Second Worst President in US History.

[Soylent]

then you are discounting the nuclear winter[...]

If mount Pinatubo couldn't do it there's no chance in hades a pitiful few gigatonnes of nukes will.

[...]supply problems[...]

Sure, but much of the world is not seriously affected and absent too much government intervention will do quite alright.

See 9/11 for a perfect example of iatrogenic government response. The attack cost millions of dollars and did billions of dollars worth of damages. Not content with letting al qaeda have a 1000 to one lever, the US government decides to launch a trillion dollar scale response giving Al qaeda a million to one leverage instead.

[...]and radiation poisoning.

Fall-out has two components. It has the immediate component which comes down in a plume immediately down-wind and makes a small area lethal for weeks. It also has a global component which takes months to years to reach ground level and occurs mostly at the same lattitude. 1000 atmospheric nuclear tests could not even increase the background radiation by 1%. If the LNT hypothesis is true for such tiny doses we are talking about some fraction of a percent increase in cancer risk for areas affected only by the global fall-out.

It would be very hard to tell if there was any increase in cancer risk at all from global nuclear fall out considering it is not even possible to measure a statistically significant change in cancer risk in areas of naturally high background radiation like Ramsar or Kerala. Parts of Ramsar have over 100 times world average background radiation.

[Breakable]

Well if there is absolutely no danger from nuclear weapons in the eyes of experts then what does this indicate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_C ... me_changes

I guess its time that it should be renamed from "Doomsday Clock" into a "A Clock of minor danger and some inconvenience".

[pfrit]

Fall-out has two components. It has the immediate component which comes down in a plume immediately down-wind and makes a small area lethal for weeks. It also has a global component which takes months to years to reach ground level and occurs mostly at the same lattitude.

I was an NBC specialist in the service and we were taught that there are 3 kinds of fall out. Battlefield, tactical and theater. You described tactical and theater fall out generally well, but missed the battlefield fallout. Thats when 20 ton blocks of buildings and cars fall from the sky for as far a 20 miles. While this does not change your point, it is amusing and somewhat frightening.

[ravingdave]

then you are discounting the nuclear winter[...]

If mount Pinatubo couldn't do it there's no chance in hades a pitiful few gigatonnes of nukes will.

[...]supply problems[...]

Sure, but much of the world is not seriously affected and absent too much government intervention will do quite alright.

See 9/11 for a perfect example of iatrogenic government response. The attack cost millions of dollars and did billions of dollars worth of damages. Not content with letting al qaeda have a 1000 to one lever, the US government decides to launch a trillion dollar scale response giving Al qaeda a million to one leverage instead.

OOOHHH!!!! This is a darn good point and one which I beat to death in front of anyone who will listen. The fallout from the 9/11 attack is STILL having repercussions. It is indisputable (in my opinion) that George Bush over reacted and indirectly caused democrats to get back in power, a consequence that is FAR worse than anything al qaeda could do to us.

Al Qaeda could kill a few people and destroy some stuff. The Democrats could wipe out our monetary system and start a Civil war resulting in the deaths of millions. Like his father, George Bush Jr. never really seemed to understand who the real enemy was.


David

[ravingdave]

Well if there is absolutely no danger from nuclear weapons in the eyes of experts then what does this indicate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_C ... me_changes

I guess its time that it should be renamed from "Doomsday Clock" into a "A Clock of minor danger and some inconvenience".

They are alarmists, and they are presenting an "Alarmist Clock!"





David

[MSimon]

OOOHHH!!!! This is a darn good point and one which I beat to death in front of anyone who will listen. The fallout from the 9/11 attack is STILL having repercussions

Exactly what did you expect? We are still not over WW2. And it was worse in the 1960s.

I think Bush was hoping for radical change in the ME over time. So I would not expect a 50 year project to be over in 5.

Was Bush's policy correct? We will know for sure around 2055. From my foreshortened perspective it looks good so far.

[MSimon]

As to electing Democrats. They have been in office about 8 months and they are already out of power.

People are even more disgusted with them than they are with the Republicans. Every thing they said bad about the Rs was true. And now that they have control they are 4X worse than the Rs.

Obama will immunize another generation. Just as Carter did 30 years ago.

Any way I blame the electorate. They failed to educate themselves and the Rs in Congress have been terminally stupid since Bush's election. And the war the Ds were most against (Iraq) has been won. The one they most favor (Afghanistan) is going badly - on Obama's watch.

Note: Iraq will have a bigger effect on the ME than Afghanistan which ever way that one goes.

[TDPerk]

To speak briefly about why I will never give any conceivable Democratic candidate the time of day:

The Democrats haven’t had a good idea since the 1830’s–that’s when they last endorsed the Founder’s ideal of ending slavery peacefully–then they gave up on that idea. They last had a new idea in the 1930’s, and it wasn’t a good idea.

The Democrat’s abandonment of government supported manumission did much to bring us the Civil War.

The Democrat’s steadfast opposition to Reconstruction brought us Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan, their buying into yet a another special interest group when they wore that one out brought us unconstitutional and evil excrescences as racial quotas instead of the actual civil rights bills which Republicans authored. Democrat Woodrow Wilson was the most racist man ever to sit in the White House, to go by his policies, and his entry into WWI both birthed both a totalitarian police state and a command economy here, and his diplomatic failures set the stage for WII and all that entailed. FDR had four big calls to make, and he only got the one’s about Germany and Japan right. Kennedy has nothing to recommend him except his pathologically romantic death, Castro is his most lasting gift to us, of more lasting import even than the moon landing. LBJ’s inability to stick to a politically winning strategy set the stage for the fall of Saigon–given us by Democrats who refused to aid the South Vietnamese even with money, let alone arms–after the war was won on the field. Carter simply can’t be discussed without engendering giggles–sweaters, malaise, killer rabbits, and the ineffectual response to Iranian islamists which inspired AlQaeda…

Clinton’s sole saving grace is that he went to the center (and this country’s center is center right compared to the rest of the world, and far right on many questions) when his attempt at healthcare fascism failed.

I have no reason to think Obama has either the wit or prudence to do the same.

To the tune of about 80% or more, all this nation’s miseries are the result of the success of the Democratic Party.

[Helius]

To speak briefly about why I will never give any conceivable Democratic candidate the time of day:

The Democrats haven’t had a good idea since the 1830’s–that’s when they last endorsed the Founder’s ideal of ending slavery peacefully–then they gave up on that idea. They last had a new idea in the 1930’s, and it wasn’t a good idea.

The Democrat’s abandonment of government supported manumission did much to bring us the Civil War.

The Democrat’s steadfast opposition to Reconstruction brought us Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan, their buying into yet a another special interest group when they wore that one out brought us unconstitutional and evil excrescences as racial quotas instead of the actual civil rights bills which Republicans authored. Democrat Woodrow Wilson was the most racist man ever to sit in the White House, to go by his policies, and his entry into WWI both birthed both a totalitarian police state and a command economy here, and his diplomatic failures set the stage for WII and all that entailed. FDR had four big calls to make, and he only got the one’s about Germany and Japan right. Kennedy has nothing to recommend him except his pathologically romantic death, Castro is his most lasting gift to us, of more lasting import even than the moon landing. LBJ’s inability to stick to a politically winning strategy set the stage for the fall of Saigon–given us by Democrats who refused to aid the South Vietnamese even with money, let alone arms–after the war was won on the field. Carter simply can’t be discussed without engendering giggles–sweaters, malaise, killer rabbits, and the ineffectual response to Iranian islamists which inspired AlQaeda…

Clinton’s sole saving grace is that he went to the center (and this country’s center is center right compared to the rest of the world, and far right on many questions) when his attempt at healthcare fascism failed.

I have no reason to think Obama has either the wit or prudence to do the same.

To the tune of about 80% or more, all this nation’s miseries are the result of the success of the Democratic Party.

Clinton also saw to it that the IFR was successfully killed with the help of the 104th Congress, (and hasn't been restarted even yet), so he helped set the stage to our future of windmills backed by terrorist enabling natural gas; an "energy" systems that will be carried out by the Obama administration.

[AcesHigh]

I see lots of angry republicans blaming everything on democrats here... quite funny...

for example, they blame Kennedy on the Bay of Pigs affair, but forget that the Cuban Revolution only happened because of US support and backing to Fulgencio Batista, specially dureing Eisenhower´s term.

Also, it was during Einsenhower´s term that the US supported (actually, orchestrated) the overthrowing of the popular prime minister Mohammed Massadegh!


You talk about the Shah leading iranian reforms, but forget that it was the nationalistic prime minister who fought for those reforms, specially the nationalization of oil, to use it to build schools and other things.

And it was this nationalization of oil that prompted the US and Britain to orchestrate a coup against the iranian prime minister.

This coup was never forgotten by iranians, and it was the prime motivator for iranian resentment against the west (namely the US and Britain) and later, popular support against the Shah and pro Khomeini.

"Unable to resolve the issue single handedly due to its post-World War II problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. Initially America had opposed British policies. After American mediation had failed several times to bring about a settlement, American Secretary of State Dean Acheson concluded that the British were "destructive and determined on a rule or ruin policy in Iran."[32] By early 1953, however, Dwight D. Eisenhower won the presidential election in the United States and a change in US policy toward Iran ensued."

[ravingdave]

I see lots of angry republicans blaming everything on democrats here... quite funny...

for example, they blame Kennedy on the Bay of Pigs affair, but forget that the Cuban Revolution only happened because of US support and backing to Fulgencio Batista, specially dureing Eisenhower´s term.

Also, it was during Einsenhower´s term that the US supported (actually, orchestrated) the overthrowing of the popular prime minister Mohammed Massadegh!


You talk about the Shah leading iranian reforms, but forget that it was the nationalistic prime minister who fought for those reforms, specially the nationalization of oil, to use it to build schools and other things.

And it was this nationalization of oil that prompted the US and Britain to orchestrate a coup against the iranian prime minister.

This coup was never forgotten by iranians, and it was the prime motivator for iranian resentment against the west (namely the US and Britain) and later, popular support against the Shah and pro Khomeini.

"Unable to resolve the issue single handedly due to its post-World War II problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. Initially America had opposed British policies. After American mediation had failed several times to bring about a settlement, American Secretary of State Dean Acheson concluded that the British were "destructive and determined on a rule or ruin policy in Iran."[32] By early 1953, however, Dwight D. Eisenhower won the presidential election in the United States and a change in US policy toward Iran ensued."

I'm not good at addressing a half dozen points at the same time, so i'll address one.

The Eisenhower plan was to use American Naval and Air Power (and possibly American troops) to assist in the invasion of Cuba. Nixon was expected to carry out the plan exactly as designed by Eisenhower, but because of CORRUPTION in Chicago, the election was stolen and Kennedy subsequently botched the whole thing, thereby causing far more damage and danger than would have occurred had we done the invasion properly, or not done it at all. As a result of the botched attack, the Russians put Nuclear Missiles in Cuba, thereby threatening the lives of probably 60 million Americans with nuclear death.


If you think this is equal to Batista and Massadegh, then you have a defect in your perception of what constitutes a serious threat.



From what *I* have read, virtually every Disaster in American History was the subsequent consequence of a Democrat President. ( The Civil War being the only exception.)


David

[AcesHigh]

If you think this is equal to Batista and Massadegh, then you have a defect in your perception of what constitutes a serious threat.

From what *I* have read, virtually every Disaster in American History was the subsequent consequence of a Democrat President. ( The Civil War being the only exception.)

David

And I think you have some defect of reasoning. The only reason Kennedy risked so much with Cuba, and Carter with Iran, is because of STUPID moves by REPUBLICAN administrations, who supported, or better yet, orchestrated coups in other countries, resulting in REVOLTS in said countries, which were left to DEMOCRAT presidents to deal with.

Its the classic case of Republicans creating the mess and leaving it to Democrats to fix it.

Then, it doesnt matter if the democrats fix it or not, the Republicans will put the blame on Democrats... very clever.

Please, dont tell me you are a creationist too!! Keep suporting the Republicans, soon the field of science where you work, unless its pro-war, will be considered heretic.

[TDPerk]

From what *I* have read, virtually every Disaster in American History was the subsequent consequence of a Democrat President. ( The Civil War being the only exception.)

Pres. James Buchanan had more to do than any other single person with the fact the Civil War happened. If he had given to South Carolina the reply Jackson made to that same state in the Nullification crisis, there would have been no Civil War.

He was a Democrat, and a doughface* at that.

* A Northerner with pro-slavery views.

The only thing Lincoln did to cause the Civil War was act to enforce the laws he was not merely authorized but required to enforce. He did no treason, that was the South's business.

[kunkmiester]

Lincoln sent reinforcements to Fort Sumpter. I don't recall if they ever arrived, but that's an act of war, and so the South responded. All you ever hear about is Fort Sumpter being bombarded, adn the War Between the States started.

The South had their issues, but war wasn't inevitable, certain people wanted it, and took action to start it. Go figure.

repubs are hardly blameless, we have a nice sandy example in the ME, off the top of my head. You can't do much worse.

[MSimon]

Lincoln sent reinforcements to Fort Sumpter. I don't recall if they ever arrived, but that's an act of war, and so the South responded. All you ever hear about is Fort Sumpter being bombarded, adn the War Between the States started.

The South had their issues, but war wasn't inevitable, certain people wanted it, and took action to start it. Go figure.

repubs are hardly blameless, we have a nice sandy example in the ME, off the top of my head. You can't do much worse.

Now you have to ask yourself. Was Fort Sumpter Federal Property? If so sending supplies and troop replacements/reinforcements was not an act of war. However, firing on it was an act of war without a doubt.

As to the ME. Saddam definitely was complicit in WTC 1 and preparing an attack on Bush 1. Definitely acts of war. The fact that the war was delayed a while is not material. And Afghanistan's failure to hand over the perpetrator of WTC 2 was definitely an act of war.

In addition Congress under Clinton authorized regime change for Iraq and the Congress under Bush authorized the President to go to war if he deemed it necessary with an AUMF similar to the one used for the Barbary Pirates. In fact if you read them together they are congruent.

Was it wise? Well Congress thought so at the time and Iraq has worked out. Afghanistan? The issue is still in doubt.