View Full Version : Best Foreign Policy President?
elysiantraveller
09-20-2012, 05:02 PM
Per CNN:
Best Foreign Policy President (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/20/the-best-foreign-policy-presidents/?hpt=hp_c1)
Discusses:
FDR
Bush Sr.
Reagan
Carter
Jefferson
I think there is one GLARING omission... in fact I think one not listed tops all of these.
Others opinions?
PhantomOnTour
09-20-2012, 05:05 PM
Richard Millhouse Nixon
Teach
09-20-2012, 05:47 PM
You can make a case for several. George Washinton, "The Father Of Our Country," warned againsty "entangling alliances". Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of our country by his Louisiana Purchase. Andrew Jackson paved the way for the purchase of Florida and defeated the British at New Orleans (the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 had already been signed two weeks earlier). James K. Polk, "Young Hickory," called for "54-40 or Fight". We did settle for the 49th parallel. He was also associated with the defeat of Mexico which led to the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo which greatly increased the size of this country. Abraham Lincoln and his administration did a great job keeping the British out of our Civil War. He also gained the support of the French, particularly the Marquis de Lafayette. Andrew Johnson's administration, particularly Sec. of State William Seward, arranged for the purchase of Alaska. As a result of the Spanish-American War, William McKinley acquired the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Teddy Roosevelt ("Speak softly but carry a Big Stick") won the Nobel Peace Prize for his settlement of the Russo-Japanese War. He also stage-managed the acquisition of Panama from Colombia that paved the way for the Panama Canal. Woodrow Wilson won the 1916 election on the slogan: "He Kept Us Out of War!" He helped negotiate the Treaty of Versailles (rejected by U.S. Senate) and helped, as part of his 14 Points, to establish a League of Nations. Warren G. Harding was associated with the Treaty of Washington that created a ratio for naval warfare vessels. Franklin D. Roosevelt helped bring World War II (he died in April, 1945 before V-E Day and V-J Day occurred) to an end. He continually met with our allies: Churchill off coast of Newfoundland; also, Tehran, Cairo, Casablanca, Yalta. Before the WWI, he talked about "quarantining the aggressors". He paved way for United Nations. Harry Truman may be the "unsung hero". He was in the dark when he suddenly took over after FDR died. Met Stalin at Potsdam (Berlin suburb). It was his decision to drop A-bombs that brought WWII to an end; may have saved one million US Servicemen's lives. He initiated Korean War when North Korea invaded South Korea. He worked toward democritization of Japan after WWII. Dwight Eisenhower brought an end to Korean War ("I will go to Korea"). Defused Suez Canal Crisis. Aided French in Vietnam (French Indo-China) till they were defeated at Dienbienphu. Warned of "Domino Effect" (spread of Communism). Also warned of "Military-Industrial Complex". As for the most recent Presidents, Ronald Reagan: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall." Bill Clinton's attempts to bring peace between Palestinians and Israelis. I think something could be said for many of the modern-day Presidents, including President Obama's taking out of Osama Bin Laden.
PhantomOnTour
09-20-2012, 05:55 PM
The comments on President Carter following the article linked in the OP are interesting.
Greyfox
09-20-2012, 06:58 PM
Obviously Obama's foreign policy is not working in the Arab world.
Yet according to the Washington Examiner he has strong Arab American links to it.
Interesting article and comments beneath it at:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/chapter-ix-the-arab-american-network-behind-obama/article/2508425
TJDave
09-20-2012, 07:17 PM
FDR
Theodore (BIG STICK) Roosevelt. :ThmbUp:
elysiantraveller
09-20-2012, 07:22 PM
Theodore (BIG STICK) Roosevelt. :ThmbUp:
LOL No...
I have admit though the guessing game loses interest when Teach drops almost half of all American Presidents. ;) I'm amazed he omitted Monroe.
POT nailed it in the first guess. Nixon in the world of foreign policy is supreme among all Presidents IMO. The list of accomplishments is simply too long.
Why do you say Teddy?
ArlJim78
09-20-2012, 07:33 PM
I'd have to say Milhous and I don't think its even close.
bigmack
09-20-2012, 07:36 PM
Why do you say Teddy?
Teddy? He's nuts. Bloke used the F word that rhymes with rag again. Yo, TJ, it's 2012, baby.
----------
Of course it's Dick.
lo9FlPeKKzA
PaceAdvantage
09-20-2012, 08:02 PM
Richard Millhouse NixonWould have been my reply.
FantasticDan
09-20-2012, 08:05 PM
Richard Millhouse Nixon
t7z192I-mQM
elysiantraveller
09-20-2012, 08:16 PM
I'm just amazed he isn't even mentioned.
PaceAdvantage
09-20-2012, 08:28 PM
I'm just amazed he isn't even mentioned.It's weird, isn't it?
It's like his one mistake (and it was a doozy) wipes out everything else he accomplished.
But strangely enough, three high ranking democrats (two of whom are now deceased), are looked at with much LOVE and ADMIRATION....DESPITE their DOOZIES...
I refer you of course to:
1) Bill Clinton
2) Ted Kennedy
3) Robert Byrd
All has seemingly been forgiven when it comes to those three. Adultery, Perjury, (Possible) Murder(s), and a member of the Ku Klux Klan...all those slates WIPED CLEAN as far as dems are concerned...
That (D) next to their names is surely one very powerful detergent.
And yet, they'll still tell us the media doesn't favor the big D... :lol:
barn32
09-20-2012, 08:38 PM
James K. Polk
mostpost
09-20-2012, 10:37 PM
1 Harry S. Truman
NATO
Marshall Plan
Berlin Airlift.
Saved South Korea
2 FDR
Defeated Nazis
Defeated Japan
3 Nixon.
Not the best, but very good. He was able to overcome his basic instincts
deal with China and the Soviet Union as they existed not as he wished them
to be.
elysiantraveller
09-20-2012, 10:50 PM
1 Harry S. Truman
2 FDR
3 Nixon.
Egh...
I have real problems with FDR because of what transpired at Yalta. Without Churchill being there the world would truly be a very different place. He capitulated to Stalin... point blank. I understand by that time he was ravaged by disease so he had an excuse but he was all too willing to sell out Western Europe... Churchill saved the day.
Truman while sound on policy failed to deliver the goods with the results anywhere near the success of Nixon. Plus I just have a hard time elevating a guy who used Nuclear weapons to the top of the list... especially when they weren't needed... but I do suppose it is consistent with the Truman Doctrine.
Not bad choices though...
bigmack
09-20-2012, 10:56 PM
a guy who used Nuclear weapons to the top of the list... especially when they weren't needed...
Huh?
How much longer do you suspect the war would have continued had Little Man and Big Boy (er whatever) NOT been used?
http://trialx.com/curetalk/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/2011/04/gcelebrities/Big_Boy-3-small.jpg
elysiantraveller
09-20-2012, 11:05 PM
Huh?
How much longer do you suspect the war would have continued had Little Man and Big Boy (er whatever) NOT been used?
Fat Man and Little Boy.
Hard to say for sure but probably a couple of months tops, without an invasion. There is a school of thought that the pressing reason for dropping them and forcing an immediate end was meant to prevent Soviet expansion in Manchuria. The Soviets declared war the same week. If fits with Truman's policy of strict containment.
I, personally, happen to agree with that school of thought; They weren't all that necessary but acheived their, entirely different, purpose of Soviet containment.
bigmack
09-20-2012, 11:17 PM
Fat Man and Little Boy.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs but when you say they weren't needed you don't mean to say he had BETTER options?
elysiantraveller
09-20-2012, 11:27 PM
Maybe I'm splitting hairs but when you say they weren't needed you don't mean to say he had BETTER options?
You are kinda splitting hairs. It depends on the question you are asking.
If you are asking if he had better options to end the war soon I would say yes he did. The Japanese were very, very close to surrender anyway. They already, without Little Boy and Fat Man, a thoroughly defeated people ready for the war's end. Look up the Kyodatsu syndrome/condition.
If you are asking did he have a better way to prevent any Soviet gains in Asia while at the same time saying "Look at what I have!"... then no he didn't.
Again this is my personal opinion after reading and writing a lot on the subject. Its not definitive as this is probably the most hotly debated historical "decision" of the past couple of centuries.
No contest - George Washington.
Our first president "got it."
We have gone downhill ever since.
Intermingling with the rest of the world only weakens and dilutes us. No good come from outside our borders. We have everything we need here at home. and we have THEIR co-ordinates. Balances out.
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. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
mostpost
09-21-2012, 02:13 PM
No contest - George Washington.
Our first president "got it."
We have gone downhill ever since.
Intermingling with the rest of the world only weakens and dilutes us. No good come from outside our borders. We have everything we need here at home. and we have THEIR co-ordinates. Balances out.
If George Washington were alive today, he would have a very different take on foreign policy. He would recognize the difference between 1797 and 2012. He would see a world in which he could travel across the Atlantic in much less time than it took him ride from New York to Philadelphia in 1796. He would experience a world in which words spoken by the British prime minister could be heard as he spoke them rather than read weeks later.
In 1796 events in Europe affected us months later if at all. Today they affect us instantly. In 1796 there were no multinational corporations. In 1796 there were no airplanes, or trains, or internet. In 1796 there were no nuclear weapons or missiles to deliver them.
It's not that Washington's advice was bad for its time, it's that he would not give that advice were he alive today.
johnhannibalsmith
09-21-2012, 02:16 PM
...
It's not that Washington's advice was bad for its time, it's that he would not give that advice were he alive today.
Thank you for speaking for George Washington.
GameTheory
09-21-2012, 02:26 PM
Thank you for speaking for George Washington.I've always wondered: would George Washington have preferred Zenyatta or Rachel Alexandra? Maybe MP could let us know.
mostpost
09-21-2012, 02:35 PM
I've always wondered: would George Washington have preferred Zenyatta or Rachel Alexandra? Maybe MP could let us know.
Rachel Alexandra of course.
bigmack
09-21-2012, 03:00 PM
Georgie Boy started the USPS. It cost 6-12 cents in 1792? That must be the most diminutive cost increase of anything in histry.
On February 20, 1792, President Washington formally created the U.S. Postal Service with the signing of the Postal Service Act, which outlined in detail Congressional power to establish official mail routes. The act allowed for newspapers to be included in mail deliveries and made it illegal for postal officials to open anyone's mail.
In 1792, a young American nation of approximately 4 million people enjoyed federally funded postal services including 75 regional post offices and 2,400 miles of postal routes. The cost of sending a letter ranged from 6 cents to 12 cents. Under Washington, the Postal Service administration was headquartered in Philadelphia.
johnhannibalsmith
09-21-2012, 03:16 PM
Georgie Boy started the USPS. ...
But, would he advise doing so today?
bigmack
09-21-2012, 03:21 PM
But, would he advise doing so today?
You set 'em up, & Mostie'll knock 'em out.
http://www.federalbaseball.net/t-ball.jpg
But, would he advise doing so today?
Closing the post office.
mostie couldn't speak for Soupy Sales, let alone Washington! :lol:
Greyfox
09-22-2012, 11:11 PM
Speaking of Foreign Policy, Egypt's new PM (of the Muslim Brotherhood) has stated that America's approach to the middle east must change.
I guess Obama has been that convincing over there.
CAIRO — On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/egypt/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mohamed_morsi/index.html?inline=nyt-per) said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/palestinians/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger.
More at link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian-leader-mohamed-morsi-spells-out-terms-for-us-arab-ties.html?_r=0
elysiantraveller
09-22-2012, 11:47 PM
Speaking of Foreign Policy, Egypt's new PM (of the Muslim Brotherhood) has stated that America's approach to the middle east must change. <SNIP>...
For those keeping score: (Clear Foreign Policy Agenda)
Egypt - 1
USA - 0
Kudos to them.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.