Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 May '18 17:09
    Are all US war time Presidents glorified?

    Looking at the major memorials in Washington DC, it would appear to be the case. You have the Washington memorial, the Lincoln memorial and the FDR memorial. Then off to the side you have Jefferson, the only major memorial who was not a war time President.

    And anytime you ask who were the greatest Presidents, the same war time Presidents, aside from Jefferson, keep popping up at the top of the list.

    So what are we to make of this?

    One question mark was President Wilson. Where is his grand memorial? Granted, he was a terrible President, so perhaps that is why. He was just that bad. Likewise, Jefferson had a memorial, despite not being a war monger, but he was just that good to over look as one of the best. However, there are areas in Washington DC that pay tribute to Wilson, which is more than the average President obtains.
  2. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    27 May '18 17:272 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Are all US war time Presidents glorified?

    Looking at the major memorials in Washington DC, it would appear to be the case. You have the Washington memorial, the Lincoln memorial and the FDR memorial. Then off to the side you have Jefferson, the only major memorial who was not a war time President.

    And anytime you ask who were the greatest Presidents, ...[text shortened]... s in Washington DC that pay tribute to Wilson, which is more than the average President obtains.
    The psychology of people is to rally around their leader in time of war, many Russian citizens do this with Stalin despite his purges that killed many of his own people. War whips up a lot of patriotic fervor. George W Bush knew this and used the Iraq war as a tool to whip up patriotic fervor to cover up his lying about weapons of mass destruction in that country, this fervor won him a 2nd term, even today you can see fading "These Colors Don't Run" bumper stickers on old pickup's, relics of a needless war that sent over 4000 American soldiers to their deaths. During wartime the lemming mentality reigns supreme, and when the war is over memorials are not far behind.
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    27 May '18 17:381 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Are all US war time Presidents glorified?

    Looking at the major memorials in Washington DC, it would appear to be the case. You have the Washington memorial, the Lincoln memorial and the FDR memorial. Then off to the side you have Jefferson, the only major memorial who was not a war time President.

    And anytime you ask who were the greatest Presidents, ...[text shortened]... s in Washington DC that pay tribute to Wilson, which is more than the average President obtains.
    Those wars were different due to their significance and influence over the history of U.S. The Revolutionary War is not Iraq, and the Civil War is not Libya. No one's going to make a statue commemorating Bush and Obama for those conflicts.

    It's not the war, it's the historical significance that matters.
  4. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    27 May '18 17:45
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Those wars were different due to their significance and influence over the history of U.S. The Revolutionary War is not Iraq, and the Civil War is not Libya. No one's going to make a statue commemorating Bush and Obama for those conflicts.

    It's not the war, it's the historical significance that matters.
    If statues were made of either of those two crooks--- worse: Bush First--- we'd see them topple in a manner similar to Lenin's.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 May '18 17:482 edits
    Originally posted by @mchill
    The psychology of people is to rally around their leader in time of war, many Russian citizens do this with Stalin despite his purges that killed many of his own people. War whips up a lot of patriotic fervor. George W Bush knew this and used the Iraq war as a tool to whip up patriotic fervor to cover up his lying about weapons of mass destruction in that co ...[text shortened]... ime the lemming mentality reigns supreme, and when the war is over memorials are not far behind.
    Let me guess my partisan friend, Obama did not do this with Libya.

    Should Trump do it?
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 May '18 17:50
    I can only conclude that Jefferson was the greatest President in American history, since he is the only one honored and not a warmonger.
  7. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    Just...the Dogg
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    121807
    27 May '18 19:55
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Are all US war time Presidents glorified?

    Looking at the major memorials in Washington DC, it would appear to be the case. You have the Washington memorial, the Lincoln memorial and the FDR memorial. Then off to the side you have Jefferson, the only major memorial who was not a war time President.

    And anytime you ask who were the greatest Presidents, ...[text shortened]... s in Washington DC that pay tribute to Wilson, which is more than the average President obtains.
    Presidents who were good at war are glorified.

    That's why LBJ and GW Bush don't have monuments.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    27 May '18 20:433 edits
    Originally posted by @mchill to Whodey
    The psychology of people is to rally around their leader in time of war, many Russian citizens do this with Stalin despite his purges that killed many of his own people. War whips up a lot of patriotic fervor. George W Bush knew this and used the Iraq war as a tool to whip up patriotic fervor to cover up his lying about weapons of mass destruction ...[text shortened]... ime the lemming mentality reigns supreme, and when the war is over memorials are not far behind.
    The ignorant Mchill apparently conflates the extremely different historical contexts of the
    Great Patriotic War (a war of national survival for the USSR) and the US invasion of Iraq
    (a war of choice for the USA).

    "The psychology of people is to rally around their leader in time of war, many Russian
    citizens do this with Stalin despite his purges that killed many of his own people."
    --Mchill

    In reality, most Soviet (not only 'Russian' ) citizens fought for Stalin during the Great Patriotic War
    because they rightly perceived that being conquered by Hitler would be a worse fate than
    being ruled by Stalin. Mchill's wrong in believing, if he does, that the Russian people
    always have unconditional loyalty to their leaders (as Tsar Nicholas II would know).

    But, despite Nazi racism, millions of Soviet citizens (particularly Ukrainians and some other
    non-Russian minorities) still preferred Hitler over Stalin. If Hitler had a less brutal
    Ostpolitik, then he could have recruited more Soviet citizens to fight against Stalin.

    P.S. Two instant 'thumbs down' came within seconds of my post (less time than required to read it).
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 May '18 20:56
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I can only conclude that Jefferson was the greatest President in American history, since he is the only one honored and not a warmonger.
    Are you claiming that Washington, Lincoln and FDR were "warmongers"? The first engaged in war to throw off an oppressive tyranny and the second and third after the US was attacked.

    BTW, Jefferson did engage in a war: In 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, citing late payments of tribute, demanded additional tribute and declared war on the United States. The United States successfully defeated Qaramanli’s forces with a combined naval and land assault by the United States Marine Corps. The U.S. treaty with Tripoli concluded in 1805 included a ransom for American prisoners in Tripoli, but no provisions for tribute. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 May '18 21:112 edits
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Are you claiming that Washington, Lincoln and FDR were "warmongers"? The first engaged in war to throw off an oppressive tyranny and the second and third after the US was attacked.

    BTW, Jefferson did engage in a war: In 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, citing late payments of tribute, demanded additional tribute and declared war on the Un ...[text shortened]... poli, but no provisions for tribute. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars
    The South could just have easily said that they were also throwing off an oppressive tyranny. In addition, the attack on fort Sumter was the effort of the South to reclaim a fort on Southern land. There was no offensive campaign to quell.

    So tell me this, why did the war not start in January of 1861 under Buchanan? An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area except for Fort Sumter. It's because Buchanan was not prepared to surrender the South Carolina fort to the South but was not prepared to invade it from fighting for their fort.

    As for FDR, the Allies had broken the Japanese code, but we were expected to believe that we did not know they were coming? Really? Seems like the code worked just swell for Midway, but not Pearl Harbor.

    Go figure.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 May '18 21:121 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The ignorant Mchill apparently conflates the extremely different historical contexts of the
    Great Patriotic War (a war of national survival for the USSR) and the US invasion of Iraq
    (a war of choice for the USA).

    "The psychology of people is to rally around their leader in time of war, many Russian
    citizens do this with Stalin despite his purges t ...[text shortened]... . Two instant 'thumbs down' came within seconds of my post (less time than required to read it).
    You are correct, had Hitler come in as a liberator the entire USSR would have defected and Stalin's regime would have collapsed over night.

    But alas, the people were caught in the middle of two Left winged murderous, Collectivist dictators and had no where to turn other than the grave.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 May '18 22:13
    Originally posted by @whodey
    The South could just have easily said that they were also throwing off an oppressive tyranny. In addition, the attack on fort Sumter was the effort of the South to reclaim a fort on Southern land. There was no offensive campaign to quell.

    So tell me this, why did the war not start in January of 1861 under Buchanan? An attempt by U.S. President James Bu ...[text shortened]... Really? Seems like the code worked just swell for Midway, but not Pearl Harbor.

    Go figure.
    I think that one of the reasons the Left points to Buchanan as being the worst US President of all time is that he did not send over a million Americans to their death when Fort Sumter was attacked during his Presidency.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 May '18 22:27
    Originally posted by @whodey
    The South could just have easily said that they were also throwing off an oppressive tyranny. In addition, the attack on fort Sumter was the effort of the South to reclaim a fort on Southern land. There was no offensive campaign to quell.

    So tell me this, why did the war not start in January of 1861 under Buchanan? An attempt by U.S. President James Bu ...[text shortened]... Really? Seems like the code worked just swell for Midway, but not Pearl Harbor.

    Go figure.
    As I have pointed out about a 100 times on this board, Fort Sumter was not on "Southern land" but on an artificial island built by the Federal government. Furthermore, the fort was built with the consent of the South Carolina government as provided for by the US Constitution.

    Firing a complete thousand shells at a US fort is an attack on this country no matter how much historical revisionists try to say differently.

    Nut job conspiracies theories about Pearl Harbor have been dealt with enough here. The Japanese attacked and it doesn't take a "warmonger" to respond to such an attack with military force.
  14. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81360
    27 May '18 23:291 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    As I have pointed out about a 100 times on this board, Fort Sumter was not on "Southern land" but on an artificial island built by the Federal government. Furthermore, the fort was built with the consent of the South Carolina government as provided for by the US Constitution.

    Firing a complete thousand shells at a US fort is an attack on this country ...[text shortened]... ese attacked and it doesn't take a "warmonger" to respond to such an attack with military force.
    "Firing a complete thousand shells at a US fort is an attack on this country no matter how much historical revisionists try to say differently."



    I imagine Israel feels the same way.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 May '18 12:371 edit
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    "Firing a complete thousand shells at a US fort is an attack on this country no matter how much historical revisionists try to say differently."



    I imagine Israel feels the same way.
    No, you have to understand the liberal mind. They can do no wrong. Only their opponents are in the wrong and they hate Zionists so......
Back to Top