LBJ. Fitting his library is at tu
Historically your least fav American
13,811 Views |
99 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by who?mikejones
Union General Thomas Ewing Jr. Issued General Order #11. Another example of govt. overreach and shelving the Constitution during unordinary times.
Hanoi Jane
Harry S. Truman
That's one I want to hear.terata said:
Harry S. Truman
The biggest thing I have against Truman, is the Korean War. Once we chased the NORKS back across the 38th, he should have stopped our advance. Instead, he decided we should take over Best Korea, and push on to the Yalu.
The Chicoms took offense, and the 5th deadliest war in US History was on.
Yes! LOSER!!! and a complete fake.
Trumans' foreign policies are one of the major reasons we have so much angst from the Mid East.
"The Assassination of James Forrestal"
Book by David Martin
This book might offer up a little perspective.
( The book title will undoubtedly elicit responses, so I recommend reading it before spewing)
"The Assassination of James Forrestal"
Book by David Martin
This book might offer up a little perspective.
( The book title will undoubtedly elicit responses, so I recommend reading it before spewing)
My dad hated Truman because he tried to abolish the Marine Corps. Wish I could remember what he called him. It was not flattering!
.
I think the assumption that "No Israel" = "Stable Middle East" is a really big stretch.Quote:
Trumans' foreign policies are one of the major reasons we have so much angst from the Mid East.
The oil under the rest of it, the tribal infighting, the infighting between Muslims....it'd still be a crap hole.
"I think the assumption that "No Israel" = "Stable Middle East" is a really big stretch."
One wonders what might've happened if the US had remained steadfast in its commitments to the traditional allies in the Mid-East. Before, the shi**ing of the green garden hoses begin, I am not anti-Semitic. Since, the creation of Israel, the Mid East has aswirl of misery. If it hadn't been created, it might have been the same. Alternate histories can't answer that one.
I'm curious, does anyone reading this board think the US has fought proxy wars for Israel? As stated, shi**ting green garden hoses over this issue is counter productive.
One wonders what might've happened if the US had remained steadfast in its commitments to the traditional allies in the Mid-East. Before, the shi**ing of the green garden hoses begin, I am not anti-Semitic. Since, the creation of Israel, the Mid East has aswirl of misery. If it hadn't been created, it might have been the same. Alternate histories can't answer that one.
I'm curious, does anyone reading this board think the US has fought proxy wars for Israel? As stated, shi**ting green garden hoses over this issue is counter productive.
FIFYQuote:
Since the creation...the Mid East has been a swirl of misery
Serious question. Who were our allies in the Middle East, pre-1948? I know there were Muslim SS units, and we were allies with the Brits, who controlled a big part of it. But I'm not up on the history of that region and who our "friends" might have been from WWI to WWII.Quote:
if the US had remained steadfast in its commitments to the traditional allies in the Mid-East.
I'm fairly certain we had almost zero friends or enemies in that area before WWI.
What about someone like major general john dahlquist? Against the advice of his advisers, he committed the "texas battalion" to fight the germans in the vosges mountains only to have the germans surround the 141 and commence a beatdown of the texans and then, the 442nd rescue group.
Exactly. We weren't involved until after WWII. The creation of Israel is not as significant as the cluster f%#* the the Europeans did after WWI in drawing artificial boundaries and creating countries that were rampantly mixed culturally. Look at a pre WWI map and a post WWI map and look at all the counties redefined - and not based on the people. This has led to everyone wanting other territories and claiming they were cut out of their birthright lands. Imagine someone one day saying DFW was now part of Oklahoma - and multiply those feelings times a billion.CanyonAg77 said:Serious question. Who were our allies in the Middle East, pre-1948? I know there were Muslim SS units, and we were allies with the Brits, who controlled a big part of it. But I'm not up on the history of that region and who our "friends" might have been from WWI to WWII.Quote:
if the US had remained steadfast in its commitments to the traditional allies in the Mid-East.
I'm fairly certain we had almost zero friends or enemies in that area before WWI.
The Middle East has NEVER been effectively sorted out into ethnically coherent nation-states on the European/Westphalian model. This is especially true of the area from the Sinai to the Bosphorous, going east to Mesopotamia. Since the beginning of recorded history, this area has been basically a bunch of tibes (including 12 of which produced a pretty influential book) that were conquered and ruled by outside powers - Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, various empires from Mesopotamia, Persians, Muslim Caliphs, etc.
The area is such a jigsaw of tribes that trying to create nation states where one group isn't under another's boot would be pretty much impossible, without massive ethnic cleansing. (Granted, it took Europe a couple centuries, and wars that killed millions to sort things. And they're still not done in some areas - former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic states.)
So blaming the Brits and the French for screwing things up isn't really fair. They weren't doing anything that any previous empires hadn't done. The areas that are violent and untidy today - Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the Kurdish regions, and even Israel, have been violent and untidy for thousands of years. (Heck, Israel is probably less untidy now that is was 2000 years ago. The Romans regarded the Jews as a troublesome lot.)
The area is such a jigsaw of tribes that trying to create nation states where one group isn't under another's boot would be pretty much impossible, without massive ethnic cleansing. (Granted, it took Europe a couple centuries, and wars that killed millions to sort things. And they're still not done in some areas - former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic states.)
So blaming the Brits and the French for screwing things up isn't really fair. They weren't doing anything that any previous empires hadn't done. The areas that are violent and untidy today - Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the Kurdish regions, and even Israel, have been violent and untidy for thousands of years. (Heck, Israel is probably less untidy now that is was 2000 years ago. The Romans regarded the Jews as a troublesome lot.)
Wow, I am surprised by the choice of Harry Truman. Truman, in my book and from my learning's, did a damm good job during both and difficult and critical time.
The middle east was going to be train wrecked with the French and British meddling, before and after, the war. Truman was able to help foster the Marshall Plan and was a part of staving off of the Morgenthau Plan, which would have eventually handed Europe over to the Russians, without a doubt.
Truman also stood up, where FDR and many others had backed down, and formally integrated the armed forces, which is really the start to their being civil rights for the blacks and others in the US.
From my limited and probably shallow perspective Truman did a fine job with the hand he was dealt and he kept the US out of some potentially, if not serious at least troublesome, wars. He had the intelligence to let China float off to the direction of those that wanted it bad enough, and quit supporting the failed policies of CKS who really cared nothing about the average citizen.
Maybe he wasn't perfect, but to me he did a darn good job.
The middle east was going to be train wrecked with the French and British meddling, before and after, the war. Truman was able to help foster the Marshall Plan and was a part of staving off of the Morgenthau Plan, which would have eventually handed Europe over to the Russians, without a doubt.
Truman also stood up, where FDR and many others had backed down, and formally integrated the armed forces, which is really the start to their being civil rights for the blacks and others in the US.
From my limited and probably shallow perspective Truman did a fine job with the hand he was dealt and he kept the US out of some potentially, if not serious at least troublesome, wars. He had the intelligence to let China float off to the direction of those that wanted it bad enough, and quit supporting the failed policies of CKS who really cared nothing about the average citizen.
Maybe he wasn't perfect, but to me he did a darn good job.
I agree with your assessment. He got thrown into the fire and managed it very well in my opinion. From deciding to drop the bomb (when he never even knew about it) to the Marshall Plan to the Berlin Airlift to integrating the military. He was a little guy but he had some cajones. He fired MacArthur who had as much to do with crossing the 38th parallel and bringing China into the Korean War as anyone. FDR should have stood up to MacArthur and bypassed the Philippines in 1944 as Nimitz wanted to but FDR didn't want to upset MacArthur. And he knew how completely incompetent CKS was and nothing short of entering the Chinese civil war was going to stop the commies from winning - and us entering would not have flown with the US public and we still probably don't keep CKS from losing.RGV AG said:
Wow, I am surprised by the choice of Harry Truman. Truman, in my book and from my learning's, did a damm good job during both and difficult and critical time.
The middle east was going to be train wrecked with the French and British meddling, before and after, the war. Truman was able to help foster the Marshall Plan and was a part of staving off of the Morgenthau Plan, which would have eventually handed Europe over to the Russians, without a doubt.
Truman also stood up, where FDR and many others had backed down, and formally integrated the armed forces, which is really the start to their being civil rights for the blacks and others in the US.
From my limited and probably shallow perspective Truman did a fine job with the hand he was dealt and he kept the US out of some potentially, if not serious at least troublesome, wars. He had the intelligence to let China float off to the direction of those that wanted it bad enough, and quit supporting the failed policies of CKS who really cared nothing about the average citizen.
Maybe he wasn't perfect, but to me he did a darn good job.
Even if I grant that Truman did a really bad job (I don't agree with that), I find him a tough sell as "least favorite American". Can't argue with opinions, but man it seems like there are a few traitors and villains that might deserve the title more.
Is Corll the guy that was burying bodies down by high island?
Yes and also near Sam Rayburn.
.
jay07ag said:
Is Corll the guy that was burying bodies down by high island?
Yeah, his wiki page and the story is disturbing. To me, most of what he did was only slightly more disturbing than how he convinced the two guys to help him for so long.
I'd also forgotten that he was the one that John Wayne Gacy emulated.
Thank you. I don't usually typo, but when I do, I know I'll have someone FIFM.
"Wow, I am surprised by the choice of Harry Truman"
Truman did make some heroic decisions. He did accomplish more than most thought he could. He also owed a lot of favors to those he referred to as " no account sonsa*****es" and some compromises occurred. If he had only stood up to the "bosses" in Kansas City....who knows....
He has fans, I'm not particularly one of them.
Truman did make some heroic decisions. He did accomplish more than most thought he could. He also owed a lot of favors to those he referred to as " no account sonsa*****es" and some compromises occurred. If he had only stood up to the "bosses" in Kansas City....who knows....
He has fans, I'm not particularly one of them.
This is not going to be popular, but one of my least favorite Americans is Barack Obama! What did he actually accomplish in 8 years other than a beer summit and getting Bin Laden? He set race relations as far back as I can remember in my lifetime, doubled my insurance premiums with the ACA, he allowed Isis to form and prosper, unemployment soared, he apologized to Japan and others for what we did in WW2, the Iran Deal, Fast and Furious, allowed riots to go on destructing people's private property, etc.....buy hey, I guess he lit the Whitehouse up in rainbow colors when the Supreme Court ruled Gay Marriage legal and Trayvion Martin could have been his son so there's that!! Bash away at me...but I can't stand him!!
No argument but if it hadn't have been for Jimmy Carter, we would not have had Iran in the hands of religious fanatics that may cause WWIII.Bighunter43 said:
This is not going to be popular, but one of my least favorite Americans is Barack Obama! What did he actually accomplish in 8 years other than a beer summit and getting Bin Laden? He set race relations as far back as I can remember in my lifetime, doubled my insurance premiums with the ACA, he allowed Isis to form and prosper, unemployment soared, he apologized to Japan and others for what we did in WW2, the Iran Deal, Fast and Furious, allowed riots to go on destructing people's private property, etc.....buy hey, I guess he lit the Whitehouse up in rainbow colors when the Supreme Court ruled Gay Marriage legal and Trayvion Martin could have been his son so there's that!! Bash away at me...but I can't stand him!!n
All organizations are perfectly aligned for the results they get.
oldvalleyrat said:No argument but if it hadn't have been for Jimmy Carter, we would not have had Iran in the hands of religious fanatics that may cause WWIII.Bighunter43 said:
This is not going to be popular, but one of my least favorite Americans is Barack Obama! What did he actually accomplish in 8 years other than a beer summit and getting Bin Laden? He set race relations as far back as I can remember in my lifetime, doubled my insurance premiums with the ACA, he allowed Isis to form and prosper, unemployment soared, he apologized to Japan and others for what we did in WW2, the Iran Deal, Fast and Furious, allowed riots to go on destructing people's private property, etc.....buy hey, I guess he lit the Whitehouse up in rainbow colors when the Supreme Court ruled Gay Marriage legal and Trayvion Martin could have been his son so there's that!! Bash away at me...but I can't stand him!!n
So you think someone other than Jimmy would have prevented the Shah getting overthrown?
Wilson, McNamara, McCarthy if we're mainly looking at politicians that aren't terribly recent.
Ambrose Burnside would probably make the list as well.
Ambrose Burnside would probably make the list as well.
Wow, he wouldn't even make my list of 10 worst generals of the Civil War and he's in your top 5 least favorite Americans of all time, yikes.Quote:
Ambrose Burnside
Absolutely. Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shaw and helped Kohmani (sp?) come back from France.Stive said:oldvalleyrat said:
No argument but if it hadn't have been for Jimmy Carter, we would not have had Iran in the hands of religious fanatics that may cause WWIII.
So you think someone other than Jimmy would have prevented the Shah getting overthrown?
All organizations are perfectly aligned for the results they get.
BQ78 said:Wow, he wouldn't even make my list of 10 worst generals of the Civil War and he's in your top 5 least favorite Americans of all time, yikes.Quote:
Ambrose Burnside
Threw me off too when I read that earlier this morning.
When all the dirt finally comes out it will be either the Clintons or Obama.
OVR. For sure, Cater quick kicked on a very long 3rd down in regard to the Shah.Quote:
No argument but if it hadn't have been for Jimmy Carter, we would not have had Iran in the hands of religious fanatics that may cause WWIII.
But historically speaking, that is one of the caca sandwiches that Carter inherited, and it was matured and festered.
Again, looking at history. Fundamental, radical Muslims were for the first time legitimately recognized and empowered in the, up to that point, failed Coup against Mosaddegh which was led by the CIA, Kermit Roosevelt in fact, at the behest and via trickery of the British. As the coup was failing, with the Shah already in Rome, in a last ditch effort the coup plotters funded and cajoled the radical muslim faction of Iran, who up until that point had been kind of a bothersome lunatic fringe, to organize and rally support for the coup due to fabricated information that Mosaddegh was going to go commie and outlaw religion wholesale.
The ploy worked and that coupled with bribing more of the military, Mosaddegh was outed and the Shah came in. The radical muslims in Iran were now legitimatized and had funds and prestige. The Shah was beholden to a bunch of crooked military folks and others and as they say the rest is history. The general population of Iran, did not want the Shah and they sure didn't want the cronyism he brought.
By 78/79' the goose was cooked in Iran, one way or the other, only American troops on the ground would have stopped that mess. And as many things touched by CIA engineered and manipulated foreign policy it bit the US in the ass in a big way.
Agree, Carter let the chips fall where they may, just as he did in Nicaragua (which was a similar case as well). I just don't know if the American populace at the time would have been on board with any more foreign adventurism.
Dan Sickles?
This was my understanding of the situation as well this my asking above if Carter really could have prevented it. The journey down that road (revolution) had already begun.
Better choice than Burnside.
Murderer of men and reputations.
Murderer of men and reputations.
Featured Stories
See All
3:03
1d ago
11k
Win streak reaches four as A&M never trails at Georgia, 92-77
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: Texas A&M 92, Georgia 77
by Luke Evangelist
35:23
2d ago
5.6k
Three Things: Where Texas A&M's 2026 class ranks nationally
by Jason Howell
agmd85
Bucky Ball article from AL.com - Why does college basketball hate Bucky
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
46