As a "Liberal crazy" do you think America under FDR was a better nation than now?.......?

Question

Did he handle WWll better that Bush handed the Iraq War?

Answer 1

I'm one of the few democrats who doesn't think that FDR is the 2nd coming of Christ. Having said that, a mechanical doll would handle this war better.

One think about FDR he keep us motivated and focused. He didn't inspire fear and terror in people, he inspired patriotism yet we understood our enemy was formidable only he instilled the pride to overcome.

Answer 2

You do know that FDR stands for Foolishly Damaged Republic, right?

Considering alll the "False Flag" theories surrounding 9/11, I've got one for you.

December 7, 1941.

Pearl Harbor was attacked by aircraft carriers.

There were no US aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor, they were all at sea. Hmmm.... something fishy here!

Did FDR attack Pearl Harbor because after 9 years his programs had done nothing to curtail the Depression. In a desperate ploy to get America back to work in the armament industry, which made a lot of CEO's rich by the way, did he attack America?

To placate his opposition, Thomas Fleming charges in The New Dealers' War, Roosevelt promised "that he would never send American soldiers to fight beyond America's shores." Yet, Fleming continues, on December 4, 1941, the Chicago Tribune revealed the existence of elaborate war plans involving the landing of an American force 5 million strong in Europe by 1943. The revelation gave isolationists fits, of course, but their criticism was effectively silenced three days later when a Japanese force attacked Hawaii.

I know, I know, the Japanese took credit for the attack but can you really be sure? I mean nobody actually saw the Japanese carriers, you know. Just a lot of aircraft that looked like they could have been Japanese.

















Yea, I'm being sarcastic.


WW2 ended the depression and the USA has been spending the Social Security surplus ever since. The primary reason we are in debt today.

What helped win WW2 were the generals, the admirals, the soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and all the American citizens who got behind a President, even the ones who coudn't stand FDR, because it was the right thing to do.

If you don't think there were any screw ups in WW2, you haven't studied too much history.

Answer 3

America really switched gears in the 1980's and became, from a nation of mechanical laborers, into a consumer society. FDR did an amazing job in Welfare programs and getting America out of the great depression, but it's difficult to compare America eighty years ago to present day America. FDR created the modern presidency and revolutionized what people thought the government should do for you. I can guarantee that if you asked someone from the 1930's "should the government pay for my healthcare?" you would be laughed at. The perception that your government should actually do things for you is a relatively new idea that has evolved into something entirely different than FDR's New Deal.

The Iraq war has been mismanaged, but it really isn't fair to compare two completely different conflicts. The Iraq war, more similar to Vietnam (with the quagmire/catch-22 and everything), is a modern conflict, where the United states is preventing the collapse and slaughter of an entire country. World War II was just about defeating the Germans and Japanese returning Europe and Asia/ the pacific to their previous states. In World War II, America took deliberate action to combat directly aggressive policies of the Japanese and Germans; whereas, Americans were the aggressors because of not-to-convincing evidence.

Answer 4

I think FDR handle WW2 well, and that is the only thing he did well. Both new deals failed, nevertheless the war did pull us out of the deprestion so in that sence he solved the economic problems. Most of his other economic polocys like SS have suervived to plauge my generation and foreseeably those yet unborn. Whereas Bush's tax cuts "for the rich" have accully led to a vibrant econmic upswing since it tanked under Clinton. FDR had to put up with the peace nicks but they were seen for what they were, a 5th colum (Hitler supported them.) Bush has the media against him and has since he took office simply becuase he is a republican, FDR even after failing to stack the S-Court was not plauged by the press like Bush. Bush talks to a corprate leader in private=Plot to take over the world by right wing christian fundis, oh yah the idiot chocks on prezels. FDR trys a hostil take over of the suprem court, the press wouldn't even admitt the man was a cripple. So there hardships were not the same, FDR had it pretty lite from the press whereas Bush had it as bad as Licoln only Linclne was revolutionary and Bush is down right plain. Pearl harbor united America and FDR reaped from that. 9/11 unifyed America and the Press divided us, Bush was unable to gain from this. FDR had the support of the west especsally since Hitler was occuping most of Europe. But under Bush the Europeans didn't see any point in advanceing US interests after all we are not an allie but an economic competitor and the Frence and the Russians had lucrative deals with Saddam which lead their corparations to fund anti-american orwellian geese. FDR was a better comunicator than Bush but he had a better senerio on the unification front anyway. Without America Hitler would have won the war so FDR's entry was imparative. As for the war against the "Islamofacists" we will just have to get our noses bloodied a bit more before we wake up and say f the world and do it our way. No air space no 3B a year aid. and the like.

Answer 5

Such a different time and different wars. Militarily Bush had a much better war machine. It took just days to destroy the 4th largest military force in the world. FDR had a isolationist mentality to contend with. Only the attack on Pearl Harbor changed the minds of many Americans that we could no longer sit safely here and ignore the rest of the world. We then had to make a concentrated effort to build up a force able to defeat Japan and Germany. Thankfully we succeeded. Bush's' problem is much more complex. We` are not at war with Iraq anymore, but with the Islamofaciasts that have invaded Iraq . We will not purposely kill non-antagonists, so we are much less able to stabilize the country through strictly military means. Iraq itself is the best measure as to whether our tactics are working.

Answer 6

Though I do not consider myself a "liberal crazy," I must say, the question is ridiculous for the following reasons:

1. The wars cannot be compared. The difference in weapons, cause, other technology, enemy tactics, etc disallow a valid comparison. And if it is simply about achieving goals, FDR would have to be declared the winner. Though he spent many resources, Germany was toppled. Can the same be said for Iraq? Destroyed maybe, but it's spirit has not been toppled.

2. Concerning whether or not the nation is better now, again the comparison would not be valid. The technology available today makes the US a far better country now but you can hardly fault FDR for not having the internet, medicines, etc. Additionally, the economy improved vastly more under FDR in his time, than it has under GWB in ours.

3. The only valid comparison here concerns which President was a better leader. The answer is obvious: FDR was far superior in leadership ability. Leadership concerns whether or not people trust you, whether or not they are devoted to you, whether or not they respect you, etc. However, on this point, Hitler was also a better leader than Bush. It's simply about how many people will follow you, even to their deaths.

Cheers!

Answer 7

FDR ignored some important aspects and created some good things. Was FDR a better president than Bush? Hell, yeah.

Was America a better nation? We did without and gladly supported our soldiers, in a world war. That era changed us forever. Women really worked and learned to be independent. Women voted for FDR, worked hard and supported our troops. I think it's the only time women really ran our country and we did very well.

FDR definitely was a better leader during WWII.

I have no respect for Bush. I would vote for Bill Clinton, in a heartbeat.

Answer 8

The nation was united and everyone pulled in the same direction during WWII. Although FDR's economic policies weren't great in retrospect ( the Depression didn't really end until WWII ), at the time he gave people hope and everything turned out well.

How much was due to FDR and how much to the difference in the times and challenges is unclear but the problems appeared to be relatively simple ( if difficult ) and what to do was clear.

Answer 9

whilst there are various factors contributing to the super melancholy, the everyday consensus is the U. S. had a brilliant style of generating potential(through credit-fueled overexpansion), basically not sufficient call for for the products it may so comfortably produce. WWII observed a important, sustained strengthen in call for. The cave in in call for certainly hit a organic backside in early 1933. strengthen became inevitable. needless to say all of us be responsive to this tale all too nicely right now- the jobless restoration! call for will strengthen, yet not sufficient to certainly require greater jobs be created. So interest restoration became sluggish, and it became not till WWII that we had greater jobs than the 1929 top. (We very nearly have been given there in 1937) the bigger issue became not laizez-faire, yet protectionism. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff crippled worldwide commerce and destroyed the finished worldwide's financial gadget. The GATT became a gamechanging worldwide contract which restrained protectionism from placing decrease back in. FDR became not a brilliant deficit spender, he became shockingly prudent while in comparison with the two Bush and Obama earlier the war broke out. His greatest reforms have been fee flooring (killing deflationary expectancies), assurance(reducing panic), and public works projects(offering jobs, lasting advancements). The deficit spending did not kick into overdrive till WWII.

Answer 10

I think it is hard to compare them because FDR came into the presidency and had to deal with the great depression as well as WWII versus Bush who came in and dealt with the terrorists attacks and a couple other wars. He did not have to completely rebuild the nation. It is a very interesting question though!!