Was Jimmy Carter A Bad, Average, or Good US President?

[jankren]

In my opinion, Jimmy Carter comes across as a very good and peaceful person. However, I keep hearing from people how terrible his performance as a president was so what exactly made him a bad president? Would other presidents have made better decisions if they were in his shoes during certain important events he went through as a president such as the US embassy hostage situation in Iran?

[El Brujo]

He was an idealist who didn't know what the **** he was doing. Simple as that really.

Any other president wouldn't even have had to deal the Iranian hostage crisis because they wouldn't have pressured the Shah to abdicate.

[Rush Limbaugh]

One of the worst ever .

[Sétanta]

Horrible. He absolutely failed to address anything in his time as President (the same fault Comrade Clinton I had), not to mention his disastarous preformance in dealing with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which was an act of war.

Why do you think they released the hostages right before Reagan took office? They (the terrorist Iranians) knew he would show no mercy, no diplomacy (that had already been tried and failed).

I'd rank him alongside FDR, Clinton, Hoover and the nobodies right before WWI.

[Rush Limbaugh]

I'd rank him alongside FDR, Clinton, Hoover and the nobodies right before WWI.

I was going to rank him with FDR as well. But FDR did a lot more harm. Carter is only responsible for launching radical Islam upon the world LOL.

[Sétanta]

I was going to rank him with FDR as well. But FDR did a lot more harm. Carter is only responsible for launching radical Islam upon the world LOL.

They were different types of bad. FDR was a bad President for his bringing Socialism to America, as well as starting the decline of the Civil Liberties enjoyed by real Americans at that point. He was bad because of doing the wrong thing. Carter was bad for not doing anything. Which I guess is preferable to doing the wrong thing.

[Rush Limbaugh]

I was going to say exactly the same. One did too much and the other nothing.

[chilon]

In general he was a poor president but Carter did have some excellent ideas (like his plan to get America off oil addiction) that sadly morons in Reagan Admin dismantled instantly.

Indeed, Carter had the White House fitted with Solar Panels which Reagan promptly tore down : /

[chilon]

They were different types of bad. FDR was a bad President for his bringing Socialism to America, as well as starting the decline of the Civil Liberties enjoyed by real Americans at that point.

FDR, despite all the conservative propaganda, actually was not a fan of socialism at all and he wanted many of his acronym public works projects to have limits and not turn into true full blown socialism.

Some in his administration were true socialists but not truly FDR who was under tremendous PUBLIC pressure to implement many policies and there were extremely popular public leaders at the time pushing him from the far left (Father Coughlin, Kingfish, etc). Hoover-Coolidge lassiez-faire style had completely failed and the vast majority of Americans were not feeling any sort of "private sector solution" ala Hoover's failed bollox from '29-'32


When most people talk about FDR they are extremely ignorant of the actual context of that era in America.

[Rush Limbaugh]

When most people talk about FDR they are extremely ignorant of the actual context of that era in America.

They sure are. He did implement a few planks of the communist manifesto as well as give the USSR half of Europe but what the hell.

[Bokks]

I was going to rank him with FDR as well. But FDR did a lot more harm. Carter is only responsible for launching radical Islam upon the world LOL.

Chilon already hit this, pretty well,, but I feel compleeld to ask why you would ever concieve that FDR was anything but an extraordinary man and president. Now, I'm not a fan of government interference, at all, but what FDR did saved this country. The fact that two prestigious members of this forum would both feel that FDR was a bad president seriously frightens me.
I would have to dissagree with Chilon about Reagan, but that seems to just be party differences.

At any rate, Carter was an ok pres. He had good ideas, he had bad ones, I really don't think he diserves any of the attacks on his term in the presidency, nor does he diserve any great praise for his term either. He is a great humanitarian but yes, he was, and is, an ideolist, and remains greatly ignorant about many things going on today. Personally I wish right now he'd just stick to his humanitarian deeds and butt out of our national relations, it remains clear he knows nothing about Israel, or much of anything else.

[Earl of Rochester]

Horrible. He absolutely failed to address anything in his time as President (the same fault Comrade Clinton I had), not to mention his disastarous preformance in dealing with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which was an act of war.

True of Carter, but this is somewhat ridiculous to try and pin on Clinton.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Because of Oil geo-strategy.

To prevent the US from attacking Japan in the Pacific islands where Japan needed to go.

The reality doesn't change because you phrased the question differently.

Nor the fact that you still have not answered it. Maybe I should try another language that you understand.

Dont worry if you get it wrong a third time I shall attempt to educate you. So we were minding our own bussiness and Japan just though it would be a good idea to attack us. And that if they wiped out our fleet they would win the war?

Stinkin sneaky Japs

[chilon]

Nor the fact that you still have not answered it. Maybe I should try another language that you understand.

Dont worry if you get it wrong a third time I shall attempt to educate you. So we were minding our own bussiness and Japan just though it would be a good idea to attack us. And that if they wiped out our fleet they would win the war?

Well I know precisely what answer you are looking for. Clearly, you want me to say "The US caused Japan to attack us by implementing economic sanctions of 1940-41".

However that would be a shallow way to look at Pearl Harbor that would be completely ignorant of Japan's own internal situation. Now, the US economic sanctions of 1940-41 were not, in and of themselves, the sole/or primary reason why Japan attacked America when they did although clearly you believe so.

It is a shame that you are truly not grasping at all the significance of Japan's own resource situation at the time and seem to think highly relevant information somehow doesn't address your question because it doesn't neatly fit into your nice, clean conspiracy theory.

Even US Generals who were discussing sanctions did not see them as catalyzing Japan in ways Japan was not gearing up for anyway.
9. Effective economic sanctions against Japan imposed by us, today, would not, in the opinion of this Division, force Japan to take any steps in the way of aggressive action which she does not plan to take anyway, when a favorable opportunity arises, nor would they precipitate a declaration of war on us by Japan. Such action on our part need not and should not distract our attention from the main theater of operations. On the contrary, by adopting such a policy we will be able to conserve for Britain and for ourselves supplies which from the viewpoint of our national defense, are being worse than wasted when we place them in Japanese hands.
SHERMAN MILES Brigadier General U. S. Army Acting Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2.

For Pearl Harbor, it was only a surprise to some because of their assumption about the distance of Yamamoto's fleet from Pearl Harbor led them to believe they weren't in a position to attack. There were military strategists that were somewhat expecting some sort of Japanese move for quite a long time previous. But again, the key factor was not the US economic sanctions of 1940-41 but rather Japan's strategic calculations about the result of Japanese oil power grab.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Even US Generals who were discussing sanctions did not see them as catalyzing Japan in ways Japan was not gearing up for anyway.
9. Effective economic sanctions against Japan imposed by us, today, would not, in the opinion of this Division, force Japan to take any steps in the way of aggressive action which she does not plan to take anyway,

Well that makes it so. The Japanese just dont like Americans and wanted to pick on poor weak old us.

I was looking for something more like thiis

WND Exclusive Commentary Why did Japan attack us?
Posted: December 11, 2001
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to announce that both autographed and unautographed copies of Patrick Buchanan's latest book, "The Death of the West," an exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America are now available at WorldNetDaily's online store!

Of all the days that will "live in infamy" in American history, two stand out: Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 7, 1941.

But why did Japan, with a 10th of our industrial power, launch a sneak attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, an act of state terror that must ignite a war to the death it could not win? Were they insane? No, the Japanese were desperate.

To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have."

In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.

Japan was now isolated, with Stalin's brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.

When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was "shocked, shocked" that Japan would embark upon a course of "aggression." Said one Japanese diplomat, "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge."

Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior.

When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen.

But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down.

Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan's retreat.

Fearful of a "second Munich," America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo. Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a "modus vivendi." If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became "hysterical," and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal.

Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

And so Japan attacked. And so she was crushed and forced out of Vietnam, out of China, out of Manchuria. And so they fell to Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. And so it was that American boys, not Japanese boys, would die fighting Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese to try to block the aggressions of a barbaric Asian communism.

Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive?

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been.'" A few thoughts as the War Party pounds the drum for an all-out American war on Iraq and radical Islam.

Wikis answers

Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?




First answer by Michael Montagne. Last edit by Jarrad19912007. Contributor trust: 19 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 983 [recommend question]
Answer

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour for a number of reasons, the main being President Roosevelt banning all exports of scrap iron, steel and oil to Japan. Japan had lost more than 90% of its oil supply). Other causes which sparked the attack included; the belief that Japan was becoming encircled by Western powers, the fear of resources such as oil running low, the strong determination of advancing in the East Asia region, the United States demanding Japanese withdrawal from Indo-China, the United States opposing Japanese expansion and Japans demands were not being achieved by diplomacy. The Japanese were keen on expanding their empire and had to make a decision between surrendering or going to war with the United States.

By Jarrad

Answer

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because the U.S. enacted an embargo on all oil supplies to Japan. The reason for the embargo is because Japan was invading China. The U.S. embargo cut-off 90% of Japans resources, which crippled their economy and most importantly military. They didn't specifically want to go to war, they just wanted to cripple the United States so they could bring them to the bargaining table to negotiate expansion into Asia. Unfortuantely, the Japanese didn't understand the United States way of thinking, which was "You bomb us, you declare war, and we pulverize you." On the Japanese side of the equation, it was simply a misunderstanding about how to negotiate terms with the Americans.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor specifically for an important reason. Pearl Harbor was the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Japan did not want the U.S. in the war because the U.S. at this time had the greatest Naval force. They concluded that if the Pacific Fleet was destroyed, Americans would feel de-moralized and not want to fight. Additionally, an attack on the Pacific Fleet would take the U.S. six months to recuperate and rebuild the N

Reality. What a concept.

[Big War Bird]

Pretty much a failure at everything he did as president. He was well intentioned and a smart man, but just was to weak willed to execute much of anything.

Carter is only responsible for launching radical Islam upon the world LOL.

Yep, he sure failed to deal affirmatively with Iran.

[Medicus]

Wow, you guys should listen to yourselves.

I have no idea what's wrong with Carter, all I know is that the Simpsons writers didn't look favourably on him.

[Rush Limbaugh]

To tell the truth when I see Ron Paul I see Jimmy Carter. Both men are idealistic and good-hearted. But I do not know if Paul would end up being the next Carter.

But their total opposites. Ones ultra conservative the other ultra liberal.

[Captain Blackadder]

But their total opposites. Ones ultra conservative the other ultra liberal.

I think what he was saying is that they are both idealists whilst their policitcal views are completly different at their heart they are both intellignet men who when voted into office will not be able to do what they truely want because the moderates of the party find them too extreame even when in truth they both represent what in part their parties should be like.

[Princeps]

But their total opposites. Ones ultra conservative the other ultra liberal.

Carter started the disastrous reforms often attributed to Reagan, and Carter had no problems supporting tyrannical regimes, and calling previous US aggression in Vietnam "mutual destruction". So to call him "ultra-liberal" is just laughable.