We would not likely be around today in a free and democratic country.
2007-07-16 11:24:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
I think Jimmy Carter was naive and had little street smarts. He graduated from the Naval academy in the nuclear field. Once other countries found out how trusting he was, they took advantage of his good will and kind heart. These traits normally work against you if you ignore those that are taking advantage of you. The presidency is made up of a small fraternity, especially those that are still living. Once you have been president of the United States, you should not criticize the current president even if you disagree with his policy and not of his political party. You are in a position of having instant access to the current current president. A simple call to the current president and saying hello, my name is Jimmy Carter, I would like to talk with the president. Give your advice and thoughts but never air your disagreements to the public. Other countries leaders that don't have our interest at heart would use your comments against certain American citizen. I don't think he will have high regards as history moves on and in 100 years the question would be why did he criticize a sitting president. The other black mark against Jimmy Carter is that under his watch the Iranian government took 70-80 Americans hostage. He was unable to free them. He also had a failed military attempt that got a few American soldiers killed and wounded in the attempt. The President elect Ronald Reagan showed more grit and determination. He must have made a political or military deal with the government of Iran. The hostages were released after he was sworn in as President. This was meant to embarrass Jimmy Carter and show contempt for him as well as not wanting to deal with the new president Ronald Reagan. President Bush would be remembered for his stance on raising taxes. This was a campaign promise that he could not keep. He would also be remembered as successfully liberating Kuwait from Iraq. This would make him a successful war time president and end a war without losing many American servicemen. Historians are normally kind to war time presidents especially if they won and accomplished their objectives. I hope this has bee of some benefit to you, good luck. "FIGHT ON"
2016-03-15 05:13:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
We didn't impeached Richard Nixon , he resigned as President. He broke into the Democrat Parties offices. He was man enough to go on and resign because he didn't want to be impeached . I'm not a Nixon lover because I am strictly a Democrat , but in my opinion he did not do 5 % as much as George Bush had done. I may be wrong I think Ronald Reagan pardoned him for what he did, I said I think I may be wrong but he was pardoned by a Republican President for doing what he did wrong. I respected him for being man enough to resign He had the highest IQ of any Republican President I believe it was 155 IQ which is genius IQ, I read the other day that 141 IQ was considered a genius. But not a 91 IQ, it is mental disturbed IQ.
Bill Clinton was not impeached as in having to leave. Old two faced Henry Hyde got that going and the House Impeached Clinton but where it counts the Senate voted not to impeach
2007-07-16 11:34:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
believe me ,it would be so bad
I think the present government is bad
let s think fairly
first,do we have the right to have nuclear weapons and others not ?you may say we are a democratic country but you must know that Ahamadi Nejad elected and choosed by the iranian people(NB we are not sure if the president Bush desereved to be a president or not ,do you remeber the votes of the last state)
second: we are a democratic country but we hit Japan with 2 nuclear bombs at the end of the war without the need to do this (Japan was going to surrender)and we donot know if any japanese generation in the future may take revenege or not.
third:we allow some other countries to have nuclear weapond and help them like INDIA and ISRAEL WHICH is dangerous on the world peace and flaming wars from time to time (it is a reason of the hatred of many nations to usa)
forth:we have a very bad foreign policy against many countries like Cuba,Venezuela,middle east,north korea.,do you think if we have a fair normal diplomatic relation with these countries including iran ,does anyone of the world would attack us ?look at Canada ,it has a good realtions with all nations ,there is no terrorrism against it
fifth:we always attack others which makes them going to the steps of revenge.so if we stop shaking Iran regime ,do you think iranians and they know well that we are the strong power ,may attack us??
sixth: dealing with the iraq was is the worst .prisons of Abou ghareb ,killing citizens ,and many things which make others plans for revenge.
at the time of the second world war ,all countries of world and nations was looking up to USA ,now with the wrong decisions ,supporting some dictators,bad forign relations with many countries .the situation is difficult and there must be a change in the US policy
2007-07-19 05:40:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick" That was Teddie Roosevelt's saying; he was in office 100 years ago. He started the USA tradition of an aggressive foreign policy. Bush would have done the same. Read history.
Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned before Congress could impeach him. Read history.
2007-07-16 11:32:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by freedom_vs_slavery 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, there was a president who was just like Bush and who happened to hijack the Democratic Party in 1912. Woodrow Wilson was part of the William Jennings Bryan wing of the Democratic Party which consisted of racist fundamentalist Christians who advocated Socialism, perpetual war, and big government as the solution to every problem. They were opposed by the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian tradition that supported the free market and civil liberties (Jeffersonians were ok with secession and tended to be more opposed to wars, while Jacksonians were more hawkish and anti-secession).
Grover Cleveland was the last Jeffersonian/Jacksonian president of this country. After a wing of Hobbesian Republican presidents (McKinley, Roosevelt I, Taft) who supported massive government, Woodrow Wilson made things even worse. He passed the Federal Reserve into law, permitting the wealthy bankers and government cronies to loot the poor and middle class. He passed the IRS Tax, which took money from the poor and middle class and gave it to whomever the government chose to give it to. He would eventually pass Prohibition and promote a revival of the Ku Klux Klan, but his worst crime by far was entering into World War I, a pointless war that was decimating Europe at the time. Wilson decided that America should wage war to "make the world safe for democracy," ignoring the fact that previously Jeffersonian/Jacksonians had opposed democracy and supported a republic (a country by laws instead of by majority vote). Wilson's intervention in World War I cost the Germans and the Austrians their victory and in doing so led to the rise of Adolph Hitler and in Italy, which did not receive the rewards it was promised, Benito Mussolini would come to power.
Woodrow Wilson brought about World War II through his incompetence and his domestic policies destroyed the freedom of the American people forever and wiped out the original Middle Class. He also corrupted forever the Democratic Party.
For his work, Woodrow Wilson is regarded as one of our greatest presidents and is usually revered by both Republicans and Democrats.
It is hard to imagine George W. Bush doing anything different than what Woodrow Wilson did if he were in Woodrow's shoes.
2007-07-16 20:06:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
i don't think the us would have problems with the middle east, and maybe there might have been another more worse arms race between the u.s and the s.u
because of the watergate scandal, he spied on the democrats because the rep. did not know what to do about vietnam and so he spied on them to get inside info on thier plan and use it, that was ofcoarse illegal (still is) but was like a major issue back then and the fact that they were at war was a gigantic issue, so when he came to tesstify he gave almost no info on the notes and plan that he took for his plan to succeed.
2007-07-16 15:10:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If George Bush were president 100 years in the past, he probably would have been assassinated.
2007-07-16 11:25:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by AdrianClay 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Nothing. Around 100 years ago we had the worst president in our history, Woodrow Wilson, and nothing happened to him.
And now, around 100 years later, we have the second worst president in history and nothings happening to him.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
2007-07-16 11:31:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by Jesus W. 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
nothing a leader of any nation is only a puppet for the government
the question should be what would happen to america if the government of today was around 100 years ago
2007-07-16 11:26:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
He would not have been able to get elected to start with. Second off he would not have been able to do half the crap he does today. 100 years America was not the Superpower it is today. So our leaders had to use diplomacy, which is something this adminstration tries to avoid.
2007-07-16 11:34:55
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋