|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Mar 17, 2021 13:49:58 GMT
Lincoln was "called" a tyrant because he shut down media outlets with confederate sympathies, suspended habeas corpus, and was held responsible for the secession crisis. Roosevelt was popular because the media loved him, although he sometimes was called a commie. As for Joe Biden, call me back in his 6th month. Biden is very good for world like he rejoined Paris Accord . I disagree strongly, but I will stay out of modern politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2021 13:50:17 GMT
I understand JFK, LBJ, Ford, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and George Bush Jr. But why others. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2021 13:52:17 GMT
Biden is very good for world like he rejoined Paris Accord . I disagree strongly, but I will stay out of modern politics. Paris Climate Accord is very important. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote de la Mancha on Mar 17, 2021 14:00:24 GMT
Well, what about Eisenhower? You could argue over whether his overthrow of the government of Guatemala was a crime. There was a CIA-backed army, which went in under U.S. threats and bombing and so on to undermine that capitalist democracy. I think that’s a crime. The invasion of Lebanon in 1958, I don’t know, you could argue. A lot of people were killed. The overthrow of the government of Iran is another one — through a CIA-backed coup. But Guatemala suffices for Eisenhower and there’s plenty more.
Johnson is trivial. The Indochina war alone, forget the invasion of the Dominican Republic, was a major war crime.
Ford was only there for a very short time so he didn’t have time for a lot of crimes, but he managed one major one. He supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which was near genocidal. I mean, it makes Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait look like a tea party. That was supported decisively by the United States, both the diplmatic and the necessary military support came primarily from the United States. This was picked up under Carter.
Carter was the least violent of American presidents but he did things which I think would certainly fall under Nuremberg provisions. As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased. It reached a peak in 1978 as the atrocities peaked. So we took care of Carter, even forgetting other things.
Reagan. It’s not a question. I mean, the stuff in Central America alone suffices. Support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon also makes Saddam Hussein look pretty mild in terms of casualties and destruction. That suffices
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Mar 17, 2021 14:02:26 GMT
Well, what about Eisenhower? You could argue over whether his overthrow of the government of Guatemala was a crime. There was a CIA-backed army, which went in under U.S. threats and bombing and so on to undermine that capitalist democracy. I think that’s a crime. The invasion of Lebanon in 1958, I don’t know, you could argue. A lot of people were killed. The overthrow of the government of Iran is another one — through a CIA-backed coup. But Guatemala suffices for Eisenhower and there’s plenty more. Johnson is trivial. The Indochina war alone, forget the invasion of the Dominican Republic, was a major war crime. Ford was only there for a very short time so he didn’t have time for a lot of crimes, but he managed one major one. He supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which was near genocidal. I mean, it makes Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait look like a tea party. That was supported decisively by the United States, both the diplmatic and the necessary military support came primarily from the United States. This was picked up under Carter. Carter was the least violent of American presidents but he did things which I think would certainly fall under Nuremberg provisions. As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased. It reached a peak in 1978 as the atrocities peaked. So we took care of Carter, even forgetting other things. Reagan. It’s not a question. I mean, the stuff in Central America alone suffices. Support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon also makes Saddam Hussein look pretty mild in terms of casualties and destruction. That suffices Can any President be free of war crimes? Choose any one. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote de la Mancha on Mar 17, 2021 14:03:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Mar 17, 2021 14:06:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2021 14:09:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote de la Mancha on Mar 17, 2021 14:09:45 GMT
Well if we counted all presidents full lifetime, we're going to have a problem. Also if that's a war crime, I want every single general from the soviet, japanese and german sides to be tried. maybe a few allied too. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Mar 17, 2021 14:10:01 GMT
Who? He wasn't a president. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2021 14:26:58 GMT
Who? He wasn't a president. John Adams |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Mar 17, 2021 14:41:39 GMT
Who? He wasn't a president. John Adams Alien and Sedition, which, although not war crimes, give questionable character. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2021 14:47:07 GMT
Alien and Sedition, which, although not war crimes, give questionable character. John Adams was best president ever. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Mar 18, 2021 1:10:37 GMT
Even Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt? Joe Biden seems to be good. Lincoln was "called" a tyrant because he shut down media outlets with confederate sympathies, suspended habeas corpus, and was held responsible for the secession crisis. Roosevelt was popular because the media loved him, although he sometimes was called a commie. As for Joe Biden, call me back in his 6th month. Oh Charles Huntziger Texan you know  |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Mar 18, 2021 1:12:57 GMT
But I stand by both the view points.
|
|
