Worst President in history ?

[Crazy the Clown]

Andrew Johnson.

He tried to undo the freedom that Abraham Lincoln gave to the slaves, and that was just wrong.

[Teek]

Andrew Johnson.

He tried to undo the freedom that Abraham Lincoln gave to the slaves, and that was just wrong.

No, he didn't.

[Raistlin]

Andrew Johnson.

He tried to undo the freedom that Abraham Lincoln gave to the slaves, and that was just wrong.

No, he didn't.

He didn't undo anything, but he didn't do ANYTHING to help start rebuild and intergrate the South. He let black codes and other constitutional disgraces run rampant, and pretty much just sat back and watched.

EDIT:

So if we keep to ourselves and let the UN do its job around the world, then we're letting others be slaughtered and starve...but if we take action against our inevitable enemies because the UN is incompetent, we're overbearing and militaristic? Where's the middle ground?

There's the problem right there. "Inevitable." Iraq hadn't done anything against us. The "preemptive strike" bull was the worst possible reason. Are we now going to throw people in jail for being "inevitable murderers?"

How many terrorist training camps are there in Ethiopia? How much does the Burmese government spend toward providing weapons and training to people who wish to slaughter as many civilians as possible? How many of his own villages has Mugawbe cleaned out with the nerve gas and blistering agents he's sworn to use against the United States? Ever stop to realize that Saddam was a threat to everybody, and is no more?

But that wasn't the reason we went into Iraq. "Preemptive strike" and "weapons of mass destruction." Neither of which had much in the way of objective evidence. I could make up justifications for Hitler's regime, but that doesn't mean that any of them would be part of his actual rational. And I repeat: the ends do NOT justify the means. The means must be justified in and of themselves.

[Sasquatch]

why the war in iraq was illegal. (1) it was not in the defence of an ally who had been attack, (2) it was not retaliation, (3) there was not attack imminent, (4) there was no genocide taking place. (5) the un did not pass it.

1. It was in the defense of not only our own country, but the millions of people in Iraq and surrounding countries that were at risk simply because Saddam had been left in charge.
2. It was in retaliation for the 3,000+ innocent civilians that were slaughtered in cold blood by the terrorists that received training, weapons, and funds from Saddam.
3. There was an attack imminent, as soon as Saddam took out some of the chemical/biological weapons he had stockpiled, or continued his pursuit of nuclear weapons, and it would have been a devastating attack, most likely against more civilians.
4. Though not labeled "genocide", Saddam had been torturing and executing hundreds of thousands of his own people for decades.
5. The UN did not pass it because it was being controlled by those who have been shown to have been involved in illegal dealings with Iraq. If a mob boss buys a jury, is he really innocent?

Thus, in no way is Operation Iraqi Freedom against any international laws, and every member of our military is independent in their status as a war criminal. Again, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean everybody who has anything to do with it is evil, immoral, or a criminal.

Not that action was necessary - striking first is not always the worst case - but rather (1) had they even stated that they were going to attack America, that would have been enough. (2) "Pre-emptive attacks" go against the principles of rational self-interest that America was founded on (and which has thus been thrown out the window).

1. Saddam had stated many times his intent to bring America down. Many, many times, especially during/after Desert Storm.
2. America was founded upon principles of freedom. Nothing about a justified pre-emptive attack goes against the American effort to protect its freedom and the lives and safety of its citizens.

There's the problem right there. "Inevitable." (1) Iraq hadn't done anything against us. The "preemptive strike" bull was the worst possible reason. (2) Are we now going to throw people in jail for being "inevitable murderers?"

1. Saddam not only had a long history of hatred and threats toward America (intent), he had posession of and was further pursuing deadlier and more powerful ways to kill mass numbers of people. Not to mention the terrorist outfits they gave a big boost to, which have not only attacked the United States and her allies, but caused the deaths of countless numbers of their own supporters.
2. Do those "inevitable murderers" have a history of murder, weapons to murder, a motive to murder, and a declaration that they will murder again? Then yes, it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider them an "inevitable murderer", or to have them locked up so they don't strike again, and again and again.

(1) But that wasn't the reason we went into Iraq. (2) "Preemptive strike" and "weapons of mass destruction." Neither of which had much in the way of objective evidence. (3) I could make up justifications for Hitler's regime, but that doesn't mean that any of them would be part of his actual rational. (4) And I repeat: the ends do NOT justify the means. The means must be justified in and of themselves.

1. Why does the reason matter? If something good comes from an intent even for something bad, is it not still something good?
2. Actually, both of which had quite a bit of evidence to support them.
3. You're been a worthy debate on many subjects, please don't resort to comparing your opponent to Hitler.
4. There's a difference in the means--as in, the way something is gone about--and the reason--as in, why something was pursued. Either way, in this case, neither the means nor the reason would nearly qualify to overshadow the ends.

[ShunNakamura]

That last bit depends on whether or not you believe that the ends rights the means. Some do not believe that.



As for Iraq/Saddam straight out attacking the US. All I have to say is dream on. Saddam may have been one large bastard, but he ain't stupid. Even if he killed several thousand/millions of americans, he knew what would happen. He couldn't fight off the retaliation of even a weakened america. And America would have had support for sure. The UN would have been on him far worse.. etc. He may push the line but I doubt he would cross it. This "he would inevitably attack" stuff is highly unlikely.

As for threats... You have seen what insecure bullies do right? They may threaten the big boys, "stay out of this or we'll mess you" but what happens when the big boys actualy do get in it? Who then runs? In my experience it is the bully who hightails it.. and that is what saddam is. A cowardly bully. He needed removed but he wasn't much of a real threat himself.

Which brings to head funding terriorism. He, himself, may have feared retailiation. But I am certian many a coward has hired assaisins before. So this is definately a hit.


The pre-emptive war, in which we attack Iraq before Iraq attacks us, doesn't truely exist since Iraq itself probably wouldn't be on our doorsteps. The only reasons that hold are the funding of terriorists, The abuse of his own people, and his refusal to follow the UN's orders. I may have missed one or two.. but they AREN'T "he would have attacked us anyways".

[Sasquatch]

The only reasons that hold are the funding of terriorists, The abuse of his own people, and his refusal to follow the UN's orders. I may have missed one or two.. but they AREN'T "he would have attacked us anyways".

Iraq may not have directly attacked America, but they would have further supported terrorist organizations that would attack America. Just because the attack is indirect doesn't mean Saddam wouldn't be behind it. Even still, you've got the direct refusal to obey the UN and the slaughter and torture of his own people, plus the obvious threat he posed to the surrounding population.

[Cloud No.9]

ah the jolly old argument.... he had stockpiles of chemical weapons (which noone could find apparently). so he really had plans to launch a petri dish of buetilinuem with the missle that struggled to get outwith his own border. be afraid be very afraid.

and those terrorist links all those message he took the time to not reply to. yep that was a great connection full of plans and evil conspiracy that was. and churchil was a commie...........

and why doesn't america defend the sudanese people? why don't the defend the koreans? the burmese? singapore? russia? chine? ethiopia? saudi arabia? israel? turkey? uzbekistan? algeria? egypt?

yeah cos those people don't need defending at all. in fact in uzbekistan america hasa lovely little air base. how's the for support to a man with nasty habit of boiling people. yeah a joyous place to live in. no need to defend them.

defend people against a true genocide not one which is "kinda like one but not quite" like in sudan.

and considering that the UN said it better take longer finding WMD because it wasn't exactly sure if sadamme had them or not. and oh my god neither could america. then yeah the UN is so corrupt because they lunged into a war incriminating all soldeirs who fight in it. those dirty UN people and their lies...............

and while i'm at it. if a mob boss buys a jury and is found innocent, then yes he is innocent. he was tried in a court of his peers. or would you just like to send them off to egypt like bush allows other suspects to be?

[ShunNakamura]

It may just be how I use pre-emptive. Pre-emptive would be to strike the terriorists he was funding, since they were the one's going to attack. *shurg* doesn't get to the source but it is how I use the word.

As for the other two.. those are the only reasons why I am even somewhat for a war. The guy needed his rear handed to him.


As for why not attacking all the other countires.... How strong do you happen to think we are?! Come now, no one country has the power to attack every corrupt ruler at the same time. And even if we could.. you want to know what those nations would look like afterwards? Cause we sure as heck wouldn't have the resources to rebuild them.

As for Iraq. Iraq was the near perfect starting place to ousting such leaders. I have explained it before. In our world when saving people tactics is what matters not solving the problems in order of how much trouble they are causing. Iraq was a tactical target... as well as target of a abusive leader. The other nations wouldn't have had the tactical value of Iraq. So Iraq goes first.

[Cloud No.9]

damn it he wasn't funding noone. his communications between him and bin laden where merely of bin laden sending him messages and him ingnoring them. yes he supported the war on israel but so did most other arab countries in much the same fashion.

my point was not that we should attack all those other countries. i know it would be logistically impossible. but my question was why iraq of the sudanese genocide? why iraq over the use of gases in burma? why iraq over korea's nukes? why oppose the way iraq treats it's people but support uzbekistan? why not only support egypt, libya, and suadi arabia do we insist on sending suspects to be tortured to them? it's bare hypocricy. iraq was not the no.1 problem on any case at the time. it was merly convineint for it's location.

[Cuchulainn]

I am still surprised and very worried that people STILL believe the bs that Sadam was funding Bin Laden. It's actually tragic. I won't say anymore, my record atEotW is equally as tragic
Ignorance is bliss.

[ShunNakamura]

Iraq may not have been funding Bin Laden(did I say that? if so I must have really been out of it.. that I don't know.. maybe, maybe not.), but I am certian he funded other terriorists.

As for the first target.

If you begin a campaign you must first situate yourself in a good position.
Good position
1)Access to other targets. This blocks out starting wiht korea

2)Easy to resuply. Pretty much null since we can supply just about anywhere efficently.

3)Defensible- I think we could easily defend most locations.

Etc... mostly null.. in our world it is easy to do much. So access to other targets is key to position. Now Iraq.. isn't it in the middle of everything? It is a near perfect base to spread freedom from.

Next when you attack a target, you want to make the most impression with the least amount of loss. This botches Korea... Korea could easily blast our Allies in Japan, or South Korea. And it would just be an ugly war. Most of the others I have seen listed would be an easier target. Though all of them would give them less of an impression. Heh.. who cares about sudan? I haven't heard anything at all about it around here. "We attacked sudan? Why would we do that? My son best not get shoot." etc. Attack Iraq... "Blast that bastard to hell," someone in my area told a soldier.

hrmm.. Iraq=sitting duck, Saddam=well known target, Iraq= best target due to impact per man power used.

I think I have tried this again and again. You have to start somewhere. And you want to have a strong start. Iraq is better then most to start in.

[Cloud No.9]

but was it morally right? legally?

tactically yes it may have been a good move (before there was no border to move into iran). but can you defend an action that way when it was morally wrong?

[ShunNakamura]

But it still wasn't morally wrong.

We had at least 2 out of three, and arguably 3 out of 3 to make it right,(refering to Aquinas here).

He was harming his own people, he wasn't a good guy to have around, etc.. there were plenty of other reasons as well. The only reason to go after someone else isn't cause they do something he doesn't, but cause they do it on a larger scale, more publicly, etc. But to start a war against abusive rulers(morally right, yes?) why not get a good start? Such as Iraq. It fits all the neccesary components to be a good target in such a war(both morally and tactically).