Second Worst President in US History.

[ravingdave]

I can't address all your points, but i'll address a few.

I should mention in passing, J.F.K. screwing up the Bay of Pigs.

You aren't ranking this Screw-Up nearly as seriously as it deserves. Not only did Kennedy order that the "Free Cuba" forces be lied to about their support, and is therefore DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of those men, and the imprisonment and torture of the rest, the Dishonor of the Naval and Air force officers who followed orders and stood by while our allies (whom we put up to the whole thing ) were being butchered, but the botched invasion also served as Proof to the Russians that the United States was willing to use military force to overthrow their communist ally in Cuba, Fidel Castro. Something which Castro had been alleging for years.

Castro DEMANDED that the Soviets protect him by stationing Nuclear Missiles in Cuba to dissuade the United States from Tampering in Cuba. Castro wanted control of those nuclear missiles, but the Russians, not being totaly freaking nuts, said NO. The Russians would maintain control over those missiles.

So JFK, (through complete incompetence and lack of honor) put the United States under imminent danger of having Millions of Americans vaporized by Nuclear weapons. The Media portrays the story (if they talk about it at all ) as Kennedy Heroically backing the Russians down. In reality, Kennedy Had to (Privately) Trade American Nuclear missile site's in Greece in exchange for the Russians to pull their missiles out of Cuba.

It was LOSE,LOSE, LOSE, all the Way for the United States.

Carter is certainly among the worst, and for reasons well covered already.

What I hope is noticed is that these Presidents all have something in common--all are Democrats.

Amen.

Among a certain species of fool, Abraham Lincoln is given a place as being a "bad" president. They cite many specious reasons to justify this, the lead being that he started or caused the Civil War. The only thing he did to bring about the war was to be elected and act as if he had been elected, something that brings no onus for the war onto him. The worst thing that can be said about Lincoln is that he took maybe longer than required to find the generals who would destroy the South's rebellion. It would have been better done sooner, if possible.

The shame of it is all the Confederacy's.

Well now, you SEEM to be fairly well read on History, but it looks as though you've left out some pieces. You seem to have forgotten (or never learned) that the Secession occurred, that it was friendly, and that neither the Northern States nor the Southern States wanted to go to war over it. By the time of Lincolns Inauguration, seven states had already seceded, with Northern Newspapers declaring "Go in Peace." and other words to that effect.

The Hangup was Fort Sumter. South Carolina couldn't stand the idea of a Foreign Nation in charge of a Fortress overlooking Charleston Harbor, and so demanded that the Fort be evacuated. They eventually blockaded the fort and decided to starve out the Garrison.

Here's the part that My History Major friend told me about, but that appears to have been hushed up by History.

Lincoln wanted the Civil War, (Everyone thought the South would be a pushover) but politically he couldn't start it. It would cost him the support of numerous border states if the Union was seen as the aggressor. He sent word to Major Anderson (Commanding officer of Ft. Sumter) that he would shortly be attacked by the Confederates, and that he was to take all appropriate steps to limit the loss of life. Hold the fort for one day if possible, then surrender the fortress to the Confederate forces.

He then sent a letter to South Carolina Governor that he was sending supplies to Fort Sumter.

Lincoln expected this letter to provoke an attack on the Fort, and believed (rightly) that he could use the attack to rally the Northern and border states. The Confederates foolishly fell into this political trap, but not all were fooled.

In response, the Confederate cabinet, meeting in Montgomery, decided on April 9 to open fire on Fort Sumter in an attempt to force its surrender before the relief fleet arrived. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

Lincoln immediately asserted Iron Clad control over the News Papers of the Northern states, and immediately moved troops into various "Waffling" states to insure that they remained under Union Control.

EVERYONE in Washington, at the time, assumed that it would be a simple matter to send an Army into the South, spank their little butts, and put an end to all of this "Secession" nonsense.

They gathered an army of about 35,000 men and sent them to take Richmond Virginia. The Confederates beat the snot out of them and sent them Fleeing back to Washington DC. The returning soldiers told the people of Washington DC to flee for their lives because a Confederate army was right behind them and would take the City Shortly!

But the Confederate attack never came. I recall reading that if the Confederates had sent their Army into Washington at that time, they would have won the war. Maybe. I don't know.


In any case, both sides did not take into account the Resolve of the other, and instead of the War being over quickly as everyone assumed it would be, it was long and brutal and ugly. Lincoln ended up doing a lot of Ugly things. He suspended Habeas Corpus, He forced conscription, He used Union Troops to suppress anti conscription riots, He impressed Immigrants Newly arrived off ships directly into the Union Army to fight and Die for their New Country whether they wanted to or not.

It was an Ugly time in American History.

Some poster above claims we need to look at the economic causes of the Civil War war, and the chief "economic" cause of the war in fact depends on it's political significance for all it's punch--the North was exceeding the South in every economic measure of advantage, and it would soon have the influence in Congress to overrule the interests of the South as the South had once been able to extort compliance from the North, in trade for it's signing on to the Constitution and good behavior.

You must be talking about a different thread. No one posted anything about the "Economic" cause of the war. You likewise use the word "Extort" in a funny way. The Southern States did not twist anyone's arm. They simply said that they wanted certain conditions in exchange for their participation. The rest of the States were free to form a Coalition Government without them. You call this "Extortion" ?

What the Civil War was about was that the interests--the individuals--who ran the South politically were determined to remain the biggest fish in their pond, if need be by unconstitutionally, illegally, violently, and unjustly making their pond smaller.

I would say the same theory applies to both sides. My inescapable conclusion was that the Civil war was fought over Ego's, and nothing else. Had the Confederacy never attacked, the Civil war probably wouldn't have happened at all.

If my Friend is right, (and I suspect he is, because he was Fanatical about researching this stuff) and Lincoln intentionally Tricked them into starting the war, then He bears responsibility for starting it.




David

[TDPerk]

Kunkmeister brought up the "real economic reasons" for the war; the phrase in scare quotes because it is frequently used by persons who want to minimize the very great extent to which the war was simply caused by people doing a great evil who wanted to keep on doing a great evil, and who had no legal pretext for doing what they did.

Your friend needs to articulate the trick which they think Lincoln played.

I suspect they cannot.

They would then need to show that it caused the South to fire on Sumter.

That was was caused the fighting to start, and it was the South's decision.

To avoid the war, the South needed merely to yield, to abandon its goal of unconstitutional and illegal independence, and an independence not sought justly--to increase liberty--but which it sough to diminish it.

The increase of federal authority beyond the constitution shows no permanent expansion until the Sherman Act, and no continuously increasing rate of increase until FDR.

Lincoln did little more that was "objectionable" than to enforce existing federal law by powers which the federal government then had, and all but exclusively made both reasoned and reasonable decisions in the use of them.

The blame, the shame, and the fault all lie with the avid slavers, with the South.

Their interests are why the US did not end slavery peacefully, or sooner.

As for your taking issue with my use of the word extortion, to extort is: : "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power".

And I think the implicit threat of foreign nations taking advantage of the disunity among the colonies--and their being invited to do so by the then southern independent states to counter-balance the North and each other--which the south implicitly made when forcing the 3/5ths compromise and the slave trade non-interference clause on the north well counts as undue power.

Regards, Tom Perkins, ml, msl, & pfpp

[ravingdave]

Kunkmeister brought up the "real economic reasons" for the war;

You are absolutely right, and I absolutely missed it. And I LOOKED for it. I must have thought it was a tag line or something. In any case, you are right about this and I am wrong.

the phrase in scare quotes because it is frequently used by persons who want to minimize the very great extent to which the war was simply caused by people doing a great evil who wanted to keep on doing a great evil, and who had no legal pretext for doing what they did.

Well i'll grant you that it was evil, but what I don't get is your contention that it was illegal. How do you figure it was illegal ?

Your friend needs to articulate the trick which they think Lincoln played.

My friend is black and he is an avid student of history. He especially researches anything relating to slavery and civil rights. (he's kinda fanatical about it.) It has been many years ago, but during some of his research on the start of the Civil War he discovered that Lincoln was a Canny B*stard, and very cleverly manipulated the Confederates into provoking the war.

According to my friend, the Secession was regarded as a fait accompli by most of the country, and Lincoln was being forced to face the ignominy of being the President who split the country. (It's a pretty good slap in the face when a large chunk of your country walks off just because you won the election.) Lincoln knew that if everything remained peaceful, then the south would remain seceded, and he would go down in history as the man who caused it.

The hole card was the fact that the Union held the fortress in South Carolina (and another in Florida, I think) and likewise the fact that the people in South Carolina were a bunch of irrational hot heads.

Lincoln could have ordered the evacuation of the fort and everything would have been resolved peacefully. The South Carolinians could have simply put up with it and eventually it would have simply gone away.

Lincoln was advised of a plan to supply the fort covertly by sea, which would have avoided a direct confrontation. He Nixed it, and instead sought to provoke a confrontation by sending a letter informing the Confederates that he was sending a supply train to the fort.

He rightly guessed that the agitators would regard this as a provocation as it demonstrates to them that as far as he's concerned, the fortress belongs to the Union, and that they have every right to be there.

It was a chip on his shoulder and he dared them to knock it off, which they foolishly did. The insight to this comes from the assertion that Lincoln had sent word to the commander of the fort that he would be attacked, and that he should take all steps to avoid casualties, hold for one day then surrender the fort.

If this is true, (My friend tells me it is.) Lincoln Knew he was provoking an attack. He had to get the Moral High ground to rally support in the Northern and Border states for an armed conflict with the Seceded states.

As my friend was telling me all this, he was laughing and praising Lincoln for his cleverness in manipulating the Southerners into starting the war he needed to justify forcing them back into the Union.

And if you think about it, if the argument all along was that Secession was illegal (Which is exactly what the Colonies did to Great Britain about 85 years earlier. Hard to argue that you regard such a thing as illegal.) then why didn't either Buchanan or Lincoln order an immediate attack on the Miscreants organizing the Secession ? It's because most of the people at that time didn't believe that secession was illegal. This is why Lincoln would have had a difficult time politically getting the backing for attacking the South.

I suspect they cannot.


They would then need to show that it caused the South to fire on Sumter.

That was was caused the fighting to start, and it was the South's decision.

It's not a "They" it's a he, and as for the explanation, see above.

To avoid the war, the South needed merely to yield, to abandon its goal of unconstitutional and illegal independence, and an independence not sought justly--to increase liberty--but which it sough to diminish it.

Well yeah, that would have worked, but it would also have worked if they had just avoided any conflicts with the Union, and they could have Kept their independence.

It is rather amusing to read both side's take on the whole Secession issue. When the civil war broke out, the Union claimed that the South couldn't secede. After the war when the South asked for it's Representatives in Congress, the Union said NO, You seceded!

The increase of federal authority beyond the constitution shows no permanent expansion until the Sherman Act, and no continuously increasing rate of increase until FDR.

Lincoln did little more that was "objectionable" than to enforce existing federal law by powers which the federal government then had, and all but exclusively made both reasoned and reasonable decisions in the use of them.

Suspending Habeas Corpus ?

The blame, the shame, and the fault all lie with the avid slavers, with the South.

Their interests are why the US did not end slavery peacefully, or sooner.

Well of course it's about money and power. The North gave up slavery because the economics didn't work anymore in the North. Of course the New England States made plenty of money BUILDING the slave ships.
They only proclaimed their Moral Objections to slavery after they had made their money from it. In the south, slavery was still economical because large agriculture projects were heavily labor intensive.

If the war hadn't happened, there is a good chance that Mechanized Farming (which was just around the corner) would have made slavery unprofitable, and that would have eliminated it anyways.

As for your taking issue with my use of the word extortion, to extort is: : "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power".

And I think the implicit threat of foreign nations taking advantage of the disunity among the colonies--and their being invited to do so by the then southern independent states to counter-balance the North and each other--which the south implicitly made when forcing the 3/5ths compromise and the slave trade non-interference clause on the north well counts as undue power.

Regards, Tom Perkins, ml, msl, & pfpp

Well, I don't know how well you know your History, but the Southern states were never that much thrilled with the idea of seceding from England in the first place. It required very clever tactics by either the "Swamp Fox" (Francis Marion) or Nathanael Greene (I forget which) to get the South Into the War of Independence in the first place.

The tactic was to drag the British through the South, past their supply lines and force them to commandeer supplies from the local population. The American officer kept fighting a series of engagements and retreats, luring the British deeper into the south, and forcing them to steal food,supplies and equipment from the Locals, which then roused the ire of these same locals to fight against the British.

He kept engaging the British, then he would retreat. The British would follow, they'd have a scuffle, and then he'd retreat again. If I remember correctly, he said something to the effect that "I can march in any direction as long as it's away from the enemy ! "


To sum it up, the flames of southern rebellion to the British had to be created and fanned to get them to participate. With that in mind, the Delegates at the Constitutional convention had to come to an agreement on what the terms were. Then the Constitution had to be voted on by the states.

If that's what you call "Extortion" then I just don't see it. It seems completely above board and voluntary by all participants.



David

[kunkmiester]

I had to take a break, so I had most of this written before seeing ravingdave's response. I'll go ahead and post this as is though.


The succession of the south was no more illegal than the succession of the colonies from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence specifically says that a proper revolution--kicking out the current gov and setting up a new one--is quite legal, as well as the obvious case of the war with the British.

The Fort sumter attack was provoked. Reinforcing and resupplying a fort in another country without their permission is very much an act of war, but can be smudged, and Lincoln smudged it. All you ever hear is about the attack by the Georgians, but not the letter saying that supplies were coming.

Looking up some sources, I found this:
http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html

which is an excellent summary. You can't exonerate them on the slavery issue, but to refuse to look beyond slavery is to do history a disservice.

Lincoln had other issues. There's plenty of evidence that most of his moves on slavery were political. In that Obama can claim legacy quite nicely, he's a smooth talker and opportunist.

Of the stuff I've found, this seems to be the best, it doesn't try to selectively quote his speeches or anything:
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws198.htm

Bennett attributes the abolitionist policies that came out of the Civil War not to Lincoln, who had to be dragged into it, but to abolitionists like Wendell Phillips, Thaddeus Stevens, Frederick Douglass, and the Radical Republicans in Congress, who in 1862 pushed through the Second Confiscation Act, freeing slaves of owners who supported the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln, Bennett wisely observes, did not free a single slave because it applied only to areas outside of the Union's, and therefore Lincoln's, control. In fact, the Proclamation, with its tricky legalese wording, was designed to save as much of slavery as it could, and to the end of his life, Lincoln was a devoted, unrepentant proponent of white supremacy. (If anyone doubts this they should not read about the Proclamation, but carefully read the document itself. It should take all of 30 seconds to recognize that it is written in pure legal mumbo jumbo, meant to obfuscate, and it was, at the time of its issuance, completely unenforceable).

Important point here. We tend to vilify or glorify historical figures, and in general, it's quite distorting.

[kunkmiester]

A slightly separate point, you mentioned continued unconstitutional powers? There's a widely held point, which I have yet to see refuted, that the state of emergency Lincoln declared was never rescinded(and the Constitution holds no limit), and so continues to this day. It's the basis of the power for executive orders, which are NOT in the Constitution, as well as a few others that I don't recall. He also started the Internal Revenue Service. The income tax was created at the time, and future presidents attempted to keep it going in one form or another, until it was finally ruled unconstitutional as laid in the 1890s, which led to the 16th amendment.

[MSimon]

rdave,

Re: settlement of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It was a nuke site in Turkey IIRC and even the US military believed that from a MAD standpoint the site was not useful (reaction times too short).

[ravingdave]

rdave,

Re: settlement of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It was a nuke site in Turkey IIRC and even the US military believed that from a MAD standpoint the site was not useful (reaction times too short).

This may very well be the case. Most of what I write is from memory, and I'm not surprised if I get fuzzy on details occasionally. I usually remember the gist of important points.



I will point out that our old buddy Curtis LeMay was Strenuously Urging Kennedy to hit the Russians with our Nukes during the Cuban Missle Crisis. He firmly believed we could knock them out without taking much if any retaliatory strike.


I actually think the MAD strategy was folly, and relied far too heavily on having non insane Soviet Leaders. I think the MAD strategy won't work at all against Imadinnerjacket or Hitler.




David

[MSimon]

Belief in MAD kept the peace for about 60 years. About as much as you can expect from any policy. The danger comes when policy no longer fits circumstances and policy change does not follow fast enough.

[rcain]

Belief in MAD kept the peace for about 60 years. About as much as you can expect from any policy. The danger comes when policy no longer fits circumstances and policy change does not follow fast enough.

"I will not go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler!"

- President Merkin Muffley, Dr Stangelove.

thats it, the Godwin identity has now been satisfied.

[kcdodd]

You mean the very weapons we gave them 20 years ago? Arming revolutions always turns out well for the US.

Hmm... let's see. Today is 2009, so 20 years ago would have been 1989?

What weapons were we giving them in 1989 ?


Perhaps you are referring to Pre-Iranian Revolution ? Everything was fine prior to Jimmy Carter getting into office and then working to Topple the Shaw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfOY-gSMnm8

This video almost makes me cry.


You should watch this video. The Shah was dragging Iran into the 20th century. He was using Iran's Oil money to build Schools, Universities, Hospitals, businesses, etc. He was changing things for the better.


Jimmy Carter not only screwed up Iran, he screwed up the rest of the Middle east. Iran was not funding HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS while the shah ruled Iran. We didn't NEED Sadam Hussein as a counterweight while the shah was in power. It was only to combat the religious zealots in Iran that we helped build up Saddam Hussein.



David

I was talking about Iran contra during Reagan.

I think everything was obviously not "fine" in Iran before president carter, or a revolution would have never occurred. The country was turning against the shah. You could blame president carter for not helping suppress it, but it would have likely failed and left the region, and the US, in an even worse position. It's nice an rosy to say we could have waltzed in and stopped a popular ideological revolution.

[MSimon]

I think everything was obviously not "fine" in Iran before president carter, or a revolution would have never occurred. The country was turning against the shah. You could blame president carter for not helping suppress it, but it would have likely failed and left the region, and the US, in an even worse position. It's nice an rosy to say we could have waltzed in and stopped a popular ideological revolution.

The revolution was popular. What happened afterwards was not. BTW the revolution was not particularly ideological. That came in after the clerics got control.

[ravingdave]

Hmm... let's see. Today is 2009, so 20 years ago would have been 1989?

What weapons were we giving them in 1989 ?


Perhaps you are referring to Pre-Iranian Revolution ? Everything was fine prior to Jimmy Carter getting into office and then working to Topple the Shaw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfOY-gSMnm8

This video almost makes me cry.


You should watch this video. The Shah was dragging Iran into the 20th century. He was using Iran's Oil money to build Schools, Universities, Hospitals, businesses, etc. He was changing things for the better.


Jimmy Carter not only screwed up Iran, he screwed up the rest of the Middle east. Iran was not funding HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS while the shah ruled Iran. We didn't NEED Sadam Hussein as a counterweight while the shah was in power. It was only to combat the religious zealots in Iran that we helped build up Saddam Hussein.



David

I was talking about Iran contra during Reagan.

I think everything was obviously not "fine" in Iran before president carter, or a revolution would have never occurred. The country was turning against the shah. You could blame president carter for not helping suppress it, but it would have likely failed and left the region, and the US, in an even worse position. It's nice an rosy to say we could have waltzed in and stopped a popular ideological revolution.

Did you watch the video ? Are you willing to read stuff about this subject ?


The country was turning against the Shah because there were people who were Pushing it to turn against the Shah. Read about some of the "Reichstag fire" like events perpetrated by the Shah's opponents with the unwitting support of the Media.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/1111

Writes Nahavandi:

George Ball — that guru of American diplomacy and prominento of certain think-tanks and pressure groups — once paid a long visit to Teheran, where, interestingly, the National Broadcasting Authority placed an office at his disposal. Once installed there, he played host to all the best-known dissidents and gave them encouragement. After he returned to Washington, he made public statements, hostile and insulting to the Sovereign.

Joining the smear was U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, whose role Nahavandi recalled in a 1981 interview:

But we must not forget the venom with which Teddy Kennedy ranted against the Shah, nor that on December 7, 1977, the Kennedy family financed a so-called committee for the defense of liberties and rights of man in Teheran, which was nothing but a headquarters for revolution.

Suddenly, the Shah noted, the U.S. media found him “a despot, an oppressor, a tyrant.” Kennedy denounced him for running “one of the most violent regimes in the history of mankind.”

At the center of the “human rights” complaints was the Shah’s security force, SAVAK. Comparable in its mission to America’s FBI, SAVAK was engaged in a deadly struggle against terrorism, most of which was fueled by the bordering USSR, which linked to Iran’s internal communist party, the Tudeh. SAVAK, which had only 4,000 employees in 1978, saved many lives by averting several bombing attempts. Its prisons were open for Red Cross inspections, and though unsuccessful attempts were made on the Shah’s life, he always pardoned the would-be assassins. Nevertheless, a massive campaign was deployed against him. Within Iran, Islamic fundamentalists, who resented the Shah’s progressive pro-Western views, combined with Soviet-sponsored communists to overthrow the Shah. This tandem was “odd” because communism is committed to destroying all religion, which Marx called “the opiate of the masses.” The Shah understood that “Islamic Marxism” was an oxymoron, commenting: “Of course the two concepts are irreconcilable — unless those who profess Islam do not understand their own religion or pervert it for their own political ends.”

For Western TV cameras, protestors in Teheran carried empty coffins, or coffins seized from genuine funerals, proclaiming these were “victims of SAVAK.” This deception — later admitted by the revolutionaries — was necessary because they had no actual martyrs to parade. Another tactic: demonstrators splashed themselves with mercurochrome, claiming SAVAK had bloodied them.

The Western media cooperated. When Carter visited Iran at the end of 1977, the press reported that his departure to Teheran International Airport had been through empty streets, because the city was “all locked up and emptied of people, by order of the SAVAK.” What the media didn’t mention: Carter chose to depart at 6 a.m., when the streets were naturally empty.

An equally vicious campaign occurred when the Shah and his wife, Empress Farah, came for a state visit to America in November 1977. While touring Williamsburg, Virginia, about 500 Iranian students showed up, enthusiastically applauding. However, about 50 protestors waved hammer-and-sickle red flags. These unlikely Iranians were masked, unable to speak Persian, and some were blonde. The U.S. media focused exclusively on the protesters. Wrote the Shah: “Imagine my amazement the next day when I saw the press had reversed the numbers and wrote that the fifty Shah supporters were lost in a hostile crowd.”

On November 16, the Shah and Empress were due to visit Carter. Several thousand Iranian patriots surrounded the White House bearing a huge banner saying “Welcome Shah.” However, as Nahavandi reports:

The police kept them as far away as possible, but allowed a small number of opponents [again, masked] to approach the railings … close to where the Sovereign’s helicopter was going to land for the official welcome. At the exact moment, when courtesies were being exchanged on the White House lawn, these people produced sticks and bicycle chains and set upon the others.... Thus, the whole world was allowed to see riotous scenes, on television, as an accompaniment to the arrival of the Imperial Couple.

Here's another.


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 4726.shtml

Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.

and another:

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2004/03/jimmy ... -shah.html

Alan Peters wrote:

Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office. 1 GIS.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.



Quote:
Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name “Alan Peters” is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.

I advise all who will listen to research topics themselves and try to ferret out the truth. Zeus only knows how difficult that is nowadays!




David

[ravingdave]

Belief in MAD kept the peace for about 60 years. About as much as you can expect from any policy. The danger comes when policy no longer fits circumstances and policy change does not follow fast enough.

The peace was Kept, and MAD may very well be the reason, but this perception of history overlooks the possibility that something else would have worked better. It also overlooks how lucky we were. There were times when the US and Russia nearly went to total nuclear war.



http://www.worldcitizens.org/petrov2.html


Obviously this didn't happen, but with the MAD policy it very nearly did.

With the Curtis LeMay policy of 1949, it would NEVER happen.




No, I don't think you can credit MAD exclusively. Luck was a big part of the last 60 years. The MAD policy reminds me of the ole story about the wife cleaning out the Attic trunk and finding this mysterious looking rattle which she intended to throw away. The Husband grabs it and says "Don't throw that away, We NEED it! " She says "what's it for ?" He says "It keeps polar bears away!" She says "That's ridiculous ! There's not a polar bear within 2000 miles of here! " He replies "See how good it works!"





Like I said, MAD wouldn't work on Hitler OR I'madinnerjacket.


David

[MSimon]

Like I said, MAD wouldn't work on Hitler OR I'madinnerjacket.

David

It didn't matter as long as there were two Super Powers to keep the secondary and tertiary powers in line.

[MSimon]

TD Perk,

FDR had a handicap left over from WW1. The American people had gone pacifist/socialist.