|
| Thread: Greatest President Ever? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
posted June 08, 2004 10:33 PM |
|
|
Japan had values & & such to follow certain codes,They had to be stopped & now.
Allied with the wrong country,& making deadly threats after the PH Incident.
Dang right we had to put a bomb on thier rump 7 it had to be done now.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 01:09 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 11 Jun 2004
|
Quote:
At the rate you are going, Svarog, I am anxiously looking forward to your comparison of Alexander the Great to Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski...
Huh, if I apply the same logic about bravery to our former, now tragically dead President Trajkovski, he wouldn't live up to even "A" from Alexander. He had never made a single decision alone in his entire mandate, and imagine talking about brave decisions. And I don't accuse you for your false info and not knowing he's dead since April, given the fact that our government still hasn't updated its Internet sites (!!). Poor, poor people. 
Quote:
The thing that gets me about the atomic bombings is why wouldn't Japan have surrendered after Hiroshima? I always wondered about that decision as well.
It's in the atomic bomb thread as well. They wanted assurancies for the emperor, which btw were not offered before the bombs.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 01:33 AM |
|
|
Whatever on Alexander, you miss the point, you utterly wrongly asserted that I thought an American was the best General, based on wishful thinking. Don't try clawing it back by criticising me on something irrelevant to the point I was making. I don't much care if he's considered Greek or Macedonian and I'm pretty damn sure you'll get a lot of Greeks disagreeing with the assertion that he isn't Greek, the point was he's not American.
On the issue of Heroes, I don't play the game anymore. However, your comment that the American Civil war was "by far not the greates conflict in the history of mankind" would lead me to assume that you count generals from it as lesser, hence I remarked that it should not always have a bearing.
On the europe debate I appologise, but since the replies are buried on page 3 and came 8 days after the remarks I made I had not noticed them until re-checking now. I had not checked again due to the fact that the thread appeared to have moved onto another discussion between you and khayman. My other remarks still stand though, you spent a large proportion of your replies jumping to conclusions based on faulty logic and your traditional bias against the British anyway. Remarks like "shouldn't even belong in Europe" and calling us anti-european when often we are not is not something designed to engender sensible replies.
Furthermore you enjoy analysing things without any concrete basis often. Here you try to make my supposed interest into American conflicts alongside a reluctance to discuss a topic that had gotten to a silly stage as some sort of ridiculous analysis of "wannabe american" so that it suits your stance. The truth is that I know more about 19th and 20th century wars and specifically Napoleonics, American Civil war and WWII, all of which include americans in a major or minor way, I'm bound to forward or talk more about these generals, I know more about them! As much as I appreciate the humour in trying to analyze my motives or reasons, sometimes it's just plain pathetic.
Oh and before anyone asks, my reasons for this thread have been stated, furthermore, more People online tend to know American presidents than say British Prime Ministers, so it's easier to discuss.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 02:23 AM |
|
|
Actually I wrote them because I'm sick of your laughable attempts to analyse me...
Toss... whatever, that personifies what I was pointing out about Alexander, you took an irrelevance to comment on in order to dodge the fact that I pointed out your innacuracies. If you choose to ignore when I do that then do so, but at least have the common decency to admit when you made a mistake. Further I commented on past threads because you brought the issue up, not me. When people start analysing my replies based on totally illogical evidence I reply.
On heroes or whatever you wish to call it now: I would say that ability in war is shown both when in command of large and small armies as both present their own unique instances. What is IMO more important is the range the general goes through and ultimately whether or not they operated independently. Blucher for example was a competent field commander, but relied heavily on his chief of staff, especially during the 1815 campaign, it is therefore hard to judge what parts of his strategy were his and what were not, and by extension his ability. The command size is of little relevance, the relevance is if the responsibilty for the command rests with that general or is with someone else. A further reason why size is of little relevance is due to the changing nature of warfare in that there have been periods in European history were a "Army" would be 4,000 men, today it is closer to 100,000 probably (that's a guess btw, the point remains). Pizarro's Spanish force in the initial thrust on the Incas was nothing larger than a reinforced company today. It's what they did with the forces, what obstacles they faced and so on that matter to me, not the size or the conflict.
Furthermore, the ACW was not small either numerically, certainly not compared to the Crimean war just a decade before in Europe, and only slightly smaller (mostly due to a wider area of fighting, if we talk of combined army strengths the ACW was probably equal to it) than the Franco-Prussian conflict in the 1870s.
Quote:
"You should know, general! Every time when we have to choose between Europe and the great wide ocean, we will always be for the great wide ocean. Every time when I have to choose between you and Roosevelt, I will choose Roosevelt."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1944 (to De Gaulle)
I'm afraid Churchill died some time ago, he no longer influences British politics. Also that quote is probably well out of context, Churchill hated De Gaulle with some very solid reasons also, when talking of him of course he would prefer American support during the war to the support of De Gaulle and a France that at the time was either only just liberated or not yet liberated. Churchill was a realist, supporting an annoying fool of a Frenchman who had no real global power made no sense, supporting Roosevelt made pleanty of sense. Try understanding the context, then try understanding that 1 quote from a leader long dead who was anti-european at the best of times does not make a representative view of the people in this country.
However, as the author of this thread, I would suggest that since this is almost entirely off topic and leading nowhere that we return to the discussion at hand rather than continue this one.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 03:05 AM |
|
|
I have an email address, you could use that  Try the profile information.
Quote:
You give yourself too much credit
So you now claim, but in virtually every thread I can think of you make some attempt to draw a conclusion about me that often bears no relevance to what I say, hence I feel it best to get this over with.
Quote:
Actually from all I wrote, only the thing about Alexandar wasn't a toss. I was dead serious there, and I wrote that cos I didn't want a sneaky remark like that to go unnoticed.
Sneaky remark would assume that I in some way do not recognise that there is some disagreement over the issue, which I do, I just happen to come down on the Greek side of the discussion at this moment in time until such time as some logical argument is forwarded to refute the very strong points for considering him Greek. For ease of not having to write a long explanation that he might also be another nationality I wrote Greek. The point is that it's still irrelevant to what I was talking about as he's still not American.
Quote:
And what would you have wanted me to do? To say: "Ok, ph. I'm sorry for fooling around with you. You truly don't wanna be American, and all your opinions are based on facts."
I'd appreciate it if you'd either cease analysing me on flimsy evidence and assumptions, or failing that at least read and digest what I say before you make the attempt. Either way if you get it wrong, it's common sense to admit to it rather than change the topic fast and get offended at something about Alexander (in this case).
Quote:
It just so happens that I don't agree with your interpretation of facts (such as the one about size of conflicts not being relevant to skill of generals).
That's a discussion for the other thread, I remarked on it because of a comment you made here.
Quote:
You see, you continue to defend Lee and Patton, which is fine. And it's exactly what I wrote, so what was the point in me reacting when you named all the other generals you respect?
No. You insinuated that I loved america/americans so much that I considered Lee to be the best general ever "the one that praises American generals from the American civil war the most " as you put it. Which was wrong as I blatantly said that I considered Wellington to be the best general ever and wrote a long paragraph as to why. It had nothing to do with whom I respected, it was about who I considered the best.
As for Toss, this is a serious discussion, and whilst I'm amused by humour as much as anyone else, I'm not amused by you continually either "tossing" or analysing me as "pro-american" or similar. Not only is it wrong, it's exceedingly annoying, usually because you either jump to conclusions about what I'll say or twist what I say. Furthermore in other threads it's often done seriously, so it's getting irritating. I would imagine if I began every reply to Dargon as "well you're a right wing relgious conservative so you must believe...." I would soon begin to irritate him.
Anyway, you have an alternative form of communication, I suggest you use it and allow this thread to return to the topic as you no doubt want it to 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 03:19 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 11 Jun 2004
|
Back on topic: Which is the best US president from recent times? (After JFK)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 10:45 AM |
|
|
Uhmmm no, what you have done in recent threads is to often remark that my "pro-american" stance affects my judgment and opinions, often without cause. Whilst your analysis above is true it bears absolutely no resemblance to your continued remarks in other threads which are often done seriously which irritates me. Lee was on my list, so were a hell of a lot of others, and he certainly was not "the best for me" other than morally, no interpretation of the words "for me the best general was Wellington" can result in an assumption that I place Lee above him. Lee happened to be first on the list for a simple reason, I began by replying to a remark from others before making my choice and returning to other's choices.
It is not as you are now claiming you saying I like Americans that I find annoying, it is your repeated inability to judge my remarks properly and the fact that you often add your own judgment on them based on what you percieve my stance to be so pro-american that it cannot see anything else. Again you move the goal-posts when someone disproves a claim of yours. Your current conclusion is based loosely on fact, but since your current (ie in your last post) conclusion is not the one I am talking about in the first place, nor then you've again missed the point entirely, I suspect deliberately.
I have though no intention of discovering your secret, what I do have an intention of is that if you continue in your pathetic attempts to judge my remarks based on the above I won't even bother to reply to any of your points in future. I expect people to have the decency to listen to what I am saying and not place innacurate judgements on why I say it based on their perception, which when it's pointed out as wrong I would expect them to at least be gracious enough to admit it.
Which leaves you a neat choice, if you wish to continue to act like you know me/my motives based on some impression you have then do so, but I wouldn't bother yourself to think I'll take the time anymore to pay any attention to you. Furthermore I would ask now that I have refferred to the e-mail I have that you make any reply there.
Since JFK I would say it was a hard choice, I'd say Clinton.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 04:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Talking about being off topic, look at your last post. You spent several paragraphs talking the same blah blah blah, and only one line to comment on my attempt to put this thread back on track.
Fair and accurate enough, however I have asked a number of times in response to your request about IMs that we move this to e-mails. Please do so, this thread is not for them anymore. If you desire to, mine is in my profile, or is privatehudsonuk@hotmail.com Please do make use of it. Since I cannot recieve IMs but can send them I am sending the rest of the reply to you in that format, if you wish to return it use my email.
Alternatively you could create a new thread to take the discussion away from here.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 04:42 PM |
|
|
Off Topic...Or Is It?
Can't you guys just kiss and make up? ::: smooch :::
Besides, it's the 'cool' thing to do these days anyway.
If you decide that under all this macho debating a true love-hate relationship actually exists, then you can both move to the United States (preferably California) and get legally married. That way, Private Hudson can fulfil his secret desire to become an American citizen and study our outstanding military leadership, while Svarog can continue to develop his ultimate plan to displace the United States as the world's 'Superpower' and eat at McDonald's everyday.
Just a suggestion...
LOVE, Peace, and Happiness
p.s. - Ulysses S. Grant was neither an outstanding president or general. He just had half a country's men and resources at his disposal, along with the North's expanding industry and manufacturing capabilities...even the real Private Hudson (from the movie Aliens) could have eventually led the Union Army to victory over the dwindling Confederate Army.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 04:45 PM |
|
|
OK, will use the e-mail.
Clinton's image here on the Balkans was ruined with the NATO bombings on Serbia. The intervention had suspisious international support, it was an attack on a sovereign country, the amount of opression the Western medias depicted was by far exaggarated, and they still didn't manage to pull down Milosevic (in fact that only strenghtened his support). The consequences were destabilisation in the region, new ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, separatist tendencies got support and that will lead to Kosovo independence thanks to NATO, and the conflict in Macedonia was motivated from that intervention among other reasons. It was a mistake and no matter what else good he had done, the impression Balkan people (except Albanians) have about Clinton is pretty negative.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 04:57 PM |
|
|
On Grant someone mentioned that he did do more than other presidents to unite the North and South after the war, I would be intruiged to know if that is accurate or not. On Clinton I believe that he felt he was doing the right thing at the time, as did all the Nato allies. However it was probably, given the tense and confusing (to western eyes) nature of Balkan politics unwise to do anything in the area whatsoever. To some degree though there was a feeling that something had to be done after the failiure of the outside world to intervene properly in the earlier conflicts of the early 90s. Given that atmosphere it's no suprise that the Nato allies reacted as they did to the opression that went on, even if it was not entirely one sided. Further some of the problems (specifically those related to violence now against the Serbs) could have been solved with a greater UN/Nato presence to restrain things a little. Whilst with hindsight it has been a mistake it's easy to see why the Western nations did take action.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 05:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
...and eat at McDonald's everyday.
OH NO! NOO! The Horrors! Please do not condemn me to such a cruel punishment. Don't know which is worse: being married to PH or that.
btw, I had McDonald's for sponsors in one of my public debates, and I had to wear a T-shirt with their ugly logo just on the top - huge and happy. I can never forgive myself for that.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Trogdor
Legendary Hero
Words in a custom title
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 09:35 AM |
|
|
The greatest ever prez is........................ GORBACHEV!
____________
"Through the power of the dollar you can communicate with the dead." - Artu
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 04:33 PM |
|
|
lol. The massive open robbery of the Soviet economy during his era is said to have been the greatest disaster caused by corruption in the history of mankind. Add Elzin to the list of convicts too.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 04:56 PM |
|
|
|
Balanced on the other side of that though has to be the fact that with Reagan he enabled the cold war to end in a relatively peaceful way.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 02:08 PM |
|
|
It was impossible for the cold war to end in any toher way. It's not Gorbachev's achievment. The Soviets were already totally exhausted from trying to act an American rival, roughly equal in rank. The public sentiment was desperate and there were absolutely no indications that the Cold War could end in bloodshed. Another fact that prooves this is that the reason for the break-up of USSR and the fall of communism were almost entirely internal, so niether Gorbachev nor Reagan deserves a credit. They were only accidentally there in power, and as much as they want to take the credit for what happened, it's totally incorrect.
I can only give little credit to Gorbachev for hastening the process of dissolvment of the rotting body of USSR, but as it usually goes, when something is done fast and without much consideration, mistakes are made and the whole situation may turn into a huge mess, as it did in Russia. On the other hand, there were abolutely no advantages in the rapid break-up of the system, and imo it would be a million times better if the whole process was performed steadily and having in mind the interests of the people, rather than those of few powerful oligarchs.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 02:31 PM |
|
|
With respect as recently (to Gorbachev's time that is) as the early 80s there was a crisis between the US and USSR that may have lead to war. Under hardliners it's quite possible that this situation could have been repeated, saying that conflict was impossible is to ignore the history between the two nations over Cuba, Berlin and so on. Yes it was happening for some time, but we do owe them some grattitude for making sure that the process was done without even a hint of conflict between the two powers.
Saying the break up was internal and not due to the two leaders is not against also saying that they helped make it peaceful.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 03:03 PM |
|
|
That's true, but I still don't get it how is that a President named Reagan is to be praised for that. There is absolutely no one more millitant than him, that would be in the position to take advantage of the situation in USSR and deal with his cold war enemy once and for good. The fact that he stood watching idly by, just prooves that even the most right-wing officials in a situation like that wouldn't be in the position to involve in the process. (partly due to international climate, partly to fear of Russian retaliation)
I mean, Reagan already won the war (thanks to the harikiri done by the Soviets), there was absolutely no need for any further actions. Even if a a Socialist was President of USA at the time, the USA would have still won the war without making a single effort about it.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 05:18 PM |
|
|
|
Excellent points, I mostly favour Gorbachev in terms of being responsible for the peaceful end, however in a way a lot of Amercians favour Reagan for possibly accelerating that end by forcing the issue. To a degree I can see their point, as much as I despise the method at the same time.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 09:49 PM |
|
|
The man just died, could we please leave him alone for a while? Reagan was a great president, you don't recieve the global recognition he did for nothing. Too bad he wasn't even aware of the glorious things he accomplished; blasted Alzherimer's...
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
| |
|
|
