North Korea

[Largent80]

OK...This is getting serious. A fat, cheese eating man is threatening not only Japan and S. Korea (our allies) but also the USA.

What do you think should be done if anything?

I'm torn. I fought in Vietnam and made it home alive, but this is different. Even though I am quite sure they don't have many operating ICBM's that are tipped with nukes, a ground war with them would yield a vast amount of lives lost.

I think however, we need to remove the threat.

[Largent80]

"removing the threat " is a multi faceted thing. These people are showing nuclear prowess, and they have a gigantic ground military. That ground military is no match for the US, Japan and S. Korea.

Also, the nuclear option is obvious. I can't believe as a child of the cold war that we are at this point, but I would say, Un doesn't care about the people of N.Korea, so he's willing to be nuked.

[Aseahawkfan]

I would like to see China take care of their out of control dog same as the United States took out their out of control dog Saddam Hussein. I know China likely won't do it because they do not have the military commitment or courage to do what should be done. Like most of the world, they will leave it to the United States to handle, risking our lives and spending our money while they watch and complain.

[Aseahawkfan]

And Russia would have destroyed the United States if Kennedy took a stand on Cuba. Or so they thought. We have no idea how well we can contain North Korea. We should not forego acting with the assumption of failure.

And It's a matter of what needs to be done. It will not be better when North Korea has real nuclear capabilities because they'll destroy South Korea, Japan, and possibly parts of the United States. Act now and rebuild the damage to South Korea and possibly a unified Korea or wait until North Korea can really do some damage.

I don't see any advantage waiting while North Korea brazenly builds a new nuclear arsenal with a true madman ruling their nation. That's what makes this so amusing. Americans think Trump is some kind of crazy fascist because Americans don't have a damn clue what a real crazy fascist dictator is like. They freak out over Twitter tirades, while Kim Jong Un feeds his generals to his dogs when they displease him.

[RiverDog]

An attack on N Korea would destroy S Korea.

Perhaps Japan, too. There's no good options. All military options would put in very grave danger the lives of millions, not to mention the world wide economic catastrophe that would follow should even a short, limited war break out. We cannot launch a surprise attack and be assured of completely wiping out North Korea's ability to retaliate against one or both of those countries.

My take is that up until North Korea attacks us directly, that we should defer to the judgements of South Korea and Japan regarding any military solution, as they would bear the consequences of any counter attack by the North should we decide to embark on a preemptive strike.

However, if North Korea attacks us, specifically Guam, then we have to act.

[burrrton]

I know China likely won't do it because they do not have the military commitment or courage to do what should be done.

Most of what I've read indicates China wants the buffer NK provides between it and a country allied with the US.

I don't recall the details beyond that right now (quit reading on this subject a while ago), but I think that's fairly accepted as fact (feel free to correct if someone knows differently).

[burrrton]

There's no good options.

Exactly. The result of sticking our thumbs up our asses and assuming good faith negotiations and the best intentions for the world's worst actors.

See also: Iran.

[RiverDog]

Most of what I've read indicates China wants the buffer NK provides between it and a country allied with the US.

I don't recall the details beyond that right now (quit reading on this subject a while ago), but I think that's fairly accepted as fact (feel free to correct if someone knows differently).

That's what I've read, too, and honestly, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me from China's POV. North Korea is a small country and is not located in a strategic position and militarily, South Korea isn't a huge power that would represent a threat to China. I don't understand what they see as a threat if the country were to reunite under a US friendly regime.

If push came to shove, I honestly don't think that China would intervene like they say they would. We are by far their biggest trading partner, followed by South Korea and Japan, and I don't think that they'd push their chips to the center of the table over North Korea, a poor country that has virtually no trade with them. But that's a very risky assumption.

If they launch a missile towards Guam, we need to take it out in flight, if we have full confidence that we can bring it down. It would be humiliating if we were to miss.

[Aseahawkfan]

Most of what I've read indicates China wants the buffer NK provides between it and a country allied with the US.

I don't recall the details beyond that right now (quit reading on this subject a while ago), but I think that's fairly accepted as fact (feel free to correct if someone knows differently).

I'm sure they want that buffer. But they are also not a nation that enjoys conflict. They don't have much real war experience in modern times. This is a nation that was cowed by Japan with a population many times Japan's size. And now lies about how Japan was defeated and teaches their population lies about their defeat. I think their North Korean dog is off the leash and they can't get it back on. I don't think they will act to contain them.

Or it could be more sinister and they could desire a nuclear armed nation that could launch nuclear missiles while providing China with plausible deniability for the act. Such an asset could be very valuable to a large nation like China. We have no idea how much nuclear technology China has provided North Korea.

Either way, we should eliminate the out of control dog as fast as possible regardless of what China wants. A strong U.S. President should look at the Chinese leader and tell them point blank, "Get your dog under control or we will."

[Hawktawk]

Steve Bannon is a steaming pile IMO but he said something that is actually correct on the way out the door of the administration regarding N Korea. "They got us". They are a nuclear power."
He explained that they are" capable of wiping out Seoul and killing millions within minutes of any attack WITH CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS."

There is no way any military option makes any sense whatever except a covert seal raid to take out the fat boy and hope for the best.

I think its best to heed the advice of China and particularly bad Vlad Putin who said the US's foolish saber rattling is leading towards a "global catastrophe".

Lest we forget both Russia and China share a border with N Korea and likely wouldn't be inclined to sit back and watch America attack, possible using tactical nukes for quick neutralization of N Koreas defenses. Words like "fire and fury" and Annihilation of a people "are being tossed around by our Sec of defense and our Commander in thief.
Its utterly chilling to hear the use of nuclear weapons discussed so matter of factly.
We have never faced more peril and it isn't from a cheeseburger eating fat little man child and his one ICBM or whatever. Its the neighbors with about 10 thousand nukes combined pointed right at us sitting right behind him.

Add to that Chump holding the nuclear codes its a recipe for Armageddon.

[Largent80]

If it comes down to nuking the planet, we won't know what hit us anyway.

[burrrton]

That's what I've read, too, and honestly, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me from China's POV.

If you listen to people 'in the know' make the argument, it makes more sense. It's a legitimate POV.

I can't argue with any counter-point you make, though, either.

I guess what I'm saying is I have no f'n idea.

[Aseahawkfan]

Steve Bannon is a steaming pile IMO but he said something that is actually correct on the way out the door of the administration regarding N Korea. "They got us". They are a nuclear power."
He explained that they are" capable of wiping out Seoul and killing millions within minutes of any attack WITH CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS."

There is no way any military option makes any sense whatever except a covert seal raid to take out the fat boy and hope for the best.

I think its best to heed the advice of China and particularly bad Vlad Putin who said the US's foolish saber rattling is leading towards a "global catastrophe".

Lest we forget both Russia and China share a border with N Korea and likely wouldn't be inclined to sit back and watch America attack, possible using tactical nukes for quick neutralization of N Koreas defenses. Words like "fire and fury" and Annihilation of a people "are being tossed around by our Sec of defense and our Commander in thief.
Its utterly chilling to hear the use of nuclear weapons discussed so matter of factly.
We have never faced more peril and it isn't from a cheeseburger eating fat little man child and his one ICBM or whatever. Its the neighbors with about 10 thousand nukes combined pointed right at us sitting right behind him.

Add to that Chump holding the nuclear codes its a recipe for Armageddon.

Oh, now Bannon is right when it suits your viewpoint.

[Hawktawk]

[

Oh, now Bannon is right when it suits your viewpoint.

Lots of other never Trumpers said the same thing about Bannon regarding this one statement. Remember a broken clock is right twice a day asea.

Man you look ridiculous defending the clown in the WH and his surrogates.
Welcome to the 30 something % and shrinking club....

Impeach now!!!!!!

[RiverDog]

I'm sure they want that buffer. But they are also not a nation that enjoys conflict. They don't have much real war experience in modern times. This is a nation that was cowed by Japan with a population many times Japan's size. And now lies about how Japan was defeated and teaches their population lies about their defeat. I think their North Korean dog is off the leash and they can't get it back on. I don't think they will act to contain them.

Or it could be more sinister and they could desire a nuclear armed nation that could launch nuclear missiles while providing China with plausible deniability for the act. Such an asset could be very valuable to a large nation like China. We have no idea how much nuclear technology China has provided North Korea.

Either way, we should eliminate the out of control dog as fast as possible regardless of what China wants. A strong U.S. President should look at the Chinese leader and tell them point blank, "Get your dog under control or we will."

Why would China want a buffer? North Korea is a very small country, both geographically and population wise. They are not in any kind of strategic location near any major trade routes. Outside of a little dab of coal, they do not have anything in the way of natural resources that China is dependent on. Militarily, what difference does it make if we have bases in South Korea vs. the North? Even if South Korea didn't exist, we have enough submarines and other resources, like bombers that can fly from almost anywhere, aircraft carriers, etc, that make having ground bases close to them irrelevant. China is not dependent on North Korea for anything, economically or militarily.

What I think should happen is that we start tightening the economic screws on China. Threaten to suspend trade with them if they don't force North Korea to heed to the UN resolutions. I can remember back in 2001 when China detained the crew of a plane that they damaged and forced to land in their country and it became known to the public that 70% of the merchandise that WalMart sells is manufactured in China and boycotts by customers of WalMart started to form. It might have been a coincidence, but it wasn't too long after those threats of boycotting Chinese manufactured merchandise that they released our guys. You know the saying...money talks, bullshit walks.

China needs us a lot more than we need them. That's one of the advantages of having a robust trade and trade deficits with countries that have otherwise unfriendly governments. It's a huge political bargaining chip, and an alternative to military action. We have the largest and richest marketplace in the world, and there are other countries with just as cheap of labor force as China..countries like India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and elsewhere that our companies can turn to to manufacture the products we consume.

[Largent80]

Who is actually doing the saber rattling??

Un wants nukes, he now has them, even if its only a handful, that is enough to start WW3, and he is unstable enough to do it.

Then Putin talks about a global catastrophe. What is that??? Is he saying he's going to press the doomsday button if we intervene?

He is right about Un not caring about his own people because he has already proven that, so more sanctions against N Korea won't do squat to them.

Geographic "buffers" are a thing of the past with modern military in place. All these countries have powerful weapons that can cover a lot of ground and ocean. China just sits there polluting the world with their coal and cheap manufacturing and have done nothing to try and prevent these small countries from pursuing nukes, now they have a new very unstable person that actually has them. What good are sanctions going to do for that now?

It's too late. Sanctions may alter their thoughts about getting involved, but again, what is the plan?

[c_hawkbob]

Oh, now Bannon is right when it suits your viewpoint.

So in your world someone is either always right or always wrong?

[Aseahawkfan]

Lots of other never Trumpers said the same thing about Bannon regarding this one statement. Remember a broken clock is right twice a day asea.

Man you look ridiculous defending the clown in the WH and his surrogates.
Welcome to the 30 something % and shrinking club....

Impeach now!!!!!!

You've looked ridiculous for a while. I've read your irrational posts in the past. You're part of the reason Trump was elected. Irrational neocons spouting off about religion and other rubbish about the end of country and other such BS. You allowed Trump to come to the table with your irrational, insane viewpoints and line towing and excuses for bad behavior in the Republican Party. And the Democrats allowed it with their left wing liberal trash viewpoints that try to paint every Republican politician as a racist for wanting immigration reform, more competitive standards in schools and life in general, and for trying to paint every conservative as some uneducated, backwoods hick, while they support Big Business pushing the global workforce down their throat to the destruction of the Middle Class.

I didn't vote for Trump. I wasn't some irrational neocon supporting Republicans at all costs. I find the irrational hatred of Trump by people like you and most of the liberals on this forum absurd and complete nonsense. Trump isn't some loose cannon that took the White House by luck. He's a carefully calculating businessman with a large group of advisers trying to live up his campaign promises like immigration reform and reducing taxes.

This is the same type of garbage I heard from the right wing when Obama was doing the same, save the biased liberal media was puffing him up as great because of his eloquence. Even when he was pushing Obamacare and I was listening to stories about death boards and how he hates the old.

It's all bullcrap. You fall for it like a puppet on a string. A complete irrational hatred and fear of a man that will leave office like every other president in the past doing maybe a few things he promised. In your insane mind, he's The Antichrist or something similarly stupid. You buy in hook, line, and sinker that Trump suddenly became a Russian Spy. It's so ridiculous. Fortunately, Saturday Night Live is helping me put it in perspective since Bill Clinton was similarly accused of taking bribes and getting help from Russia and China to get elected. No one much remembers that now do they, especially the lying liberal Democrats that voted for the man.

You keep up your attacks for the next four years. The chances of impeachment are extremely, extremely slim. This is all Democrat posturing to set themselves up for the next election as they pull the puppet strings to win the presidency next time. It's been flip-flopping back and forth like this since Clinton. Both parties know that character assassinating the president in the White House is the best way to win the next election. Donald Trump is providing a nice big target because he's way too narcissistic and bombastic to play the diplomacy game even to win the White House a second time. I really don't think he gives a rip about re-election.

[Aseahawkfan]

So in your world someone is either always right or always wrong?

Is that really how my world is bob? Or maybe I haven't much forgotten how insane Hawktawk has been all these years. Just because he's Anti-Trump now doesn't suddenly make him more sane. Just means he's found a new target for mad, end of the world ranting that always goes way too far.

Seriously, how many presidents do people have to watch come and go before they start to have a rational idea about a President? They're just men. America is not the nation to suddenly become Nazi Germany. Trump will do his time and leave the White House when he can't win enough votes. He won't get everything he wants done, he might get a few things through. He'll spend his time arguing with Congress and his advisers. He'll mouth off on Twitter, which is ultimately meaningless. Then he'll leave the White House, probably write a book if he hasn't died of old age, make some more money, and become a foot note in American history.

Then the next guy will step up, we'll watch all this bullcrap start again as one half of the country or the other will dislike the guy in office like it's a sporting event every four to eight years. Sorry if I just can't get as wound up as so many hre, but I just can't. I see no difference between these parties regardless of how eloquent the faceman is for the nation.

Words don't mean much to me. I know even with Trump stopping DACA and trying to limit immigration, we'll still have more immigrants coming to this nation by sheer number than anyone else in the world. All Trump's extreme stance may do is slow down at least some of the immigration. You literally have to take an extreme stance in this nation to change things by even a small percentage. Nature of our nation and likely will be while we live.

Let's just say I'm not ever going to get overly wound up over a president. If I don't like the man or don't think he would be good, I don't vote for him. I vote for someone else as I did this last election. Whichever president wins, I endure him for 4 or 8 years as I have done with nearly every president. I don't think I've liked a single one since I've been alive.

The only presidents in history I think I liked were Lincoln, Grant, and FDR, all for different reasons.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="Aseahawkfan"]

You've looked ridiculous for a while. I've read your irrational posts in the past. You're part of the reason Trump was elected. Irrational neocons spouting off about religion and other rubbish about the end of country and other such BS. You allowed Trump to come to the table with your irrational, insane viewpoints and line towing and excuses for bad behavior in the Republican Party. And the Democrats allowed it with their left wing liberal trash viewpoints that try to paint every Republican politician as a racist for wanting immigration reform, more competitive standards in schools and life in general, and for trying to paint every conservative as some uneducated, backwoods hick, while they support Big Business pushing the global workforce down their throat to the destruction of the Middle Class.

I look ridiculous? I'm more consistent in off topic than you are on the Hawks line buddy.Blaming the Bennett and Avril protests for the officiating today Talk about Bipolar.

I never supported Trump ever. I was raising holy hell all over social media warning about this insane jackass ever since he declared a candidacy. I agree about the dems and Obummer. He set the table for a situation where a horrible coronated candidate like Hillary and a crowed repub field could put this jackass in a position to be president. But I've opposed Trump for 2 years. Hes not sane. Hes not competent and hes not a Republican anyway as Ryan and McConnel are waking up and learning.

I didn't vote for Trump.
Your a LIAR. You wouldn't be riding his chub like this if you didn't.

I REALLY didn't vote for him.
And sorry if i get a little shrill watching a man far crazier than either of us nonchalantly discussing nuclear war in between his insane unhinged tweeting.....Presidents matter...

[RiverDog]

The only presidents in history I think I liked were Lincoln, Grant, and FDR, all for different reasons.

Out of 45 POTUS you can come up with just 3 that you liked, and Grant was one of them? Sounds like you need to start watching the History Channel on President's Day.

[Aseahawkfan]

Out of 45 POTUS you can come up with just 3 that you liked, and Grant was one of them? Sounds like you need to start watching the History Channel on President's Day.

I generally obtain my information by reading. A few hour shows on the history channel aren't as informative as biographies and longer written works on individuals.

I do not put presidents on the pedestal most seem to except for Lincoln, who I believe is our greatest president and one of the greatest leaders in history. Presidents are just men and I tire of the foolish, vain moniker of "Most powerful man in the world" for the United States President. A ridiculous attribution and one Americans should never support. The president should be as handcuffed and limited as much as possible and nowhere near, "The most powerful man in the world" rubbish some vain people like to toss out. The amount of angst generated in people because of the president on both sides of the political spectrum is pathetic and irrational. It shows a lack of understanding of who the president is in our system and what he can and cannot do. So many act as though we vote in a dictator every four years, when we really vote in more of a chairman or arbitrator to oversee the bureaucratic aspects of our nation. He does not operate with anywhere near absolute power. This belief that he does is what allows so many to foolishly associate a particular party with particular actions rather than realizing that both parties are often culpable for the vast majority of changes.

I like the three presidents I like or rather admire for different reasons. Grant I liked as a man even though he wasn't a very good president. FDR's charisma I find fascinating. His ability to win four terms and likely more had his health not deteriorated is astounding. Lincoln I found to be an extraordinary individual and the greatest statesman this country has ever produced. What he accomplished is hard to even put into words. He took a nation raised on slavery to war with itself, holding together for future generations, as he tried to force the poisonous addiction to a vile institution from its system. It is as though he fought for the soul of this nation, dark versus light, and somehow saved that soul from shattering to pieces, pulling the dark side of our nation's soul back towards the light away. Such an evil institution America inculcated into a land with such an extraordinary ruling philosophy. Had he not preserved this nation during this time, we would not currently have a Constitution, perhaps not even a nation, to live in. We would rather be a collection of nations much like Latin America or Europe. I'm not still not sure how he managed it given the attitude of the times.

Most other presidents don't interest me the way those three do. We became more interested in the accumulation of power after World War 2. Power we didn't need and should have never allowed our nation to pursue.

[burrrton]

Presidents are just men and I tire of the foolish, vain moniker of "Most powerful man in the world" for the United States President. A ridiculous attribution and one Americans should never support.

Some may take a bit too much, um, pride in it, but it's *unquestionably* true. That's just the reality of our world in 2017. No reason to be upset about it. It works in our favor.

[RiverDog]

I generally obtain my information by reading. A few hour shows on the history channel aren't as informative as biographies and longer written works on individuals.

I do not put presidents on the pedestal most seem to except for Lincoln, who I believe is our greatest president and one of the greatest leaders in history. Presidents are just men and I tire of the foolish, vain moniker of "Most powerful man in the world" for the United States President. A ridiculous attribution and one Americans should never support. The president should be as handcuffed and limited as much as possible and nowhere near, "The most powerful man in the world" rubbish some vain people like to toss out. The amount of angst generated in people because of the president on both sides of the political spectrum is pathetic and irrational. It shows a lack of understanding of who the president is in our system and what he can and cannot do. So many act as though we vote in a dictator every four years, when we really vote in more of a chairman or arbitrator to oversee the bureaucratic aspects of our nation. He does not operate with anywhere near absolute power. This belief that he does is what allows so many to foolishly associate a particular party with particular actions rather than realizing that both parties are often culpable for the vast majority of changes.

I like the three presidents I like or rather admire for different reasons. Grant I liked as a man even though he wasn't a very good president. FDR's charisma I find fascinating. His ability to win four terms and likely more had his health not deteriorated is astounding. Lincoln I found to be an extraordinary individual and the greatest statesman this country has ever produced. What he accomplished is hard to even put into words. He took a nation raised on slavery to war with itself, holding together for future generations, as he tried to force the poisonous addiction to a vile institution from its system. It is as though he fought for the soul of this nation, dark versus light, and somehow saved that soul from shattering to pieces, pulling the dark side of our nation's soul back towards the light away. Such an evil institution America inculcated into a land with such an extraordinary ruling philosophy. Had he not preserved this nation during this time, we would not currently have a Constitution, perhaps not even a nation, to live in. We would rather be a collection of nations much like Latin America or Europe. I'm not still not sure how he managed it given the attitude of the times.

Most other presidents don't interest me the way those three do. We became more interested in the accumulation of power after World War 2. Power we didn't need and should have never allowed our nation to pursue.

I made the History Channel remark somewhat in jest, although they've had some very good, objective short summaries of past Presidents. I, too, have garnered most of my knowledge by reading biographies of past Presidents, and have read about most of the 20th century POTUS's. Nearly all but Nixon had likeable personalities. If that were your only criteria for 'liking' a President, then I honestly would question how much reading you've actually done about them. In the 20th century alone, I found that Taft, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Kennedy, and Carter all had remarkable personal characteristics that very few could object to. Taft, for example, before he joined Teddy's cabinet, was the governor of the Philippines, and was looked to almost as a God by the local people. Truman had balls, not only in firing McArthur, insisted on attending the funeral of the man that made him (Pendergast) even though he knew that his attendance would touch off a firestorm amongst his critics. Even though he was from one of the richest families in the country, Kennedy would jump in with his crew to help perform such mundane tasks as scrape barnacles off their PT boat, and personally saved the life of one of his crew members by towing him several miles to shore. I could go on and on.

FDR is not the only POTUS that would have won more terms had he been able to. Eisenhower was extremely popular during his day, and had he been permitted to constitutionally and had his health permitted it, could have served indefinitely. Same goes with Washington, of whom many wanted to make king of the young country. FDR had his flaws, both as a functioning POTUS and in his family life. FDR issued the executive order that not only relocated bona fide American citizens, they took their property away from them, and he was unfaithful to his wife, and even though he promised not to see her again, was with his mistress when he passed away.

I know that you're well read, but I still find it remarkable that you can find just 3 POTUS's that you like. But I'm with you on Lincoln. He's at the top of my list, too.

[Aseahawkfan]

Some may take a bit too much, um, pride in it, but it's *unquestionably* true. That's just the reality of our world in 2017. No reason to be upset about it. It works in our favor.

It's not true. I guarantee there are nations with men able to act unilaterally with much more latitude than the United States President to greater personal gain. An American president is highly limited. He does not get to go around doing whatever he wants. That is not the most powerful man in the world or anywhere near it. We intended it that way and it works. Our president is very limited.

We are the most powerful country on earth as far as economic and military power, but the president is not the most powerful man in the world because our system does not allow it. It would not benefit us if he was. That would imply he could do whatever he wants with impunity including kill anyone he wants with impunity. You don't see the United States president able to feed his enemies to the his dogs or assassinate them if he wishes.

I take pride in our system, not our president. It is one of the most effective systems for limiting individual power in history. I'm glad we have it in place seeing what a real dictatorial nation can do with very limited power.

[Aseahawkfan]

I made the History Channel remark somewhat in jest, although they've had some very good, objective short summaries of past Presidents. I, too, have garnered most of my knowledge by reading biographies of past Presidents, and have read about most of the 20th century POTUS's. Nearly all but Nixon had likeable personalities. If that were your only criteria for 'liking' a President, then I honestly would question how much reading you've actually done about them. In the 20th century alone, I found that Taft, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Kennedy, and Carter all had remarkable personal characteristics that very few could object to. Taft, for example, before he joined Teddy's cabinet, was the governor of the Philippines, and was looked to almost as a God by the local people. Truman had balls, not only in firing McArthur, insisted on attending the funeral of the man that made him (Pendergast) even though he knew that his attendance would touch off a firestorm amongst his critics. Even though he was from one of the richest families in the country, Kennedy would jump in with his crew to help perform such mundane tasks as scrape barnacles off their PT boat, and personally saved the life of one of his crew members by towing him several miles to shore. I could go on and on.

FDR is not the only POTUS that would have won more terms had he been able to. Eisenhower was extremely popular during his day, and had he been permitted to constitutionally and had his health permitted it, could have served indefinitely. Same goes with Washington, of whom many wanted to make king of the young country. FDR had his flaws, both as a functioning POTUS and in his family life. FDR issued the executive order that not only relocated bona fide American citizens, they took their property away from them, and he was unfaithful to his wife, and even though he promised not to see her again, was with his mistress when he passed away.

I know that you're well read, but I still find it remarkable that you can find just 3 POTUS's that you like. But I'm with you on Lincoln. He's at the top of my list, too.

All the presidents were admirable men of great accomplishment. Generally you don't reach that position without doing something or having some ability. As great as they were, they don't interest me in the same fashion as the three I listed.

I may like the men I listed because I felt they rose to the occasion at times when our nation most needed it to sustain. It is likely a bias for the particular time that they were in power and their role in the time. I have a particular dislike of slavery and racism. Thus I hold Lincoln and Grant in such high regard because they were the persistent presence that started the end of the vile institution of slavery. I also hate the Nazi regime. I'm glad FDR was able to navigate the end of that vile regime, though I wish he had been more proactive halting Russia's Communist expansion. The Russian Communist "Revolution" led to as many if not more deaths than the Nazis. They should have been stopped.

A lot of American history is not what I call the most altruistic. It's more a treatise in how to take and expand power and land. Though that is interesting, it's not as much in my area of personal interest.

[RiverDog]

All the presidents were admirable men of great accomplishment. Generally you don't reach that position without doing something or having some ability. As great as they were, they don't interest me in the same fashion as the three I listed.

I may like the men I listed because I felt they rose to the occasion at times when our nation most needed it to sustain. It is likely a bias for the particular time that they were in power and their role in the time. I have a particular dislike of slavery and racism. Thus I hold Lincoln and Grant in such high regard because they were the persistent presence that started the end of the vile institution of slavery. I also hate the Nazi regime. I'm glad FDR was able to navigate the end of that vile regime, though I wish he had been more proactive halting Russia's Communist expansion. The Russian Communist "Revolution" led to as many if not more deaths than the Nazis. They should have been stopped.

A lot of American history is not what I call the most altruistic. It's more a treatise in how to take and expand power and land. Though that is interesting, it's not as much in my area of personal interest.

If you say that you have a particular dislike for slavery and racism, then I'm not sure why you'd wrap your arms around FDR when he held some very racist attitudes, signed an executive order to relocate Japanese Americans, refused to accept Jewish refugees, and continued a policy of a segregated armed forces. His old lady was much, much more a friend of blacks than Roosevelt himself was. I heard FDR on tape being asked about blacks serving in the military and his response was "they're very good musicians and would be great for the bands", or something to that effect. Although his attitude wasn't much different than white males of the era, it is still nothing to be admired or liked.

Roosevelt was a great president for many reasons and had some very admirable personal traits, but his attitude towards racism and tolerance wasn't one of them. He was an upper class aristocrat that never had any contact with blacks outside them being his servants. If you have an intense dislike for racism as you claim to have, then there's no way you can elevate FDR into your top 3.

[Aseahawkfan]

If you say that you have a particular dislike for slavery and racism, then I'm not sure why you'd wrap your arms around FDR when he held some very racist attitudes, signed an executive order to relocate Japanese Americans, refused to accept Jewish refugees, and continued a policy of a segregated armed forces. His old lady was much, much more a friend of blacks than Roosevelt himself was. I heard FDR on tape being asked about blacks serving in the military and his response was "they're very good musicians and would be great for the bands", or something to that effect. Although his attitude wasn't much different than white males of the era, it is still nothing to be admired or liked.

Roosevelt was a great president for many reasons and had some very admirable personal traits, but his attitude towards racism and tolerance wasn't one of them. He was an upper class aristocrat that never had any contact with blacks outside them being his servants. If you have an intense dislike for racism as you claim to have, then there's no way you can elevate FDR into your top 3.

I did not say I liked FDR for his racial attitudes. This is not a list of top presidents. It is merely presidents I find accomplished something I found interesting and notable during a time period when we really needed excellent leadership.

Most presidents had questionable racial attitudes as did most Americans from the past. I do not like racism and slavery. It does not mean I will start judging the past based on my modern belief. I do not think that way. Nor do I invalidate every accomplishment of past persons based on their racial attitudes as that was a common teaching of the time.

[burrrton]

It's not true.

Oh for chrissakes- just because some dictator can do whatever he wants with his own country doesn't make him more powerful on the world stage.

There is literally no figure on the planet that can wield more influence on the world's affairs than POTUS, and it's not close.

[Aseahawkfan]

Oh for chrissakes- just because some dictator can do whatever he wants with his own country doesn't make him more powerful on the world stage.

Yes, it does. It means he controls more lives than the President and their well-being based on his individual decisions. They also have more personal wealth to purchase things they want or need.

There is literally no figure on the planet that can wield more influence on the world's affairs than POTUS, and it's not close.

It isn't close? I would say it is. I would say right now North Korea is having a rather large influence on the world stage. i would say the Chinese Communist leaders also have a large influence on the world stage. As does the European financial institutions.

As I said, arrogant Americans that don't spend much time reading on what's going on in other places and the kind of power they wield believe what you believe. I do not. There are a lot of men with more power than the United States president. Vladimir Putin is another man that wields a lot of influence on the world stage and uses it with less oversight than the American president.

The choices of the Chinese Economic adviser also has great effect on the world economy. Their currency manipulation has a huge influence on the world economy. They are more powerful than us in their sphere of influence, which encompasses a great deal of the world and they have been steadily expanding their influence abroad through commerce.

And according to the liberal left, Russia and Putin had a rather extensive influence on our American elections, more than we have on theirs. I guess we'll find out how true that is soon enough.

As usual, we will agree to disagree on the amount of power possessed by individual world leaders. I think there are quite a few men that have more power to act unilaterally and affect more lives on a daily basis than the United States president. And a good thing too. I couldn't imagine what would happen if this nation had the kind of leadership power of nations like Russia, North Korea, or China. It would be bad in my opinion, very bad.

[RiverDog]

I did not say I liked FDR for his racial attitudes. This is not a list of top presidents. It is merely presidents I find accomplished something I found interesting and notable during a time period when we really needed excellent leadership.

Most presidents had questionable racial attitudes as did most Americans from the past. I do not like racism and slavery. It does not mean I will start judging the past based on my modern belief. I do not think that way. Nor do I invalidate every accomplishment of past persons based on their racial attitudes as that was a common teaching of the time.

Well, you sure gave me the impression that one of your criteria for 'liking' a POTUS was their racial attitudes. What I was trying to point out was that FDR had a LOT of personal flaws, another of which was that his ego was such that he could never permit himself to get past seeing anyone else in the office besides himself, which had the effect of leaving his successor extremely unprepared to take over after he passed away. The only time he even talked to Truman after the '44 election was at a 30 minute lunch/photo op.

Top 3 has to be rarefied air...Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln type of air. As a person, I just don't think FDR rises to the top 10% as a likeable or admirable personality. Heck, even Lyndon Johnson had fewer flaws. But that's just me. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Hawktawk]

I'm pretty fond of Reagan. He had a populist appeal much as trump had leading to an overwhelming amount of bipartisan support and an actual landslide of epic proportions.

But much unlike Trump he was a competent man, principled, eloquent. There were no personal scandals .He broke the Soviet Union and directed a period of excellent economic growth. History has grown more fond of him as time has passed especially in light of the de evolution of the species since he left office.

[RiverDog]

I'm pretty fond of Reagan. He had a populist appeal much as trump had leading to an overwhelming amount of bipartisan support and an actual landslide of epic proportions.

But much unlike Trump he was a competent man, principled, eloquent. There were no personal scandals .He broke the Soviet Union and directed a period of excellent economic growth. History has grown more fond of him as time has passed especially in light of the de evolution of the species since he left office.

Most if not all of the 20th century Republican presidents and presidential candidates were devoid of personal scandals. Eisenhower had an affair going on with his driver during the war, but that's about all the dirt one can find in the R's closets. Reagan was no different. The Democrats were a different story, from FDR to JFK to LBJ to Clinton, and a number of major candidates in between (Gary Hart and John Edwards come to mind).

Reagan liked to delegate, and at times lost touch because of it...or perhaps it was by design, plausible deniability. What ever the motivation, it got him in trouble from time to time. But he had a set of guiding principles that he never waivered from. His tough stance against the Soviets was a major factor, although far from the only factor, in the demise of the USSR.

I'd like to start a discussion with you folks about our former POTUS's. It's a subject that interests me.

[Aseahawkfan]

Most if not all of the 20th century Republican presidents and presidential candidates were devoid of personal scandals. Eisenhower had an affair going on with his driver during the war, but that's about all the dirt one can find in the R's closets. Reagan was no different. The Democrats were a different story, from FDR to JFK to LBJ to Clinton, and a number of major candidates in between (Gary Hart and John Edwards come to mind).

Reagan liked to delegate, and at times lost touch because of it...or perhaps it was by design, plausible deniability. What ever the motivation, it got him in trouble from time to time. But he had a set of guiding principles that he never waivered from. His tough stance against the Soviets was a major factor, although far from the only factor, in the demise of the USSR.

I'd like to start a discussion with you folks about our former POTUS's. It's a subject that interests me.

Hmm. What Reagan allowed to happen in Latin America and Iran was extremely bad during his administration. I will say he wasn't responsible for the American foreign policy attitudes we had at the time as they were a legacy of the past that he continued. A lot of presidents end up stuck in the legacy of the past like with our deficit. Reagan was also one of the first presidents to allow the serious rise in our national deficit. Reaganomics was a bad idea. Trickle Down Economics as as bad as Keynesian. In fact, holding dogmatically to a particular economic viewpoint is always a path to failure as economics are always changing and require the nation's policies to change as the economy changes.

Reagan had his good and bad like most presidents.

Unfortunately. Kennedy made it cool for a president to cheat on his wife and have personal scandals. And the character of the people that tend to vote Democrat have come to accept the scumbag nature of Democratic politicians that engage in this kind of behavior. I've never seen such excuses made as Democratic supporters make to puff up the scumbag candidates they support.

[Aseahawkfan]

Well, you sure gave me the impression that one of your criteria for 'liking' a POTUS was their racial attitudes. What I was trying to point out was that FDR had a LOT of personal flaws, another of which was that his ego was such that he could never permit himself to get past seeing anyone else in the office besides himself, which had the effect of leaving his successor extremely unprepared to take over after he passed away. The only time he even talked to Truman after the '44 election was at a 30 minute lunch/photo op.

Top 3 has to be rarefied air...Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln type of air. As a person, I just don't think FDR rises to the top 10% as a likeable or admirable personality. Heck, even Lyndon Johnson had fewer flaws. But that's just me. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

They were separate ideas. I do not like racism and slavery. I am happy Lincoln and Grant succeeded the beginning of the dismantling of slavery. End idea.

I do not like the Nazis. I am glad that FDR navigated that period firmly. End of idea.

As i said, it is not a top presidents list. It is more presidents I found accomplished something I felt was extraordinary and necessary and did so in a time that took everything they had to complete.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'd like to start a discussion with you folks about our former POTUS's. It's a subject that interests me.

Start a thread. I'd chime in. I'm not too sentimental myself. They were all mixed bags, even the ones I listed that accomplished something I highly approved of.

[burrrton]

Start a thread. I'd chime in.

I'd read. I'm not well-read on them, and I'm impressed by anyone with the patience and curiosity to become so.

[Largent80]

Now Un says they are considering setting off a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific.

[RiverDog]

Unfortunately. Kennedy made it cool for a president to cheat on his wife and have personal scandals. And the character of the people that tend to vote Democrat have come to accept the scumbag nature of Democratic politicians that engage in this kind of behavior. I've never seen such excuses made as Democratic supporters make to puff up the scumbag candidates they support.

Kennedy wasn't the first POTUS to cheat on his wife. FDR was unfaithful to his old lady for over a decade, and even though it didn't involve a sexual relationship due to his paralysis, he maintained contact with his mistress (Lucy Mercer) right up until his death despite his promise to his wife that he'd never see her again. And although Ike didn't have any known extramarital affairs after he returned home after the war, he did carry on an extended relationship with his driver.

But I have no doubt that Kennedy's behavior had an impact on Bill Clinton. JFK was Slick Willy's idol. The two met when Clinton was in high school, perhaps the only meeting of a sitting President and a future POTUS at those respective ages. IMO Clinton didn't see anything morally wrong in cheating on his wife because JFK was such a well known philanderer.

One of the things that Clinton's well known infidelities brought out was the hypocrisy of some of these women's groups. They went ballistic when Republican Senator Bob Packwood was charged with "sexual misconduct", essentially pats on the ass at the water cooler, or Clarence Thomas's talking dirty to an associate, yet were either silent or in active defense of Bill Clinton when he was accused of much worse. They showed themselves not to be the advocacy group for women they claimed to be, but rather a political arm of the Democratic party.

[c_hawkbob]

IMO republican have entirely lost any moral ground they ever had with old "Grab "em by the Pussy" carrying the banner. Talk about pure hypocrisy.