with the south - rather than re-concil-
liation.
U.S. Grant 1 Right on target - a drunken illiterate.
Grover Cleavland 5 8 - he was instrumental in what is now the
national park system.
Woodrow Wilson 7 4 - spent too much time on his league of
nations not enough on domestic issues.
F D Roosevelt 9 2 - please!
James E Carter 5 2 - ditto
--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp j...@calmasd.UUCP GE/Calma San Diego
Lynn Gold
>
>
>
>
> I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be
>
> great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts.
>
>
> George Washington 10
>
> John Adams 9
>
> Thomas Jefferson 8
responsible for the Louisiana Purchase.
>
> James Madison 6
>
> James Monroe 7
>
> John Q Adams 8
>
> Andrew Jackson 8
>
> Martin Van Buren 5
>
> William H Harrison can't even guess, but he was pretty much a creation
> of the Wig party, so the rating would have been low maybe?
>
> John Tyler 8
>
> James K Polk 5
college against him; this was because the "dissenter" wanted
Washington to be the only president to have been elected unanimously.
I'd give the man an 8 or 9 at least!
>
> Zac. Taylor 4
>
> Millard Filmore 6
>
> Franklin Pierce 5
>
> James Bucannon 3
>
> Abraham Lincoln 10
states. The northern states were "free" to have slaves (sounds like a
contradiction of terms..."free slaves" :-) ).
>
> Andrew Johnson 7
Johnson deserves an 8. He wasn't popular because he was a southerner
against slavery who stayed with the Union.
>
> U.S. Grant 1
>
> R B Hayes 7
>
> James A Garfield 5 ????
>
> Chester A Arthur 8
>
> Grover Cleavland 7 1885-89
>
> Benj. Harrison 4
>
> Grover Cleavland 5
>
> William McKinley 6
>
> Theodore Roosevelt 8
>
> William H Taft 8
>
> Woodrow Wilson 7
>
> Warren G Harding 1
>
> Calvin Coolidge 5
did nothing. :-)
>
> Herbert Hoover 5
>
> F D Roosevelt 9
our country into a dictatorship (some sort of state-of-emergency
thing) and decided not to. The man got us out of the Great Depression.
>
> Harry S Truman 8
Give the man a 9. He had a tough (and unpopular) job to do, and he
did it. FDR was not an easy act to follow, and jumping in during WWII
wasn't an easy task.
>
> D D Eisenhower(sp) 6
Too high for a man who had never voted in his life before his own
election. This was a man who encouraged Joseph McCarthy, Richard
Nixon and the "witch hunts" of the '50's. This is the man whose
morality inspires Jerry Falwell and his ilk. I'd give him a 2 at best.
>
> J F Kennedy 5
Give JFK a 7. He screwed up Bay of Pigs, but he started special
education and civil rights programs. He was also a supporter of the
space program and of physical fitness. The man was ahead of his time.
>
> L B Johnson 5
5????? YOU rate EISENHOWER better than LBJ????? This man continued
JFK's work, especially in the areas of civil rights and the space
program. He'd get a 9 if he hadn't escalated Vietnam; for that, I'd
knock him to a 7 or 8.
>
> Richard M Nixon 6
I'd give him a 4. Nixon was excellent in foreign policy matters, but
really screwed up on the home front. Nixon had a study done on the
same little piece of law that FDR chose not to implement to see how
feasible it was to take over the country. Had it not been for that
study I'd have given him a 5.
>
> Gerald Ford 5
>
> James E Carter 5
>
> Ronald Regan 6
policy (we got along with foreign powers much better before he took
office than we do now), he's screwed up our domestic affairs (no more
college loans, increased unemployment, more people on welfare, etc.).
I'd give him a 3 except that for some reason he's popular.
>
--Lynn
--
Atari Corp.
1196 Borregas Ave.
UUCP: vecpyr!atari!figmo Sunnyvale, CA
ARPA: Lynn%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM (408) 745-2930
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions represented in this posting are mine. Any resemblance |
| between these and my employer's opinions is purely coincidental. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]
>In article <1...@petrus.UUCP> j...@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes:
>
>>I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be
>>
>>great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts.
>
>Gee! I'm so glad you asked.
>
>JACK STANLEY'S OPINION PETER OSGOOD'S OPINION
> but for his belief that only the
> "Wise, welborn and worthy" should
> govern. (that is a direct quote)
>>F D Roosevelt 9 9 maybe even a 10
5 - Knew of and tacitly encouraged the impending bombing of Pearl Harbor by the
Japanese. War criminal -- ordered the fire bombing of German cities which had
no significant military value.
>>Harry S Truman 8 10; if Barry Goldwater, a man who opposed
> Truman while in office, says he's a 10
> I'm not going to argue
1 - Low intelligence, war criminal, mass murderer. He ordered the unnecessary
atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities, just as the Japanese were about to
surrender.
>>D D Eisenhower(sp) 6 4; joke(s) of the day were "wind up
> an Ike doke and watch it do nothing";
> "wind up an Ike doll and watch it
> throw out its back on the golf course";
> a well deserved reputation
3 - Tacitly encouraged McCarthy for much of his reign, but recognized the
dangers of the military-industrial complex, just as he was unable to do anything
about it.
>>J F Kennedy 5 8; social reformer of the 60's; look
> at Ronnie, he's still trying to take
> credit for things JFK started; RR also
> tries to compare himself to JFK
7 - Idealist that got shafted by the CIA/military intelligence establishment --
Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, possibly his own assassination
>>L B Johnson 5 6; a little power hungry but was too
> frequently submarined by his own
> democatic congress (tried to end the
> Vietnam War by saturation bombing of
> N. Vietnam, this worked in Germany
> WWII, but he was stopped short by
> congress)
1 - War criminal, mass murderer -- escalated the Vietnam War.
>>Richard M Nixon 6 7; I really don't like this man but
> he was excellent when it came to making
> decisions of foreign policy, not bad
> with interal affirs either; had he not
> lied and disgraced his office he would
> probably go down as one of the best ever.
1 - Caught lying, war criminal, mass murderer -- needlessly extended the
Vietnam War.
>>Gerald Ford 5 6; restored honor to the office
1 - Pardoned a lier, crook & mass murderer for all unnamed crimes while
committe in office. Even the unjustly convicted don't get pardons like this.
>>Ronald Regan 6 6; so far, but dropping; bad foreign
> policy; very very little regard for
> social programs; elitist; totally
> out of touch with the working class;
2 - Basically an honest dupe of the military industrial establishment. His
cabinet is filled with crooks and people out for their own interest. Low
intelligence (can only remember anecdotes, not facts, hence his superior acting
ability).
mic...@ucbiris.berkeley.edu michael%ucb...@berkeley.arpa
{arizona|decwrl|decvax|hplabs|ihnp4|sun}!ucbvax!ucbiris!michael
Michael Galassi
the score he gets. My guess is that time rounds off the rough edges from
our memories and gives historians and trivia hunters a chance to discover
the sorts of "interesting" facts and anecdotes that make a "great man" out
of a politician.
One thing about placing our presidents on a scale, the only thing in common
amongst them is their title. The job functions related to the presidential
office have changed enough over the years that comparing Reagan to Washington
is very difficult. I would guess we are putting apples and orranges on the
same scale with this excercise.
On the other hand, we could evaluate each one as an individual, based only
on what he acomplished in his life-time with special accent on what there
was that needed acomplishing in that time frame.
--
Michael Galassi, Frye Electronics, Tigard, OR
..!tektronix!reed!percival!nerd
Steve Blore Howard
>
>
[many many years are deleted here, for the sake of brevity]
>J F Kennedy 5
>L B Johnson 5
>Richard M Nixon 6
>Gerald Ford 5
>James E Carter 5
>Ronald Regan 6
> Please share your views on this subject.
>
Reagan and Nixon were better presidents than Kennedy is beyond me. I would
rate these more as:
JFK 7
LBJ 6
RMN 3
Ford 5
Carter 5
Reagan 2
--
"If you write it down, people will believe it"
Steve "Blore" Howard, Exorcist to the Stars
{hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard
or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
If your dog goes off in another room is it because of explosives?
>>>Harry S Truman
>1 - Low intelligence, war criminal, mass murderer. He ordered the unnecessary
>atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities, just as the Japanese were about to
>surrender.
Yeah, right. They were about to surrender, all right. That's why it took two
bombs. They thought we had used up the world supply of weapons-grade Uranium
with the first bomb, so they decided not to surrender. They didn't count on
Plutonium.
Truman saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, by dropping those
bombs.
--
--Craig
...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good
ln6...@sdcc7.uucp
>It apears that the longer a president has been out of office the better
>the score he gets. My guess is that time rounds off the rough edges from
>our memories and gives historians and trivia hunters a chance to discover
>the sorts of "interesting" facts and anecdotes that make a "great man" out
>of a politician.
Another observation I'll add is that presidents who die in office generally
receive good ratings. Especially those who die suddenly or are assassinated.
Witness Lincoln, JFK, and FDR. All had a number of severe problems during
their administrations, yet after they died they became heros. Sort of a
"halo-effect": people don't like to say bad things about the newly dead.
Paul van de Graaf sdcsvax!sdcc7!ln63soi U. C. San Diego
mah...@dec-bartok.uucp
>> James K Polk 5
>ONLY a 5???? Only one dissenting vote was cast in the electoral
>college against him; this was because the "dissenter" wanted
>Washington to be the only president to have been elected unanimously.
This was James Monroe not James Polk. James Polk was the First dark horse
president. It was during the Era of Good Feeling. The US was riding high
we had just semi-won a war with England and our economy was going like gang-
busters. The bigger problem was the fact that the Federalist party was
following apart there was no real competition for James Monroe.
>--Lynn
Brian Mahoney
mah...@dec-bartok.uucp
My rating is in column 2
I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be
great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts.
George Washington 10 10 ;Unlike someone in another posting said it has
nothing to do with his being first. The fact
of things he accomplished and would not allow
is why I rate him so high.
John Adams 9 5 ;He was mediocre at worst or best.
Thomas Jefferson 8 8 ;Though as a political philospher I would rate
him much higher
James Madison 6 6
James Monroe 7 4 ;Someone mentioned his great foriegn policy
which actually was the work of his Seceratery
of State JQ Adams
John Q Adams 8 5
Andrew Jackson 8 5 One of the more dangerous presidents. He
tended to ignore the constitution when ever
he felt like it.
Martin Van Buren 5 5
William H Harrison can't even guess, but he was pretty much a creation
of the Wig party, so the rating would have been low maybe?
John Tyler 8 7
James K Polk 5 4
Zac. Taylor 4 4
Millard Filmore 6 4
Franklin Pierce 5 3
James Bucannon 3 6
Abraham Lincoln 10 10
Andrew Johnson 7 7 ;His biggest problem was he did not know how
to compromise
U.S. Grant 1 1 ;decent general terrible president.
R B Hayes 7 5 ;he stole the election
James A Garfield 5 ???? 5
Chester A Arthur 8 8
Grover Cleavland 7 1885-89 7
Benj. Harrison 4 3 ;He was to much of a wimp. He bowed to
congressional pressure without so much as a
wimper
Grover Cleavland 5 7
William McKinley 6 5
Theodore Roosevelt 8 6
William H Taft 8 6
Woodrow Wilson 7 7
Warren G Harding 1 1
Calvin Coolidge 5 5
Herbert Hoover 5 6 ;He at least attempted to accomplish stuff
unlike his predecessor
F D Roosevelt 9 9
Harry S Truman 8 8
D D Eisenhower(sp) 6 7
J F Kennedy 5 5
L B Johnson 5 4 ;I am a liberal but personally the Vietnam
War and the Great Society were both great
failures
Richard M Nixon 6 1 ;for no other reason then he disgraced the
office of the President. I personally do
not think he deserves any higher.
Gerald Ford 5 6 ;I think he was the soothing type of person
the country needed after Nixon.
James E Carter 5 7; I like Jimmy and feel he Ford got stuck with a
mess created by Kennedy Johnson and Nixon.
Mainly though the fault lies with Jonson and
Nixon.
Ronald Regan 6 8 and 3 ;The eight is for the ability to use the
office the 3 for the policies he has
followed.
Please share your views on this subject.
Thanks Jack Stanley
Well here are my views.
Brian Mahoney
dra...@isis.uucp
>
>
>F D Roosevelt 9 ; if you give him a nine, then why do you
rate Reagan as a six? Reagan is
doing the same thing...taking
drastic measures to get the country
back on its feet again after some
president (I won't mention his name)
took us into the toilet (ok. ok. it was
Carter, but you forced me to tell!)
(and look at the state of the
economy: interest rates,
inflation, etc.)
>
>Richard M Nixon 6 ; until Reagan, the last of the 'tough'
president's. I'd give him a 7
>
>Gerald Ford 5 ; The only pres. to drop a phone on his
own head...I'd give him a 3.
>
>James E Carter 5 ; The biggest jerk in office. You thought
Nixon was good with foreign policy? Well
Carter single handidly destroyed our
image with the entire world.
I'd give him a negative 6.
>
>Ronald Regan 6 ; Well, I like Ronnie, so I will give him a
9 (I don't like dishing out undeserved
10's...kind of like Mary Lou Retton)
The reason I think Reagan is really good is the fact that he is
showing the world that the U.S. is sick of being pushed around.
You might think that the 'home front' is not being too well
taken care of, but I think if you look at the points I mentioned
above, we are not that bad off over all. (Many college students
will complain about lack of funding etc. well, let me tell you,
if you need it, then it is there...that is how I am going through
this place!...and if you remember all the talk about students
defaulting on student loans, they are all from Carter's term
(that, I can't explain) ).
--
"Joel, get off the babysitter!" -- Risky Business
(^^^^^^)
o o (The above are your opinions,
< you just don't know it yet :-)
|_____| ------> The Oprdrt <------
UUCP: {hplabs, seismo}!hao!isis!dragheb
Robert Vetter
My understanding was that he wanted to defeat Japan before the Russians got
into the fray. This was to avoid another German-like split or even Russian
control. In any case, the decision probably DID save lives, including
Russian ones.
Rob Vetter
(503) 629-1291
[ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!tekla!robertv
"Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC
(Well, they COULD have said it)
Adrian Kent
>In article <1...@petrus.UUCP>, j...@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes:
>> great to have opposing views on my thoughts.
I'll stick to modern ones.
>> J F Kennedy 5
>Give JFK a 7. He screwed up Bay of Pigs, but he started special
>education and civil rights programs. He was also a supporter of the
>space program and of physical fitness. The man was ahead of his time.
0 Took what he assessed as a "1/3 to 1/2 chance of a nuclear war"
to defend the principle that America could put missiles on the Soviet
Union's borders but not vice versa.
>>
>> L B Johnson 5
>5????? YOU rate EISENHOWER better than LBJ????? This man continued
>JFK's work, especially in the areas of civil rights and the space
>program. He'd get a 9 if he hadn't escalated Vietnam; for that, I'd
>knock him to a 7 or 8.
0 How many people were slaughtered in Vietnam?
>> Richard M Nixon 6
>I'd give him a 4. Nixon was excellent in foreign policy matters, but
>really screwed up on the home front. Nixon had a study done on the
>same little piece of law that FDR chose not to implement to see how
>feasible it was to take over the country. Had it not been for that
>study I'd have given him a 5.
0 Vietnam continued.
>> Gerald Ford 5
3 I can't think of any major atrocities committed by this man.
>> James E Carter 5
8 The one decent human being to become U.S. president since 1945. The only
one to attempt (however patchily) to formulate a moral foreign policy.
>>
>> Ronald Regan 6
>It's Ronald REAGAN, and I'd give him a 4. He's screwed up our foreign
>policy (we got along with foreign powers much better before he took
>office than we do now), he's screwed up our domestic affairs (no more
>college loans, increased unemployment, more people on welfare, etc.).
>I'd give him a 3 except that for some reason he's popular.
0 In foreign policy an evil and dangerous warmonger; domestically an
enemy of the poor and of what's left of America's democratic
tradition.
Gregory M Ayers
It is impossible for me to consider Nixon a better president than
Reagan, let alone consider Carter even rating more than 0. Here is
the way I see it :
JFK 7
LBJ 2
RMN 3 the last two recieve low ratings due to shady dealings.
Ford 7 didn't do much, but was honest and restored some trust in
the white house.
Carter 0 to -1 the man was and still is incompetent
Reagan 8 the man has restored the USA to respectibility but is
slightly too heavy handed when it comes to defense.
I can make no statements beyond these few presidents, since I was
not living previous to JFK and Bush has yet to be elected, although
that day is comming SOON.
Greg Ayers
Independent and Slightly Conservative Minded Political Supporter
Purdue University
Jeff Lichtman
A friend of mine has two histories of World War II, both of which say that
near the end of the war, the Japanese sent messages to Stalin asking that he
tell Truman that they were willing to surrender on the condition that they
be allowed to keep their emperor. Stalin delayed in sending this message to
Truman, because he wanted to get involved in the Asian war. However, the U.S.
had been reading the Japanese codes, and knew what the Japanese had asked
Stalin to do. Stalin eventually relented and told Truman, who had to pretend
that he didn't already know. The U.S. demanded unconditional surrender,
which the Japanese would not accept. The final inducement was the dropping
of the atomic bombs. After the surrender, the U.S. allowed Japanese to keep
their emperor anyway. If all this is true, the atomic bombs did nothing to
save lives or shorten the war.
If anyone is interested, I will post the bibliographic info and the relevant
paragraphs from the two books. If I could find my photocopies I would post
it in this article, but alas!
--
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."
{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
Tom Harris
comment on his criteria for rating the presidents. My personal
criteria for rating is based upon a mixture of how well did they
fufilled the ideals upon which this country was based combined with
a rating of their ability in the office. I have omitted
presidents where I have no opinion.
idealism performance
George Washington 5 10
John Adams 3 9
Thomas Jefferson 10 9
James Monroe 10 8
Andrew Jackson 0 2
Abraham Lincoln 4 10
Jefferson Davis 10 4
Andrew Johnson 8 4
U.S. Grant 4 1
Theodore Roosevelt 8 10
Woodrow Wilson 7 4
F D Roosevelt 7 10+
Harry S Truman 6 8
D D Eisenhower 4 4
J F Kennedy 10 7
L B Johnson 5 8
Richard M Nixon 0 8
Gerald Ford 8 4
James E Carter 8 6
Ronald Regan 2 8
Some notes: Washington - was a politician and got where he did
mainly via ambition and the ruthless use of others. Remember he
controlled the writting of a constitution which would allow this
country to be run as a facist state. He gets a 10 for performance
for defining the duties of the office.
Jefferson - as far as I am concerned defined the political ideals
on which this country was based. The on going duel between him
and Adams fore-shadows the underlying problems with our
governement structure which eventually causes the ACW.
Jackson - he had no ideals and performed on the premise that to
the victor goes the spoils.
Lincoln - performed well under the most harrowing circumstances,
learned from his mistakes. Loses on idealism for changing why the
ACW was fought from states rights to slavery and his opinions on
what should be done with the freed slaves.
Davis - Couldn't resist adding him. Fought the war based on his
ideology of freedom. Loses on performance for allowing Lee to take
command of the ANV instead of remaining Chief of Staff and for firing
the first shot.
T. Roosevelt - Do what you can with what you have where you are.
The world will never love us, but we can make them respect us. Probably
one of the most underrated presidents historically. He defines
the ideal 20th century American in my opinion. (Note: many people
have catagorized him as an imperialist, but no territory was
annexed by the U.S. during his term. The Panama CZ, etc. are rented!)
F. Roosevelt - Outperformed every other president. Extra points for
maintaining a strong presence, but staying out of WWII until we
were attacked.
Kennedy - performace would be higher, but his death forstalled
enactment during his term of most of the legislation he had been
working for.
Johnson - performance would be lower, but he benfited from Kennedy's
programs.
Regan - I strongly suspect that I have overrated Regan's Idealism
because his ideals are a perversion of those which our country was
based (he is trying to push us back to an earlier moral position,
feeling that we were a strong nation because of our morals then,
not in spite of them). Had he been the first president I am sure
he would have found a way to squash the Bill of Rights. His
idealism would be higher had he been president 100 years ago, but
then most of the issues he is he is trying to push were de facto then.
Never the less, he has performed strongly in the office and had a major
effect on national pride.
da...@sci.uucp
> bombs.
>
Did he? Someone told me (this is net.rumor, right? so i can use third+ hand
sources) that the Japanese had surrendered between the dropping of the first
bomb and the dropping of the second. And that, since they no longer had
an embassy in the states, they used their friends and ours, the Soviets, to
transmit their surrender. And that the Soviets delayed telling Washington
about the surrender until after the second bomb had been dropped.
david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver
Joe Herman
Well, finals are over (almost) so I figure I'll post my opinions. I
didn't include any president who's administration I couldn't remember
anything about. As usual, all of this is my own opinion and doesn't
represent the University, IBM, or anyone else.
George Washington 8 Was able to hold this country together during
very tough times.
Thomas Jefferson 9 The man was incredible. He not only
helped the country grow, but was also able
to get along with congress. How many
presidents can claim that?
James Monroe 7 Was able to talk the U.S. into a respectable
foreign policy. Would have been higher
he was sort of bland on the home front.
Andrew Jackson 5 Too much disregard for the constitution. The
only good thing was he shook up the Federal
establisment enough to start some reforms.
Probably the worst president the Indians
ever dealt with.
Abraham Lincoln 9 I can't really give him a 10. His choice
in generals to lead the civil war was abysmal.
Caused the dang thing to last an extra year.
U.S. Grant 1 Generals make lousy politicians. Was elected
because of his war record, not beliefs.
James A Garfield 6 I don't know nationally, but because of
his support, Washington D.C. was transformed
from a smelly southern town into a southern
town with an underground sewer system and
predecessors to "national parks."
Grover Cleavland 8 Was a big help in building an industrial
America.
Theodore Roosevelt 8 Bully for him. Incredible politician.
Woodrow Wilson 7 Would have been higher except that he was
an idealist. Presidents can't afford to
be idealists. Leave that to universities :-)
Herbert Hoover 6 He knew trouble was coming but was not able
enough to do anything about it.
Unfortunately neither was the legislative
branch at that time.
F D Roosevelt 10 The man could do anything. Even with his
handicap he was popular with the people.
His policies were some of the wisest this
country has ever known. And he accomplished
all this with a hostile congress.
Harry S Truman 9 It took guts to follow an act like
Roosevelt's. Harry accomplished many
things during his administration (such as
integrating the army) and set foreign policy
guidelines that are followed even today.
(the containment policy). The country was
lucky to have two very able presidents in
a row.
D D Eisenhower 5 Ike didn't do much. He gets a 5 because
He kept the economy from dying completely
in the 50's.
J F Kennedy 9 I know I said presidents can't afford to
be idealists, but JFK was able to
implement his ideas and they
actually worked. The peace corps was
probably the best thing that the U.S.
has every given the third world.
I think he was the fastest learner of
all the presidents. He really learned
from his mistakes.
L B Johnson 4 LBJ was a product of his generation.
He was part of the Good-ole-boy network
and really didn't understand what the
'crazed youth' was trying to tell him.
He also picked incredibly bad advisors.
Richard M Nixon 4 Nixon discraced the office he served.
Because of him, the U.S. suffered what
became known as a 'crisis of confidence'.
He destroyed many peoples belief in
the government. He had an o.k. foreign
policy, but probably had the worst
domestic policy of any president to date.
Gerald Ford 5 Was uncontroversial and source of some of the
best material done by Chevy Chase.
James E Carter 7 Would have been a wonderful president if he
hadn't succeeded in alienating the whole of
the Washington power structure. He also
was not a leader. Probably the hardest
worker since Roosevelt, and the most
honest politician ever, he found that
he had no political pull when he needed to
get things done. This caused him to seem
ineffectual. In reality he's had some of
the best economic ideas since the 50's.
That and a lot of bad luck.
Ronald Regan 6 The antithesis of Jimmy Carter, Reagan
probably works the least of any president
this century. He is weak intellectually
and doesn't fully understand the office
he occupies. However, he is probably the
best politician since Roosevelt. He knows
his limitations and listens to his advisors.
He also has a good relationship with the
senate and is good at seeing things through.
So far he rates a 7. He loses one more point
for his polarizing the U.S. into the
'HAVES' and 'HAVE NOTS' and his disregard for
environmental issues.
Personally, I don't see any future candidate with as much charisma as
Reagan. Also, I'm pretty sure that his charm and thus the mass support
of the republican party will disappear when he leaves office. '88
should be an interesting election.
-- Joe
DZ...@UMD5.UMD.EDU
seismo!umd5.umd.edu!dzoey
HER...@UMDD.BITNET
--
"Everything is wonderful until you know something about it."
Philip E. OKunewick
...seems kind of ironic.
Wasn't there a similar delay on December 7, 1941?
One that caused large casualties among Americans?
Well, it's 45 years in the past now. May it never happen again.
---Duck
crac...@pyrla.uucp
of our presidents has myopia. Either that or astigmatism.
> idealism performance
> F D Roosevelt 7 10+
> Ronald Reagan 2 8
>
Roosevelt given a 10+ for performance??? I have listened year after
year to Roosevelt being deified. The man has almost the reputation
of a god in this country. I won't bore you with citing statistics.
First, he came into office at a crucial time (the time immediately
surrounding the Great Depression). Second, his NEW DEAL did *NOT* solve
our problems during the Great Depression. In fact, after 10 long
hard years of the Great Depression, the tragedy showed almost no signs of
easing with or without the New Deal. It was a monster Depression.
Not even all of economist Keynes deficit spending (on which the New
Deal and most of Roosevelt's philosophy was based) could get us out
of the Depression.
So, the conclusion is that Roosevelt did not get us out of the Depression.
What did? World War II did! The gearing up of fantastically high production
levels to meet the demands of supplying troops abroad was what did it.
I admit that Roosevelt had a certain charisma, but we must face facts.
He almost destroyed this country *permanently* and *economically* by
doing a complete brain-surgery of the role of our government. Roosevelt
had intended and publically stated that he would lift many of the
New Deal programs. However, he died prematurely and was unable to lift
them. As a result, we were saddled with increased deficit spending
is now at a really obscene level (with the help of a few wars).
In my humble opinion, Keynes and his ugly philosophy embodied in
the programs of the New Deal, have done severe damage to our capability
as a nation to compete internationally and only recently, with Japan and some
other countries leapfrogging us economically, has this been shown.
I don't mean to digress, but the Roosevelt/Keynes brotherhood has
been in place for 50 years. Only recently, with the advent of the
supply-siders, who understand the many good points of *both* the
monetarists and classical-economists as well as some of the major
*reasonable* points of Keynes economic theory, only now, have we
begun to see some major shifts in the way our government deals
with the country.
The new right on which Reagan bases his philosophy on includes
Arthur Laffer and George Gilder. In my opinion, these men are
infinitely more stable both in their personal lives, their personalities,
as well as their economic theories than Keynes ever demonstrated even
the remotest capacity to reach. I am here referring to the fact that
Keynes was a very troubled man, operating during a time when the
Great Depression was wiping out lives, let alone pocketbooks. We
are well aware of what happens when you put such personality structures
into such situations. They come up with the most outlandish, insane
theories, that may look rigorous and may even have some reasonable
points, but which ultimately are born out of the desperation of
the times.
We are very fortunate to have had 8 years of a monetarist/supply-sider
president such as Reagan. What he has done for us is *extremely*
important, and we honestly need another 8 years of someone with
similar *economic* views. (I will not discuss his religious or
many incursions into our personal lives which are substantial,
although we should all acknowledge that the idea of getting
the government off the people's backs economically should include
*everything* (both economically and in our personal lives) is one
of the major contradictions of modern convservativism.)
>F. Roosevelt - Outperformed every other president. Extra points for
>maintaining a strong presence, but staying out of WWII until we
>were attacked.
Nonsense. See above.
>Reagan - I strongly suspect that I have overrated Regan's Idealism
>because his ideals are a perversion of those which our country was
>based (he is trying to push us back to an earlier moral position,
>feeling that we were a strong nation because of our morals then,
>not in spite of them). Had he been the first president I am sure
>he would have found a way to squash the Bill of Rights. His
>idealism would be higher had he been president 100 years ago, but
>then most of the issues he is he is trying to push were de facto then.
>Never the less, he has performed strongly in the office and had a major
>effect on national pride.
You are no doubt here referring to his incursions into our personal
lives. I agree. The major contradiction of modern conservativism
is that it emphasizes getting government out of the person's
pocketbook but into their bedroom and church/synagogue. This major
contradiction has caused many young people to have a tough time
swallowing conservativism as a political philosophy. I myself lean
towards Libertarian philosophy which emphasizes getting the government
out of everything as much as possible, maintaining only a skeleton government
(at most) for doing absolutely crucial things. However, I realize
they could never be elected to offices I would want them in, so
I vote Republican because the economic philosophy of that party
means a lot to how much I can take home out of my paycheck every
two weeks and how I am going to provide for myself decades from now.
I abhor them for what they have done with intruding on our personal
lives, but I have to stick with the bottom line and the bottom line
includes dollars and *sense*.
Finally, the Reagan ERTA tax cut enacted in the early 1980's was one of
the most significant reforms of government policy for decades. If the
current Bell-Packwood bill or Senate bill regarding tax policy
goes through, we will have something very close to a flat tax
(two brackets; 15% & 27% with many deductions eliminated). If this
goes through, which I am praying it does, it will be probably the
most major reform since the New Deal. I think it would be a superb
way for Reagan to "close out" his tenure as our President and I
am really praying that it passes by the end of this year or sometime
in 1987.
Stuart
Bill Roman
>
>Truman saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, by dropping those
>bombs.
>
>--
> --Craig
> ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good
I recommend an article "A postwar myth: 500,000 U.S. lives saved" in
the June/July 1986 issue of _Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists_
to anyone who believes this. Briefly summarized, it states that the
"half a million boys on our side" that Truman is quoted as believing
he saved with the atomic bombs was an after-the-fact rationalization.
The military plans for the invasion estimated casualties on our side
at roughly an order of magnitude less.
The couple of hundred thousand who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were civilians; I don't think the bombings were particularly significant
militarily. They served more as a frightful demonstration. I
personally find the morality of such action totally abhorrent.
--
Bill Roman {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!roman
Summation, Inc. (206) 486-0991
Jim Robinson
>>> Ronald Regan 6
>>It's Ronald REAGAN, and I'd give him a 4. He's screwed up our foreign
>>policy (we got along with foreign powers much better before he took
>>office than we do now), he's screwed up our domestic affairs (no more
>>college loans, increased unemployment, more people on welfare, etc.).
>>I'd give him a 3 except that for some reason he's popular.
>
>0 In foreign policy an evil and dangerous warmonger; domestically an
> enemy of the poor and of what's left of America's democratic
> tradition.
"evil and dangerous warmonger" and "enemy of the poor" are rather
standard phrases applied to RR. However, being an "enemy ... of
what's left of America's democratic tradition" is a new one. Can
we have some elaboration on this?
J.B. Robinson
Patrick M Juola
about the "Myth" of millions of lives saved by the Hiro/Nag A-bombs.
>I recommend an article "A postwar myth: 500,000 U.S. lives saved" in
>the June/July 1986 issue of _Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists_
>to anyone who believes this. Briefly summarized, it states that the
>"half a million boys on our side" that Truman is quoted as believing
>he saved with the atomic bombs was an after-the-fact rationalization.
>The military plans for the invasion estimated casualties on our side
>at roughly an order of magnitude less.
>
>The couple of hundred thousand who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>were civilians; I don't think the bombings were particularly significant
>militarily. They served more as a frightful demonstration. I
>personally find the morality of such action totally abhorrent.
>--
>Bill Roman
All right, so you only saved 50,000 US lives. How many Japanese lives were
saved as well?
The defense of the Japanese islands was/would have been the defense
equivalent of a jihad, a holy war. The Japanese were training themselves with
bamboo spears since they couldn't get enough rifles. Remember bushido, the
"way of the samurai"? "There is no failure, only death or success." I can
visualize a force of thousands of Japanese farmers charging an infantry
platoon with their spears and getting MOWED DOWN by machinegun fire. The loss
of a hundred man platoon is peanuts compared to the four thousand Japanese it
took to kill them. (Or 40,000, or 400,000, depending on how good you think
the Marines were.)
Pat Juola
Hopkins Maths
Matthew P. Wiener
> worth an 8
In the great Tom Tedrick tradition, I rate John Tyler a -10. What,
you say? Remember, John Tyler is the only president to ever serve
in the Confederacy government. A traitor to the very end.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
Raif Hijab
> The defense of the Japanese islands was/would have been the
> defense equivalent of a jihad, a holy war.
Why was it so imperative to conquer the Japanese islands?
j...@loral.uucp
> about the "Myth" of millions of lives saved by the Hiro/Nag A-bombs.
> I recommend an article "A postwar myth: 500,000 U.S. lives saved" in
> the June/July 1986 issue of _Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists_
> to anyone who believes this. Briefly summarized, it states that the
> "half a million boys on our side" that Truman is quoted as believing
> he saved with the atomic bombs was an after-the-fact rationalization.
> The military plans for the invasion estimated casualties on our side
> at roughly an order of magnitude less.
>
> The couple of hundred thousand who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> were civilians; I don't think the bombings were particularly significant
> militarily. They served more as a frightful demonstration. I
> personally find the morality of such action totally abhorrent.
> --
> Bill Roman
Considering it was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor, and they were the
ones out to conquer the world, and at the time they were pretty cruel
people (remember hari-kari and samari warriors?), I don't give a crap
how many of our boys we saved by nuking them. Which is more important
to you, 500 would be world conquerers or your only son? Granted, it's
not nice to drop nuclear bombs on people, but I don't see how it is
any more abhorrent to kill someone with a nuke than it is a knife.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating nuking Russia, Nicaraugua (sp?),
or New Jersy. I'm saying dead is dead, and war is war, and they are
both pretty abhorrent. If they come up with something like the nuetron
bomb that kills people by radiation but doesn't leave a radioactive mess
everywhere is that any worse than a machine gun? Before you bring up
the people who don't get enough radiation to die, but get cancer or something
instead, think of all the soldiers who where shot in the leg, arm, or
spine by a machine gun and didn't die. So why aren't the peace marchers
chanting 'no more machine guns'?
I heard a rumour that ever since net.flame and net.bizzare died there have
been a lot of bizzare and flaming articles in net.rumour. Is this true?
Bob Goudreau
Remember what happened the last time we let the enemy help set the conditions of
surrender? (Germany in WWI) Remember "stabbed in the back," etc. used as an
excuse for Germany's rearmament? It was clearly worthwhile to conquer Japan
completely, if only to rid it of the militaristic stranglehold on government.
Bob Goudreau
A Andrews
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
It might be of some interest in this continuing session, to point out that
the Japanese were working on their own nuclear weapons during WWII, and that
unlike the Germans, could have produced a working device. This information,
of course, comes from the right-wing extremist newspaper, the New York Times,
and will be immediately suspect by Severner and the rest...
In response to Raif's incredible question:
"Are you joking, or what?"
--arlan
Bill Roman
nuclear weapons against Japan, in article <11...@loral.UUCP>
j...@loral.UUCP (Squashed Sardine) writes:
>[...]
>Considering it was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor, and they were the
>ones out to conquer the world, and at the time they were pretty cruel
>people (remember hari-kari and samari warriors?), I don't give a crap
>how many of our boys we saved by nuking them.
>
>bomb that kills people by radiation but doesn't leave a radioactive mess
>everywhere is that any worse than a machine gun? Before you bring up
>the people who don't get enough radiation to die, but get cancer or something
>instead, think of all the soldiers who where shot in the leg, arm, or
>spine by a machine gun and didn't die.
Yes, Japan in WWII was a cruel foe - don't forget Bataan....
The point I was trying to make was that the nuclear bombings of
Japan killed civilians, not military personnel engaged in fighting
us or government officials directing that fight. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but I believe there is a moral distinction here, one which is
codified in the Geneva Convention.
As for the neutron bomb - there was a good article some years back
in Scientific American discussing its effects, the strategy for its
use in Europe in case of Soviet attack, and the implications of that
strategy. The radius within which significant incidence of leukemia
and other cancers can be expected is approximately equal to the
distance between the small towns in the European countryside. In
other words, our strategy for "saving" Europe dooms many of the
people we are "defending" to a lingering death.
--
Bill Roman {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!roman
Summation, Inc. (206) 823-7950
John Pantone
....omissions.....
> Yes, Japan in WWII was a cruel foe - don't forget Bataan....
> The point I was trying to make was that the nuclear bombings of
> Japan killed civilians, not military personnel engaged in fighting
What planet are these people from ??? The point was to kill people!
Their people, not ours. (Remember Patton: The point of war is not to
die for your country, but to make the other poor b****rd die for his
country).
Flame extinguisher: Of course it was immoral - war is, among other
things, immoral, illogical ...
Stop trying to assign such a logical approach to a manifestly illogical
thing like war.
--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma San Diego
Davidsen
I think that history will have a better view of Nixon than you guys do.
You're judging him as a person (and his honesty was virtually
non-existant), however, he took some major steps to get the country out
of trouble. When inflation got completely out of hand (I remember
12%-15% raises that didn't seem to keep up) he got wage and price
controls. His strong anti communist record allowed him to normalize
relations with China, which seems like a good idea from political and
ecconomic standpoints. I believe that he will be measured by those
things, rather than his political actions.
--
-bill davidsen
ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
\
unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
/
sixhub ---------------------/ (davi...@ge-crd.ARPA)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"
John Hofbauer
> The point I was trying to make was that the nuclear bombings of
> Japan killed civilians, not military personnel engaged in fighting
> us or government officials directing that fight. Correct me if I'm
> wrong, but I believe there is a moral distinction here, one which is
> codified in the Geneva Convention.
>
bombing during WWII was directed a civilian targets. Don't forget Dresden,
and many other such cities. Indeed, Tokyo had been leveled just as
completely with conventional bombs as had Hiroshima and Nagasaki with
an A-bomb. The later is just a lot more efficient. Of course, it was
argued that the bombing of cities was necessary because of war industries
nearby but the strategic bombing survey conducted after the war showed
that it was nearly useless and if anything stiffened the resolve of the
people.
Dr. B. Litow
> bombing during WWII was directed a civilian targets. Don't forget Dresden,
> and many other such cities. Indeed, Tokyo had been leveled just as
> completely with conventional bombs as had Hiroshima and Nagasaki with
> an A-bomb. The later is just a lot more efficient. Of course, it was
> argued that the bombing of cities was necessary because of war industries
> nearby but the strategic bombing survey conducted after the war showed
> that it was nearly useless and if anything stiffened the resolve of the
> people.
Civilian bombing was of the greatest mistakes of WWII but it was committed
on both sides. Why is the V2 bombing of London never mentioned in connection
with Dresden? The allies had no monopoly on atrocities by airwar. The
'Vernichter Zwei' also points well beyond the 'Geneva Convention' to such
things as the US B52 raids in Vietnam and Cambodia and the use of attack
planes and helicopters by the USSR in Afghanistan. The expansion of the
theater of war operations to the entire planet makes it clear independently
of nuclear devices that war must be made obsolete.
:*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Ken Arnold%CGL
>I think that history will have a better view of Nixon than you guys do.
>You're judging him as a person (and his honesty was virtually
>non-existant), however, he took some major steps to get the country out
>of trouble. When inflation got completely out of hand (I remember
>12%-15% raises that didn't seem to keep up) he got wage and price
>controls. His strong anti communist record allowed him to normalize
>relations with China, which seems like a good idea from political and
>ecconomic standpoints. I believe that he will be measured by those
>things, rather than his political actions.
You could be right, of course. History has a selective memory, and
will remember only the things that it chooses to. However, it seems to
me that writing off his criminality and sleaze as merely "political
actions" is not too likely. The government of the country is
supposedly free and open, and he tried to subvert that very fundamental
cornerstone. What happens to freedom and balance of power inside the
US is probably of more insterest (it certainly *should* be of more
interest) than foreign policy or economic gains. I suspect he will be
most remembered as the person who had to resign from office due to
corruption, and the specifics will probably go by the wayside. Somehow
that seems more like a long-lived historical fact than China or
inflation (which mostly ended, as it usually does, with no thanks to
the President, and for which Nixon, like every other President who had
the opportunity, took credit because it was available).
Ken Arnold
Donald Eastlake
All these civilians, men women and children,, who were killed by US
nuclear weapons had been instructed by their government, before our
nuclear attack, to fight to the death to defend their homeland. And
mostly being loyal subjects of an absolute government would no doubt
have done so.
Our bombing was so terrible that, the Emperor, normally a pure
figurehead, intervened and a surrender was accomplished.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!dee
larry baum
>
>You're judging him as a person (and his honesty was virtually
>non-existant), however, he took some major steps to get the country out
>of trouble. When inflation got completely out of hand (I remember
>12%-15% raises that didn't seem to keep up) he got wage and price
>controls.
Those wage and price controls were completely mishandled. He instituted
them at the worst possible moment and removed them at another ill-timed
moment. The result was the horrendous inflation that ruined both Ford
and Carter's presidency (not to mention the effects on the rest of the
world.)
Greg
>I've heard a rumor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as bad as they were, made
>everyone forget about Dresden, where more people died equally awful deaths.
>
>Is this true?
>
>The moral is that war was at least as bad before Trinity as after.
No, more people died in Hiroshima than in Dresden. The most common estimate
I've heard for Dresden is 40,000 deaths, while for Hiroshima it is 100,000
deaths. I don't know what the figures are for Nagasaki. It is true that
more people died in Tokyo during the war than in Hiroshima.
However, what these bombings have made everyone forget about is Leningrad,
where more people died than in Hiroshima + Nagasaki + Tokyo + Dresden +
Hamburg + Berlin + London plus many other cities. Many of us in the US think
that war is only bad when we or our allies kill people. In fact, many of us
outside of the US think this way. In fact, altogether too many people think
this way.
--
Greg
gjk%a...@lanl.arpa and gr...@harvard.harvard.edu
Bill Tanenbaum
Well said, Greg, except you forgot about Auschwitz, where more people died
than in Leningrad + Hiroshima + Nagasaki + Dresden + etc. etc. etc.
--
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
John Moore
>In article <7...@steinmetz.UUCP> davi...@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes:
>>I think that history will have a better view of Nixon than you guys do.
>>You're judging him as a person (and his honesty was virtually
>>non-existant), however, he took some major steps to get the country out
>>of trouble. When inflation got completely out of hand (I remember
>>12%-15% raises that didn't seem to keep up) he got wage and price
>>controls. His strong anti communist record allowed him to normalize
a whopping, frightening FOUR percent! When they were removed, it took right
back off. There is no evidence that wage and price controls then did any
good, or ever do any good regarding inflation.
>>ecconomic standpoints. I believe that he will be measured by those
>>things, rather than his political actions.
international strategy (and still is). His work there was certainly
better than Johnson (prior) & Carter (a bit after). However, you can
be sure that Watergate will be remembered for a long time simply because
it was such an unprecedented event in US History.
--
John Moore (NJ7E)
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!mot!anasazi!john
{hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!mot!anasazi!john
mot!anasazi!jo...@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
(602) 861-7607 (day or evening)
7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Paradise Valley, AZ, 85253 (Home Address)
The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be
someone else's.
Dr.Schlesinger
>international strategy (and still is). His work there was certainly
Nixon was elected on the basis of a promise to the American people
to end the war in Vietnam... he said he had a plan, but couldn't
reveal it, and so on.
When he got into office, he got himself Kissinger, who had been
Rockefeller's foreign policy adviser and with whom he could not have
had "planning" sessions. Between the two of them, they carried on the
war for four more years, got more Americans killed than before, bombed
everything in sight, etc.
"Pretty smart"!
Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264
uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
Rex Ballard
>I've heard a rumor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as bad as they were, made
>everyone forget about Dresden, where more people died equally awful deaths.
>
>Is this true?
>
>The moral is that war was at least as bad before Trinity as after.
It is true that "conventional weapons" killed greater numbers of people.
In fact, Tokyo was being very heavily firebombed at the time. But to
get those fatalities, hundreds of planes had to come within range of
anti-aircraft fire, and fighter defenses. Large squadrons were easy
to detect. People could be warned, and could make it to shelters.
What made "The Bomb" so effective is that it was just one bomb. In fact,
there wasn't even an air raid siren running when the bomb dropped. According
to those who were nearby and saw the plane (they appeared to notice only one),
they couldn't even be sure they saw a bomb being dropped.
With only one bomb capable of that much destruction, every plane passing
over would have to be shot down as soon as possible. On miss meant
thousands of instant deaths. This is even more true today, and the
targets (missles) are harder to intercept.
Japan was wise enough to realize that they could not muster that kind of
defence. Unfortunately, there are those who believe that it can be done
now.
Rex Ballard
>
>All these civilians, men women and children,, who were killed by US
>nuclear weapons had been instructed by their government, before our
>nuclear attack, to fight to the death to defend their homeland. And
>mostly being loyal subjects of an absolute government would no doubt
>have done so.
>
>Our bombing was so terrible that, the Emperor, normally a pure
>figurehead, intervened and a surrender was accomplished.
As I understand it, the Emperor had never liked the idea of a war
with the U.S., or even war in general. According to one TV
documentary, he was practically a prisoner in his own palace.
Still, the psychological effects of the bomb made the warlords
more willing to listen.
Rex Ballard
>In article <4...@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> dav...@batcomputer.UUCP (Penguin (Rabson)) writes:
>>I've heard a rumor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as bad as they were, made
>>everyone forget about Dresden, where more people died equally awful deaths.
>>
>>Is this true?
>>
>>The moral is that war was at least as bad before Trinity as after.
>
>I've heard for Dresden is 40,000 deaths, while for Hiroshima it is 100,000
>deaths. I don't know what the figures are for Nagasaki. It is true that
>more people died in Tokyo during the war than in Hiroshima.
>
>However, what these bombings have made everyone forget about is Leningrad,
>where more people died than in Hiroshima + Nagasaki + Tokyo + Dresden +
>Hamburg + Berlin + London plus many other cities. Many of us in the US think
>that war is only bad when we or our allies kill people. In fact, many of us
>outside of the US think this way. In fact, altogether too many people think
>this way.
>--
>Greg
Weren't many of the deaths in Lenningrad due to the deprivation effects
of the seige?
WW-II taught us many lessons.
The 10-12 million Jews, gypsies, and "communists" killed in death camps
taught us the dangers of racism.
Leningrad taught us the risks and dangers of siege.
The people killed with conventional weapons taught us the dangers of
conventional war.
The people killed with Nukes taught us the dangers of a single bomb.
We haven't learned those lessons well yet. But so far, we have at least
not repeated them.
Raif Hijab
>
> We haven't learned those lessons well yet. But so far, we have at least
> not repeated them.
The superpowers have learned that is cheaper to wage wars in the
Third World.