Mrs found a rather interesting article in the Times online and I thought it would be good to share it with you guy's http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5055404.ece Let me know what you think of the ranking etc
Any list that doesn't have Pres Obama as Number 1 cannot be taken seriously. But, really, I always find it odd how, in these kinds of lists, Lincoln's assumption of many dictatorial powers is rarely, if ever, mentioned. And, as a Northerner, keeping the South in the Union was over-rated. I would always put Washington first in any list. A lesser man probably wouldn't have been able to hold the whole thing together nor given up that kind of power voluntarily. He laid a lot of foundations of freedom and good judgment of what the country should be (which of course have not always been followed). "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." - G. Washington. A wise man.
Who needs a writ of habeus corpus in a conflict anyway? As a person of southern heritage I still have to admire the man for his leadership when there was little leadership anywhere else, north or south. Had Jeff Davis led the Union on a pro-Union, anti-slavery platform, the Union would have lost the war.
There's too much hagiography about Washington, as far as I'm concerned. His parting gift to the country - his instructions on "entangling alliances" - has done this country harm since the Civil War. Frankly (pun intended), my favorite president is Roosevelt. But not Frank (get the pun now?). Teddy. Teddy created the modern National Park System, ended the Russo-Japanese War, improved considerabley labor-management relations by improving government oversight of industrial practices (on both sides of the labor/management aisle), started the Panama Canal, and embraced the United States' place in the world (see my comments about Washington).
How so? I am curious how our ever shifting political and military alliances with countries and foreign entities has helped us over the years. I also wonder how so many countries prosper without claiming 'place in the world' and interfering politically in every part of the world. You can be militarily powerful and participate advantageously in a world economy without constantly entangling yourself in the kind of unsavory alliances that we so often do. We too often think the enemy of our enemy is our friend and ally ourselves accordingly. Afghan Mujahideen/Saddam Husein being two examples were are still trying to un-entangle ourselves from today.
The Second World War can be said to be the result of the failure of the United States to participate in the collective security of the League of Nations. Without US involvement, the League never had the strength to resist fascist aggression in the 1930s, when it would have been possible to stop the advance without resorting to world war. NATO also prevented a communist takeover of Western Europe. The South Koreans have sometimes had unpleasant leadership, but we stayed engaged, and now they're a vibrant democracy and one of the world's largest economies. What would you have done in the Spanish Civil War? Leave innocent Spaniards to suffer, or support the Nationalists (armed by Hitler), or support the Republicans (armed by Stalin)? I'd like to know how you think any nation can participate advantageously in the world without having to choose between two evils sometimes, particularly when the only choices are less than savory.
There is nothing about not having 'entangling alliances' that says you cannot have military power or go to war. We, the Russians and the Chinese all fought the Japanese in WWII and we were not long term allied with either of them before or after. If someone invaded Cuba, we would certainly kick them out and we have no alliance with Cuba. When I think of entangling alliances, I think of a country that has their hands and military butting in around every part of the world. Face it, when the US takes their military somewhere, we never leave. We set up an 'alliance'. We have still have troops in Germany. And Japan. And Italy. And Kuwait. And on and on. Look at Korea. We have been there for over 50 years. Has it kept North Korea from developing nuclear weapons? No. Has it allowed South Korea to become strong enough to take care of themselves? No. How much money have we wasted being there? Why isn't Australia there is force? Or the UK? France? They all participated in the war. In fact, why does North Korea have nuclear capability? I think it is because we didn't bomb them and destroy their capability. And why didn't we? Because they probably would have invaded South Korea. And why would they do that or why would we care? Because we are still in South Korea and allied with them. And I think the exact same thing could be said about Iran's nuclear capabilities. They would go into Iraq full force if we bombed them and eliminated their nuclear threat. And why would they do that or why would we care? Because we are still in Iraq and are allied with them now. Why is Bin Laden still alive? Because he was smart enough to hide within the boundaries of one of our 'allies'. Why doesn't Canada projects it's alliances everywhere around the world? Why doesn't China have troops in South America? Shouldn't India with its huge military have alliances and troops everywhere? How about Brazil? Why are we basically the only country that thinks we need to have these kind of 'alliances'? That thinks we have a 'rightful place in the world'? If it is for the 'good of the world', I don't think it is working so well.
there is no great pres, pepole make us think that thay are great presidents like kenndy pepole think he's so great but the truth is he so great cuz he got shot, thare all the same
Taking a bullet in the head is great for martyrdom status. On this I will agree. However, not ALL Presidents are the same. Childish statement. What they face, what we as a nation face and the decisions they make or don't make define the position. So many changes in the world over the years and so many changes within our country. If you want to compare George Washington to Barack Obama and tell me ther are alike I'd like to know how. Toss in all the others in between while you're at it.
Well of course you will coinfreak~24. GW Bush or George Washington? GEEEE who knows when it comes from you. BIG difference between those two for sure. Isn't it past your bedtime yet?
I am too tired to argue, but this site sure has gotten boring these days. I am looking for something to get passionate about. Like who's hotter, Janet Napalatano or Hillary, or something like that, yannow, something with substance. Or maybe taxing fat in fast food burgers or sugar in sodapop. Should we save the furry yellow winged mousefly or build a powerplant. C'mon folks, liven it up here. Lets start an argument about who should run on 2012 already, those were the good old days, lol. Would you rent or buy the video of Laura Ingraham and Sarah Palin taken when they were drunk in college. Throw out something to raise the blood pressure yannow?
Possibly the greatest thing that George W did was to give America back it's feeling of self worth after 9/11 (ok so somethings went downhill fast after that) Reagan did much the same when he took office, he gave the American forces back it's honour, dont forget it was not that long before he took office that people SPAT at service personel (Vietnam) and on top of that the American embassy and failed rescue mission in Iran. Oh and he gave America a new economic imputus using a clasicly libral aissez-faire philosophy George H W carried on Reagans rebuilding of the military and civilian moral with Panama and the Persian Gulf operations.
What was great about George Washington, well lets see he won a war against arguably the most powerful nation on earth at that time. which flew in the face of conventional wisdom How does that sound for a claim to fame Then he helped create a National bank, stayed out of the war between France and Great Britain ( Proclomation of Nutrality and the Jay treaty) So yep I would say he had his moments of greatness.
