This will undoubtedly be a controversial list and I should suggest that everyone readies themselves for an onslaught of “too American” comments. But regardless of the controversy it is an interesting list that is definitely worth a read. So, read on and for the sake of fun and balance, why don’t all of our non-US readers post the greatest acts of their heads of state?

As we have seen frequently throughout history, not just in the U. S., a war hero fresh from a war is a shoe-in to become the leader of his country. Some have been good. Some have been lousy. Most are in the middle. But all the scholars agree Washington was the greatest, and he routinely sits in the top 3 of greatest president lists. He led by example more than anything, because the country was just getting started and did not yet have terrible internal problems such as civil war, civil rights, etc.
He was probably the humblest president, lacking a college education, and very polite to everyone. But once he won the war, the gossip was already heavy that he was the man to lead everyone. At first he considered refusing it altogether, but when his friends and the Congress persisted, he agreed. Then they said, “Would you like to be king?”
He answered, “That, gentlemen, is one thing I should be disgusted to be. It must not be so with us. Kingdoms and empires have never lasted indefinitely. We must. As we trust in God, we must.”
So he deemed himself President, for a finite duration. He suggested a duration of 4 years, and after his first term, he reluctantly served a second term, and refused to run for a third. This set an unofficial precedent of 2 terms for any one person, that was not constitutionalized until 1951. Were it not for him, the Presidency might have become lifetime.

On 2 May 1803, the U. S. paid France about $15 million for the Louisiana Territories, stretching from New Orleans northwest to Michigan in the East and western Montana and eastern Idaho in the west. Jefferson ideally wanted the entire continent to belong to the U. S., because he did not trust any other country to establish territory close to the western borders of the nation. He specifically needed about half of modern Louisiana, surrounding the New Orleans port, out of French or Spanish control, lest they dream up a blockade of the fledgling U. S.
So he corresponded with Napoleon, and the U. S. ambassadors were prepared to pay $10 million, but preferably less, for this half of Louisiana. Napoleon then offered them the monumentally generous purchase as we know it for the price of 60 million francs, plus permanent erasure of France’s war debts, an additional 18 million. The United States ambassadors could not believe what they were hearing, and quickly sent word to Jefferson, who pushed it through Congress, which voted in his favor by a margin of 59 to 57. Jefferson was smart enough to know that doubling the area of the United States was worth a possible insult to Spain, who might have argued their claim to the land. So what might easily have taken 100 years of tooth-and-nail conquest against Spain and/or France was achieved in one transaction: 23% of the modern nation we know as the United States of America, 14 of those states included, was acquired all at once without a shot fired.

Consider that the United States is not, at the moment, exactly on the finest diplomatic terms with China, and that for much of the 20th Century, Egypt and the U. S. have not been on very friendly terms either. The relationships are amiable enough to allow tourism and trade, but Egypt, in particular, has always been a hotbed of religio-political unrest, and during Nixon’s time, the Yom Kippur War made politics in the Middle East even worse than they are at present. Nixon’s administration supported Israel (which means supporting Jews, which tends to irritate Muslims), primarily because Israel was and still is the most powerful country in the Middle East and makes a fine ally.
Nixon authorized the shipment of arms to Israel to help in the fight against Egyptian invasion, and after the war was over, most of the Arab nations took a hard-line stance against the United Sates for helping Israel. Egypt, led by Anwar El Sadat, remained fairly peaceable with the U. S. The reason was Sadat, who wanted peace among the Middle eastern nations as much as Nixon (and the rest of the world). Nixon succeeded in befriending Sadat, and a direct result of the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War was the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978. Sadat managed to secure a temporary peace with Menachem Begin of Israel, and although Islamic extremism and terrorism has since ruined that peace, Nixon proved that it is indeed possible to achieve.
He also wanted to secure peace with Asia in the time of the Vietnam War. Everyone asks the question today of why the U. S. did not simply drop nuclear warheads on Vietnam and be done with it. The reason fro that is Chinese reprisal, since China and North Vietnam were both Communist. And if China intervened on N. Vietnam’s behalf, the U. S. might have had to defend itself with nukes in China, which would have brought the Soviet Union into the fight. Then it would have been a bad day for everyone. So Nixon took him upon himself to secure some measure of peace with China. By 1972, Mao-Zedong had seen that Nixon could be a man with whom to striek treaties, and Mao did not want an impossible war with the U. S. So the Chinese ping pong team invited the U. S. ping pong team for a friendly visit, which was accepted and went very well.
During their stay, Nixon managed to open excellent diplomacy with Mao’s China, and the relationship continues today. He also secured during his presidency a detente with the Soviet Union, under Brezhnev, on the subject of nuclear weapon proliferation. Nixon accomplished the first bi-national limitation of nuclear armaments, especially ballistic missiles.
When Nixon died in 1994, Egypt and China flew black flags in his honor.

The Great Emancipator may have been the finest rhetorician to have sat in the Oval Office; such status is contested primarily by Washington and Jefferson and J. Q. Adams. The question of slavery had long since been boiling over by the time Lincoln gained office, and his inauguration, coupled with other events such as John Brown’s raid on Harpers ferry finally broke the southern camel’s back, and the South seceded. What followed is a war that killed about 100,000 more Americans than WWI and WWII combined. The population of the country in 1860 was about 31,400,000. 620,000 died from the War, which means that if the war had been fought today, and the casualty rate had increased proportionally, then for 300,000,000 total, 60,000,000 Americans would have died.
Lincoln was thus tested more intensely than any President to date. He came through magnificently, with a hard-line opposition to slavery at a time when the issue had polarized American politics to the point of destruction. In 1856, SC Congressman Preston Brooks severely beat MA Senator Charles Sumner over the head with a hardwood cane on the floor of the Senate chamber, until Sumner was unconscious and bleeding all over the aisle. Brooks did not stop until the cane broke. The reason: insults spewed from both sides over slavery. The South actually championed Brooks. The North condemned him. The act of freeing the slaves was quite a brave one, indeed, in the midst of such turmoil.
On 22 September 1862, Lincoln proclaimed his Emancipation of all slaves in Confederate states that had seceded. On 1 January 1863, he amended the proclamation with specific states named. Lincoln’s act loses rank on this list, however, for two reasons in particular: the Proclamation never accounted for the border states, which were neither Confederate nor Union, and were allowed to keep the institution of slavery; and the Proclamation came far too late to be worth anything, since the War had already been raging for 2 years, and the Confederates had no intention of honoring Lincoln’s orders until forced to do so.

In 1825, Adams raised taxes for the purpose of improving roads throughout the country, founding a national bank, and instituting a national currency, founding universities, creating waterways, including the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, the connection of the Great Lakes to the Ohio River system, the expansion of the Great Dismal Swamp Canal in NC, the Portland to Louisville Canal, etc., all to improve maritime shipping and commerce. In those days, travel by boat was much easier than by horse and carriage, and Adams saw that maritime travel was essential to the country remaining an economic power. The policy of raising taxes did not make him particularly popular, however, and he was destined for a single term. This makes the list, in addition to the fine, nationwide modernization Adams oversaw, because Presidents have historically raised taxes to good ends and bad ends. This was one of the most sensible.

In very basic terms, the Square Deal was designed around 3 points: protection of the consumer; control of big businesses; and conservation of natural resources. It succeeded in destroying business monopolies, especially those of railroad transportation and meat packaging. The Elkins Act saw to the railroad situation, as for years the railroads had been allowing unfairly lower prices to major farm producers, and severely hurting the livelihood of small, local farmers. By means of the Act, Roosevelt rearranged commerce throughout the country in order that it benefit the middle class.
Meat packaging had been controlled by countless monopolies in every major city, and these companies had no one to answer to for sanitation purposes. People were dying and getting severely sick from spoiled or diseased meat, and the Square Deal destroyed these monopolies and gave the power back to large meat companies, which meant fewer companies, making it easier for Roosevelt to maintain control of sanitation, combat price gouging, etc.
And with the Antiquities Act of 1906, Roosevelt barred the use and abuse of public lands, especially wild lands. The first such use of the Act was the protection of Devil’s Tower in Wyoming. No one is allowed to build on this property, or alter the landscape in any way, and the Act has been used over a hundred times since 1906 for the purpose of establishing national parks.

Reagan is still one of the most divisive presidents in America’s history. The Republicans and Conservatives love him of course, and most of the Democrats and Liberals loathe him. His foreign policies remain extremely controversial: Soviet Communism was falling apart and Reagan gave it a final knock-out punch to send it on its way. But opponents have considered Russia as a state of abiding anarchy ever since. They have attempted over and over to establish and maintain a democracy of sorts, and yet the state seems very oppressive. Most of its leaders have been cited as corrupt or incompetent since 1989, and Reagan is routinely cited as the primary culprit.
Aside from that, he is even more frequently cited as the reason for worldwide Islamic terrorism, of a guerrilla nature, which resulted in the 9/11 plane bombings on U. S. soil, as well as numerous other bombings and terrorist incidents. The jihadists always cite the United States as “the Great Satan,” etc. and Reagan’s opponents still blame his hard-liner policies for instilling a repulsed, fuming hatred of the U. S. across much of the world.
But put all this into perspective: the Roman Empire was not too popular among Gaul, Germania, Persia, Parthia, or most of the rest of Europe and the Near East. During the Pax Romana, Rome was the single state in charge of most of the Western world, and it achieved this based on the principle of pacification by force. There were few and paltry challenges to this peace, because no foreign power dared.
Reagan achieved the same thing in our modern world by the same means: “Our enemies may be irrational, even outright insane, driven by nationalism, religion, ethnicity, or ideology. They do not fear the United States for its diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks, planes, and helicopter gunships.” The question is often asked as of late, “What would have happened had Reagan been President when 9/11 transpired?”
He meant both Communists and terrorists, and he coupled his hard-line rhetoric with the audacity to carry it out in reprisals against Gaddafi’s Libya, Grenada, Iran, everybody that dared open hostilities with the United States. As a result, the U. S. had very few serious problems abroad.

The Monroe Doctrine was actually written by John Q. Adams, while Secretary of State. But President Monroe authorized it, and it states that no European power may declare sovereign territory anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, out of concern for the security of the United States. It was introduced on 2 December 1823, and stipulated that any such colonization of land, or interference of any kind with the affairs of the United States in the Western Hemisphere would be deemed an act of aggression and dealt with militarily.
The Doctrine has been invoked and has saved the United States many times. The immediate threat at its inception was from the Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria, which intended to reclaim Spanish colonies all over the world. There were quite a few in the Caribbean, and the United States did not want any more European trouble, a la the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. It is because of this Doctrine that the United States is not beset on all sides by a host of nations intending to gain more “living room” as Hitler called it. The Doctrine had a crucial role to play in the #1 entry.

Rumors persist that Franklin Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, but elected to let it happen in order to boost the country out of its decade-long Depression. But that is a conspiracy theory, and unless it is confirmed, he must remain innocent until proven guilty.
What is known is that once Pearl Harbor was over, the whole country stood behind Roosevelt, and he didn’t disappoint. He declared war of Japan, knowing full well that Germany and Italy would follow suit against him. But he had wanted this for years, because he knew as well as Churchill that Hitler was a monster who wanted nothing less than the whole world under his foot. So the last good war was good because of the universal enemy of mankind. Today, the “War on Terror” has all the makings of a good war to fight and finish, but Bush, Jr. didn’t handle it right. Obama hasn’t done much better. The one thing missing is a president who knows how wars have to be won: let the generals do as necessary. It won’t be pretty, but it will be quick, and then it will be over. FDR did just that.
At the outset, the United States was by far the most powerful industrial giant in the world, but not with the most powerful military. FDR is the man most responsible for the superpower the USA is today. Japan had nearly absolute control of the Pacific. Germany had nearly absolute control of continental Europe. By the end, the USA was king in all military respects. This cannot all be attributed to one man, but FDR deserves by far the lion’s share of the credit. He rallied the country like never before, behind patriotism the intensity and purity of which the world is not likely to witness again.
The most difficult part of a war is paying for it. FDR agreed with his Secretary of the Treasury, H. Morgenthau, that a program of national defense “War” bonds would fill the government’s coffers fast. Once the money was there, the United States “in its righteous might” as FDR said, “won through to absolute victory.” He told General Chief of Staff George Marshall, “I want Hitler and Mussolini stopped where they war. You see to that, and I will have Nimitz and MacArthur see to Japan.” At the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U. S. had 9 battleships and 3 aircraft carriers, to the Japanese’s 11 and 9 respectively. On 8 December 1941, the U. S. had only one functioning battleship in the Pacific, and its 3 carriers; the Japanese had lost none. But by December of the next year, the sleeping giant was fully awake and fully pissed, and the U. S. had 12 battleships, plus 3 under repairs, to the Japanese 10, and the Japanese had lost 4 carriers at Midway and built a new one. They now had a distinct disadvantage as the U. S. put all its monstrous industry to use, and FDR’s generals obeyed him to the letter: Marshall relayed his order to Eisenhower, “You will enter the continent of Europe and render the Germans and Italians incapable of waging war.”

It goes without saying that political lists are inevitably controversial, because Democrats love Democrats, and Republicans love Republicans. But this is one of those rare times when everyone on all sides of the event should stand in awe of what a president did. We mere mortals of Planet Earth came closer to our own idiotic self-annihilation, by means of the Cuban Missile Crisis, than we ever had, and possibly ever will.
In 1963, nuclear warfare and the proliferation of its weaponry had reached its all-time peak. Even the laypeople who don’t know a thing about nuclear physics understood with an abiding trepidation that we now had the power–and we always had the malicious stupidity–to obliterate ourselves very efficiently. The Soviets then took things up another notch by placing medium and intermediate range ballistic nuclear missiles in sites in Cuba, deliberately aimed at the East Coast of the United States, for the sole purpose of targeting its major cities, from Miami to Boston.
In keeping with the Monroe Doctrine, Kennedy dared not allow the Soviets to continue this, but he did not threaten nuclear holocaust. Reagan may well have done so. Truman probably would have. Bush, Jr. definitely would have. If a Presidential hard-liner had been in Office, the outcome might well have been global destruction. Kennedy handled the Crisis with the utmost political acumen. He would be a hard-liner if necessary, but was absolutely determined to exhaust all diplomatic avenues first. Too much hung in the balance to take any risks.
Nikita Krushchev, the Soviet Premier, was by far a hard-liner, infamously banging his shoe on the table of the U. N., screaming, “We will bury you!” But his cabinet understood well enough to convince him that any nuclear attack would result in both sides losing. There was no victory to be had, because there would be no one left to celebrate. His cabinet spoke to Kennedy’s cabinet for a duration of 13 days, a time when the world needed only one good leader, and got it in Kennedy, who finally got the message through to Krushchev that war was hopeless. Krushchev finally sent a letter asking what terms for truce could be reached. The next day, some hard-liners in his cabinet sent a second letter supposed to be in his hand making impossible demands.
Kennedy simply pretended to ignore the second letter. It was his idea through and through, and in the meantime, he offered to compromise of removing American missiles from Turkey. This compromise saved everyone, and by his political wrangling, America didn’t even lose face. It appeared as if the Soviets backed down. Political scholars the world over still sit in quiet horror these days, wondering what might happen if the situation should arise again, and the President is anything less than John F. Kennedy.




















Great list. Much of this history helped to shape not only America but a large part of the world. And no, I am not American.
Awesome list and a big F U to the first tards.
You will notice that although we do not support "first" posters, we also do not support derogatory posts. keep it civil and you will earn our respect
As usual Flamehorse, a very good list. We do need to remember that the US, like most countries have had good and bad people running it. Food for thought in that we need to remember it is easy to demonise just about anyone if we set out minds to it.
Well said, wells said.
opps, sorry about the extra s
Hey, for the compliment I wasn't going to complain about the extra 's'. Thanks MommaDuck23.
flamehorse — admirable of you to tackle this subject, knowing youre gonna hear ***** all day — but this is well written, anyway…… the order? meeh…. i have to think about what im thinking about a little longer. dont wanna go off half cocked (i prefer fully cocked) — you know my dad worked for one of the cats on this list — and almost another. — dont want to let this bias me.
succinct, though, boss — good job
(and i'll apologise in advance for my next comment — i promise i'm not trying to instigate him — he's gonna instigate himself anyway — everyone knows that)
in the listverse – office pool today, we have:
a political — american — flamehorse list.
pool topic?
how many problems will woyzeck have with the contents of todays list/comments?
o/u set at 39
i call odd #s fr. 21 – 29 and 55 and 77 — get your numbers early @5$ea — the pool-board is gonna fill up *quick* — a 85/15 split win/r-u ………..
well well, all i am going to say is that this was an amazing list. really well written, after all this was a FlameHorse list. Nicely done. I don't really know much about American history and thus i'll just keep my mouth shut (well, my fingers off the keyboard) and see the ***** fly.
you live in india, right?
look — "milliard fillmore is dead" (pan down) doesnt know *****-all about hist,.,. well, actually, anything apparently——–
and as for the comments, today?
this *should* rival the food fight scene from animal house.
See if you can guess what I am now.
youre friedrich johann franz woyzeck, wife killer and flamehorse opponent, extraordinairre
I take red all across the board.
decent list, i had fingers crossed for something bizarre for my bday but this will do
about the time it was turning to your birthday i was eating thai food – scanned this from the takeout menu in a cartoon:
สุขสันต์วันเกิดให้คุณในวันของคุณ
the little dude had a cake and what looked like a birthday tree — hopefully it doesnt say anything about anything vile — have a good one………
Happy bday dude. May you write plenty fun lists.
Ps: no one will actually give you any atention since yesterday was the big event. Jfs bday.
Excellent list. I think FDR's economic stimulus acts (New Deal, etc…) were as important as his declaration of war as it pulled the nation out of the Great Depression. Overall I would have to list FDR as one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had.
hmmmmm….I think everyone nowadays other than the die-hard lefties acknowledges that it was WWII that pulled the US out of the depression, and not the new deal….not even by a long shot.
The top tax rate during the war was 94%. Imagine that… you got to keep only 6 cents out of a whole dollar! Business investment, as a result, was practically impossible. Congress wanted to reduce taxes, which FDR opposed. With the reduction of taxes, investment flourished, and expansion of business, technology, invention, etc., etc., was allowed to happen, and the Depression was over.
FDR prolonged the Depression and used it to get himself re-elected. Like other wealthy liberals who come into big money the easy way (he inherited it), he felt morally superior and entitled to tell everyone else how their's should be spent. He also instituted Social Security, and I would not doubt that he was made fully aware by his number crunchers that the system — like all Ponzi schemes — would eventually fall apart like a cheap life raft and leave everyone depending upon it to drown in debt. He also showed his really ugly anti-Semitic side by denying refugee European Jews the chance to immigrate to the USA when there was still time. He was a two-faced liar like Obama, claiming he'd be the one to correct the mistakes of the spendthrift, non-fiscal-conservative Republican that preceded him. Instead, he not only did not correct them, but he adopted and exceeded them beyond belief.
Please post stupid ***** like this somewhere else
uh, hardly pulled us out of anything, but extended it and I might add we still feel the effects of that vile act.
His economic policies had very little to do with the recovery….WWII was, his policies have come round to bite us in the ass.
I sense an America is good/evil debate coming…
I'm considering making a list, 10 reasons people love/hate America with entries such as "free speech" with the positives and negatives of the US version of free speech from a non US perspective.
I'm not sure why you were TD'd for your comment. I think that sounds like an interesting list and, as an American, I'm definitely intrigued. It would be informative (and kinda awesome) to get a different perspective on some of our core political and social conventions…by all means – write it up.
Again???
I'm British and I have to say I was fully prepared to start screaming 'Too American!' as, in general, the other lists like this seem overly patriotic and insulting to other nations.
However, this list was excellently written and very interesting. The fact that the list is actually about Americans was not the main thing that I was thinking about as I read it, I just thought oooh really, I didn't know that, etc, etc
So well done, brilliant list!
some of the normal dissention often comes from the material presented, and some comes from the way in which it's presented. flame is good at minimalising the latter part.
I applaud your change of attitude but wonder what exactly you're referring to when you say that other lists seem overly patriotic and insulting to other nations. I haven't read ONE lists that fits that description, and I've read pretty much every list in this site.
Too American? I think that clearly the article was discussing American Presidential acts…
Don't the rest of you have Prime Ministers???
god bles Kennedy. HERO!
Then what you're smokin has damaged your few remaining brain cells–The guy was an absolute dufus, not as bad as Oshama, but damn close
I agree, junquman2. JFK was a direct forerunner of Clinton in many ways, from his womanizing to his drug use to his bungling of foreign policy. His only redeeming quality was that he was a veteran (albeit one whose less-than-stellar military career was greatly hyped by his dad) and a gun-owning patriot. I read that his personal M-1 Garand, bought from the government's civilian marksmanship program, was sold for mucho dinero a few years back. Contrast that with "Oshama", as you call him, denying South Korea the right to sell their surplus Garands and M-1 carbines back to American gun collectors on the supposed belief that they may "fall into the wrong hands". Why would a gang-banger or a junkie spend around $500-$1,000 or better on an antique 8-shot rifle or 30-shot carbine (that shoots a bullet in the .38 special power range) when he can spend around $200-$450 on an SKS carbine (there are still some out there) or AK-47 knock-off that can take a 30 round magazine full of ammo that can punch through cinderblock walls?
No way. I'm a die-hard Republican, and everyone from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News has agreed that JFK would have been considered a Republican by today's standards.
Rightwingnews.com states, "By the time Kennedy took office, the top income tax rate had reached 94%. Kennedy originally asked for it to be reduced to 65%, but Congress slashed this down to 70%. During a speech, JFK stated, "the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth …reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking."
And in fact, Kennedy lowered taxes a crap ton more than Bush Jr. did.
"If JFK had been alive today, it is likely he would have switched to the Republican Party. Actual quote from Kennedy: "An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget – just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits."
Conservapedia says, "Kennedy was basically a conservative, but he had to appeal to a primarily liberal base, so he offered symbols for the liberals while following a conservative course in foreign and domestic policy. After his death Kennedy's legacy was picked up by liberals, and there is a vague notion to the effect that Kennedy was a liberal. He was actually more of a conservative..[8]"
I rest my case. Almost as bad as Obama? You've got to be kidding.
Excellent list.
But
Reagan and pax americana??
I just knew that popular but incompetent SOB would make this list somehow.
Gee, how about Reagan and the fall of communism maybe but Pax americana??
No way, just a inbred offshoot of the munroe doctrine the yeilded more cons than pro's.
…. Monroe
Whatever….(oops)
Yes, if anything good came out of his presidency, you must thank his advisers. Simply put, he was at best a figurehead . I'll admit he was charming, had great presence in front of the cameras, and excelled at delivering a speech (as most actors should), but he made no crucial decisions on his own. The few decisions he was allowed to make, the most mundane ones possible (such as the time of which he will deliver his speeches), he consulted a psychic in order to make them.
What is your proof that Reagan did not make any "crucial decisions" on his own?? Where you there? I guess it just fits the liberal revision of history they so often try.
You mean like the time he fired all the air traffic controllers?
Yeah, the ones that tried to shutdown the country by stopping all air traffic. Good job, hired replacments and we never had such a ridiculous problem again. to all you people that are too young to remember the real truth…none of my children, nieces, nephews, has ever had to practice for an air raid drill. None of them really knows what "duck and cover" means. Yeah, I know that would not have saved us, but that goes even more to my point. The cold war ended because of the actions of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul.
An incompetent SOB made the top of the list!
… even if Reagan (and any Republican, for that matter) were literally gods on this earth, they’d still be reviled by the left. There’s a short in their thinking that can never be fixed, IMO.
Kennedy is a hero to me
Me Too. Did some dumb things as well, but recognized the need for special forces in the Military, and stood toe to toe and chin to chin with Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban Missle crisis without blinking.
Well written, and politically well balanced. Flamehorse is one of my favorite submitters (though I would like to see jfrater submit a few more
Good list. I wrote a bit about the Cuban Missile Crisis at Uni. Have to say that Kennedy was also very lucky. I will disagree that other presidents would have been as gung ho as you think, especially in todays environment I wouldn't think that Bush Jr would go crazy. God knows how Obama would ahve handled it either…
Kennedy didn't always have the respect of his military either. The blockade for instance showed that the navy were not happy to follow his direction. Either way, you have to admire the fact he ignored the second letter!
I'd also would have added President Truman to this list simply for the Truman Doctrine, his pushing of the Marshall Plan and the containment of communism and preventing it spreading through post WW2 Europe.
Yeah! Truman and the Marshall plan saved europe from Stalinist/communist hedgemony.javascript:%20postComment(1);
Get rid of Reagan, substitute Truman
“Marshall plan saved europe from stalinist…” ill assume american history&geography teachers and profs are great at their job. So we’re left with the fact that you are daft. Europe is a BIG continent. Spanning from the urals and caspian sea to portugal and from greece to norway.
Now if you dont consider poland, czech republic slovakia, slovenia, poland east of germany to be part of europe, im sorry but ill have to think you are a failure of your educational system.
Yes the truman policy was good for western europe/greece/turkey but you still fail at geography 101.
i'm not a yankee at all, Australian in fact.
And the Marshall plan helped rebuild western europe's infrastructure, particularly west Germany's after the devastation of the war. for example, the countries you mentioned are still in the economic doldrums as a result of communist occupation.
yes I was inaccurate referring to western europe by it'self but i'm sure everyone else here knows what I meant; The marshall plan saved WESTERN europe. Except the Poms, who needed to be saved from themselves.
Regardless of you being australian Arsnl is right. Most american teens couldn't find the U.S. on a map even if you tore up everything but the western hemisphere. I know, I am an american teen, and I can't stand my idiot peers.
EPIC FAIL, ARSNL. FAILED assumption that whoever speaks well of the US is just brainwashed by the American educational system.
And yes, you're right, he should have said Western Europe as opposed to just "Europe," but I'd rather make an error by omission than by stupid, overused, stereotypical, groundless, tired assumption.
Arsnl – hate to say it but you seem pretty incapable of reading. I'm not American either.
The Truman doctrine saved 'Western Europe' from Stalinism and Soviet expansionism. I should have been more clearer to you, although you seemed too quick to point out a non-existant error. The Iron Curtain countries were not allowed to take up the generous offer of stabilisation money from the US as the Soviet Union didn't want them to leave their control.
I'm married to a Czech, and visit Eastern Europe often – and can say that I am fully aware of my geography.
Ask first before sounding like a bit of a prat. Such a pity as your username seems to be the same as my fav football team.
@andres: calm down. I just said he didnt know what europe means. I paid attention not to blame the educational system.
I think you're right about the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. Those two plans helped Europe become powerful again
Minor nitpick on item #7: 31,400,000:620,000 is not proportional with 300,000,000:60,000,000. It's more like 300,000,000:6,000,000 which is much smaller but still a lot (American casualties in WW2 were around 500,000 I think)
I think he put a factor 10 for the extra zing
Also he added extra casulties cuz what if louisiana had WMDs.
No, I hit the zero twice by accident.
What a coincidence! That's exactly what I said about my girl's ex-boyfriend.
It's arrogance like the Monroe Doctrine that creates the climate of loathing felt, in much of the world, for the United States. I get that it was created a long time ago, but an enforced rule, generated on behalf of the US that dictates where other nations may lay their own colonies? How preposterous. What business is it of America's where Italy, the UK, Germany (okay so there was that whole WW2 thing) or any other European 'power' decides to lay a power base? American certainly seems comfortable enough setting up military bases anywhere and everywhere.
If Canada wants to give some land to Russia; well that's Canada's business. If Cuba or Mexico want to secede some territory to Spain, German or Ireland then once again, their business.
The audacity of any nation to dictate what other countries can and cannot do is ridiculous; but then again, I doubt there has ever been a country as pathologically incapable of minding it's own business as the United States.
Totally agree with you here. Does anyone know if it covers the whole of the american continents north and south? If this is the case why did they not intervene in the falklands war??
History would suggest it covers 'where ever the current US administration decide they want to to cover' and 'anywhere the US feels it wants to put it's sticky fingers'.
Sorry. I'm not anti-american, my partners Ohio born and raised but the US foreign policy needs to evolve past the 'get involved in everyones business' stage quicksmart.
It included both North and South America, and the whole reason why the United States did thing was because Europe was still in its whole "taking ***** over" phase. The US did it to protect themselves.
No not Europe, they like to take over *****? I find that shocking , they always seem so fair and unbias
It only covers South America when it's convenient to the States.
Like I said. I'm not anti-american, but you guys need to understand how ALMOST EVERYONE out here sees you. Eventually, this planet is gonna get sick of your country *****ing in everyone else's pool.
And then what…? We will continue to ***** in their pool. We run ***** good sir.
I agree the U.S. does tend to have a great deal of getting all up in everyone else's business. However, oftentimes, we are begged to help. Keep in mind it's not often we just roll our Marines into a nation unprovoked or uninvited … to some greater or lesser degree.
Exactly.
: iraq, grenada, panama, afghanistan, vietnam.
Not often????
International intervention is too complex an issue to simplify into "Begged or unprovoked".
The world complains when the USA sticks its nose in other country's business and begs us to when we don't.
Yeah nobody really begs you. The US news media like FOX just tells you that.
LOL. Well, just to be clear. I don't watch Fox news. They are nothing but a mouthpiece of the GOP and a hotbed of liars.
@Andy. Grenada's debatable. Vietnam, we were asked by the U.N. to help with containment. We may have exceeded the goal there. Afghanistan? Really? How can you possibly cite that one? Kuwait, Somalia, Darfour, Rwanda, Bosnia … shall I continue? We are asked on a regular basis for aid throughout the world.
By the way, this issue is way too complex to discuss overall.
Well said!
That I do agree with,We are a nation of idiots…
The idea was to keep Eurpoe out of what we wanted to steal (the rest of the Hemisphere)
"…pathologically incapable of minding it's own business…" Yeah, that's my country. I'm so proud…
It's arrogance like the Monroe Doctrine that creates the climate of loathing…What business is it of America's where Italy, the UK, Germany (okay so there was that whole WW2 thing) or any other European 'power' decides to lay a power base?
The national security of any country is certainly that country’s business. Some are just better equipped to manage that business than others are. In short, we do it because we can. Would you rather be loathed, or unsafe? If that’s seen as arrogance, so be it. Which is itself an arrogant statement, but what’s the alternative?
If Canada wants to give some land to Russia; well that's Canada's business. If Cuba or Mexico want to secede some territory to Spain, German or Ireland then once again, their business.
Not if those actions are seen as a threat to us. Sorry, but you can’t expect a country to just stand idly by and allow its ability to defend itself be reduced or compromised (a la Russia’s placement of missiles in Cuba).
Yeah; thats a stupid justification. 'Because you can'?
So, do we accept that reasoning from a guy who wants to killer hookers 'because he can'?
How do you equate the statement (paraphrased) “we defend ourselves because we can” as being even remotely similar to “it’s ok to kill hookers”?
By your logic England was in the wrong when it declared war on Germany for invading Poland.
I was surprised however that Monroe was largely ignored by Reagan during the Falklands war – and someone please explain to me why England is justified in holding that corner of the world.
Same reason The US holds onto Hawaii. They want it.
"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return"
Hanley is a idiot.
You've clearly never been to US armed forces base abroad (yes, they never leave). The main one in South Korea, for example, is easy to spot on a map. It's downtown, prime real estate, some of the most expensive in the world (I'm tens of thousands of dollars per square meter). The land is worth billions…and that's only one US base out of many in South Korea.
You're overlooking the context of the actual Monroe Doctrine. Had it been created in the last decade or even century I would agree with the post, but it was penned in the 1820's. The U.S. was just coming out of a depression after the War of 1812, which itself brought back memories of the Revolution (both a result of Imperialism we can agree was even worse than modern US foreign policy). It makes a lot of sense all things considered, and all the original document really said was "you stay out of our hemisphere, we'll stay out of ours". If anything that was good news for a European continent still reeling and weak from Napoleon. Neither side wanted (or could afford) hostilities, and the Monroe doctrine was an extension of the sentiment.
I was going to state a well thought out and politically, and morally viable argument for this, but you would just continue to rage and so I cam to the conclusion of simply stating this.
DEAL WITH IT OR DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Alright boy let me lay this out for you. America protected the South American countries from the European powers so that they could have independence. We got involved with Cuba because they were aiming missiles at us, and I am damn sure you would be a bit peeved if your neighbor was aiming weapons at you! When we don't intervene with other countries, we are irresponsible, when we intervene we are nosy. How about this, when the rest of the world stops putting dictators into power, and shows a little goddamn competence, then we will leave them alone. We go where we are needed, and leave a small base in case if you need us again. We shed our blood for your bigotry, I have to say sir, you are racist against Americans. I am not saying the rest of the world cannot get along without us, but if we don't do what we do, many will die, contrary to popular belief we are not savages, or imperialists. We do not take the countries we defeat.We give them a leader, help, and their country back. We kill the bogey men in the closet, and ask nothing in return, but a little respect. So in summery, go ***** yourself , don't talk about ***** you know nothing about.
Firstly America did not protect the South American countries from the European powers so that they could have independence. If independence was the aim then you are left in a quandary as to explain the Platt Amendment that effectively established Cuba as an American protectorate. Secondly, the United States ‘got involved’ in Cuba long before missiles were pointed at the US mainland. The Bay of Pigs and CIA operations came before Soviet missiles on Cuba and even before Cuba chose to ally itself with the Soviet Union and adopt Marxism Leninism. Thirdly the Cold War was in large part characterised by the establishment of dictators by the United States. The Congo crisis is just one example of many where U.S intervention led directly to a dictator taking power, in this case Mobuto. Lastly you should be open to the concept that the extension of power does not rest upon whether you ‘take the countries we defeat’.
This was an informative list. However, is there such a thing as a “good war”? That very term seems an oxymoron at best. I know that some conflicts have been and are unavoidable, but war should be used as a last resort when all diplomatic avenues have been utilized and have failed. Unnecessary wars fueled by lies, falsified intelligence and greed should be avoided at all costs.
Ronald Reagan’s legacy has been blown way out of proportion. I’ll admit that he was a good president especially in the light of a number of his successors, but his greatest asset was that he was an actor. My mother used to say watching his press conferences were akin to watching the old episodes of “GE Theater”.
Number one was an intriguing and fitting choice.
I think "good war" is referring more so to the morally just cause of a war rather than just for economic gain of some sort.
Tremendous job old bean. Perhaps LBJ and his civil rights reform may have got a mention. Cheerio.
And Post Toasty to you.
When you look at some at the people on this list, you begin to think that maybe that George Bush wasn`t so bad after all. I`d forgotten what an arsehole Ronald Reagan was. Supported Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, when he was fighting the USSR,(then again that seemed like a good idea at the time) Iran-Contra, nearly starting World War III, ("We start bombing Russia in 5 minutes,") invasion of Grenada, "The Evil Empire," nonsense, thinking talking like Rambo was "cool," you could go on forever. And why was World War II "The Good War?" Their`s nothing good about war to me. People say, "we got rid of a mass-murderer." True. But we got an even bigger mass-murderer in his place.
hey hey hey easy now dont get carried away , John Rambo WAS cool
I know that Rambo is cool. But TRYING to be like him? I still remember what he said-"And in the spirit of Rambo, we`re gonna win this time." UGH. It`s even worse than George Bush and "Their`s an old poster out West, saying wanted-Dead or Alive." And at least we all know that Bush was an idiot. Reagan was just an arsehole full stop.
OK true it is lame trying to be like him , its embarrassing ……….the worst was when my family had that intervention to get me to take off my red bandanna .
Their`s nothing wrong with wearing a bandanna. I wanted the Rambo Knife. All I ever had and still have is my sword with Sharks teeth.
when i was a kid here in SA they had these cool toys after Rambo came out they were called "survival knives" a look alike combat knife with a hollow handle that came with all sorts of stuff from sewing kit to mini fishing rod , the knife looked exactly like rambo's except it had a compass in the hilt . It was *****ty quality with a plastic handle & stainless steel blade ( which doesn't sharpen too nicely) the point wasn't sharp either . It came with a small oil stone to sharpen . That was the BEST toy back in the day . When i had that thing when i was 7 i WAS *****ing Rambo i sharpened that piece of ***** knife constantly but it was never really more deadly than a normal silver ware knife(that still didn't stop me from running around the bush like a madman) . I went through like 5 of those things they were the best.
LOL!
I'm anything but a Reagan fan, I grew up in Canada and the eight years he was in office were the scariest of my life, I was certain we were all gonna get nuked due to his hardline stance against the Soviets (check out the Wikipedia entry on Able Archer 83). You mention supporting Saddam Hussein and OBL, that was a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and was kind of shortsighted in retrospect. Finally, I saw a political cartoon once relating his "we start bombing in five minutes crack", it was a split panel with Reagan on one side saying that line, on the other side was the Soviet premier (might have been Chernenko) saying, "The US has announced we have been outlawed and will begin bombing in five minutes…we begin retaliation in 30 seconds." Brilliant.
I hate that-"the enemy of my enemy is my friend," crap. It`s just because there on our side, it doesn`t matter that there mass-murderers. The prime example of course is after World War II, because Nazis hated communism they were our new best friend. Makes me want to throw up.
Didn't say I believed it dude. Just stating a fact.
Well its not true.. We were giving aid to both Iraq and Iran so they could kill each other.. And We supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, not Osama Bin Laden.. BIG DIFFERENCE! You should read more..
Agree substantially here except "we got an even bigger mass murderer in his place".
Sorry, Stalin was already in power, had already indirectly murdered millions of people even before ww2.
And George Bush (jr) has to be the worst US president on record, having preciptiated the global economic meltdown by his doctrinaire removal of controls on the financial markets.
Alright then, he was still in power at the time, BUT he`d still killed millions hadn`t he? About 20 to 60 MILLION. And he`d directly killed millions. The Kulaks, the Katyn Massacre, the Ukrainians, the people he`d sent into exile in Siberia, letting his own son die.. And this man is still seen as a great man in Russia, because he helped win the War. And he wasn`t even Russian. If a German said Hitler was a great man, because he got rid of unemployment and hyperinflation he`d be put in prison.
@Armadillotron
The whole Communist Regime was non-Russian for the most part with nearly the entire first governemt over 300 out of 360 top functionaires being exiled Pale of Settlement Jews from New York.
You do know the death toll attributed to Stalin is totally debunked when the archives were released and even the Black Book of Communism 20 million figure comes up to that by including famines that were natural not man-made using the highest estimates possible.
Churchill killed millions of people in the British colonies.
"History is wrote by the winners."
Sorry mate but Clinton actually started the reform process that allowed the beginning of the end of the financial markets. Bush just continued them.
I am no American history buff ( since, well, I'm not American ) but I have my doubts about Washington refusing kingship with "We must. As we trust in God, we must." Namely, the God part seems out of character.
You obviously don't know ANY American history.
Washington stated that we didn't fight to throw off the shackles of King George the Third just to trade it for King George the First. Look it up.
Its true, he wholeheartedly refused absolute power, its one of the things we are proud of.
Some issues: “which means supporting Jews, which tends to irritate Muslims” should i understand that muslims are kinda anti-jewish? How many muslims do you know from your mighty liberal town of raleigh NC? When did you last see anti-jewish protests in morocco or indonesia or senegal?
“Everyone asks the question today of why the U. S. did not simply drop nuclear warheads on Vietnam and be done with it”
Who’s the idiot who asked that? Who is actually so daft? Oh i forgot teabaggers. Im sure you must be one of them. Go glen. Go glen.
Also i didnt even see one of those cambodian parties Nixon threw. Belive you me. They were FUN. Lotsa fun losta laffs. Carpet bombing is way better than twister: 2 million people displaced, 700.000-1.000.000 people dead and it all helped to install the khmer rough into power. Yeah the most oppresive regime known to mankind. I wonder if there’s an american thing: the more religious a president is, the more deaths are to result?
Continued:
” excellent diplomacy with Mao’s China, and the relationship continues today.”
Are europeans seeing a different image of the world? Do teabaggers not see the the chinese-taiwan conflict and the fact that the us cant do anything? Do they not see the fact that NK or Iran depend on China, and the us cant do anything unless the ask the chinese time and time again to support them? Do you not see that the chinese are ACTIVELY pursuing a policy to control trade rutes in their region of the world CHALLENGING us domination. If you dont believe me, read in the ny time that they are developing long range missiles capable or sinking aircraft carriers long before these can deploy and attack chinese territory. What does that mean: build as many aircraft carriers as you want, you’ll never be able to use them.
So much for excellent relationships.
“But opponents have considered Russia as a state of abiding anarchy … Most of its leaders have been cited as corrupt or incompetent since 1989″
Have you ever heard of putin? No? Let me tell you about him. He’s kind of a short bloke with mean temperament. Ex kgb. He came forward in 1999-2000 and said well this country is in a big mess. *work work work scrub scrub scrub”. What did he do after 10 years? Well he jailed or exiled most of the oligarchy that opppsed him and created a state where he’s the DADDY. That helped him: wage “war” with a country that was an us ally without suffering any blow. Made NATO do HIS will by REFUSING membership action plan for ukraine and georgia. This meant that these 2 countries will rest under russian influence (in fact ukraine has now a very russo-phil president). It was the FIRST time nato REFUSED to follow to us policy. (And now obama stopped the construction of the eastern european shield “against iran”). Not too shabby for a corrupt lider in an anarchic country.
Continued (i just want to avoid moderation):
I fail to understand how you managed to include Churchill but not one mention of Stalin or the fact that Zhukov did most of the work defeating nazi germany.
I also dont see any mention of the YALTA conference.
Let me give you a quote from FDR about Stalin: ” he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace”.
Reread this flamy boy. Now back to yalta. FDR and churchill (who also said he trusted stalin) were happily to give poland to the soviets all because stalin said “sowwy i pwomise nevwa to do that again”. At that conference the map of europe was devided in to spheres of influence. It didnt matter that the poles thought, it didnt matter what any other country desired. Stalin said SORRY. So thats enough. Kisses and hugz. The last good war my a**. A freakin opressive regime was fighting another one.
“This compromise saved everyone, and by his political wrangling, America didn’t even lose face”
We’re not in 1963-1964, man. We’re in 2010 and we know that the soviets moved some abombs from point a to point b and back to point a and the us had to withdraw their rockets (or some im not sure) from turkey. Conclusion: the us lost more the soviets. Game point to USSR.
And go do some readin on who Vasili Arkhipov was. You’ll learn something.
If you want to write a list do it properly. Be balanced and read some books (not written by glen or sarah)
All and all i think you learnt some history today flamey boy. No need to thank me. Just sit back and think a little aboit what i said. You’ll thank me later
Such a pity. You might have actually sounded better without abusing the author.
And to then accuse him of following Glen or Sarah like it is some form of insult is pathetic.
It is. Never listen to anyone that leans too far to either side.
Are you usually this stupid, or is today something special. He stayed perfectly balanced, now I am liberal, and even to me you seem like a, well for a lack of a better term, a *****, and I do not mean your gay, I mean your just a *****. I cannot describe the vast quantities of fail I just read, you sir just gave me cancer, please do not reproduce.
i don`t really care about us history but nice list anyway i was hoping to see obama but oh well..
For what? What has he done to be considered alongside those men?
What`s good about Obama? I honestly thought he was different from Bush. Instead he gets a Peace Prize the day he annouced he was sending more troops to Afghanistan! That was nearly as bad as when Henry Kissinger got it. I still think he should be behind bars.
he is black!!
So? This list is about what they've done, not who they are. I think you missed the whole point bud. I'll grant that being the first black president is an accomplishment, but what has he done as president? That's what I think the aim of this list is.
The only thing I don`t like Obama is how he hates us. Because his Dad was tortured by us. What *****es me off even more though is how people keep comparing Obama to HITLER. Yes, Hitler. What the hell does he have in common with Hitler?
your comment is so retarded you redneck idiot
LOL, what are you smoking there?! Who compares them ?! XDXD
the pic of Roosevelt looks like a lack dude too .
@bluesman: yeah i noticed too
Rememeber that black nationalist group from the louis theroux documentaries. I bet they’ll start saying he’s actually an MJ black
@cddolt: he’s getting you people out of the mess bush got you in. And people dont hate you as much, cuz he’s kinda nice guy.
@armacoq: “Because his Dad was tortured by us” ill take that as one of your typicall statements, but even if it were true wouldnt you hate those people
Obama will come with the "10 Worst Presidents" list just be patient.
hey flamehorse
Yet another great list! Keep it up!
Any list from which I learn something new is a great list, this being a perfect example.
Anyways, sorry for being off the topic– but Flamehorse or anyone else..if you have the time can you make a list on any of the following topics..I wanted to make some myself but I have to study..and I can't write as well as you people do heh heh
Top 10 Amazing Faberge Eggs
Top 10 Detectives in Literary Fiction
Top 10 Most Depressing Movies ever (I hope you include Requiem for a Dream and Graves of the fireflies)
Top 10 Feel-Good movies (I know it sounds a bit stupid)
I had a few more but forgot.
Grave of the fireflies is the saddest film ever, even though it was an animation it was just so real. It was beautiful. I’m welling up just talking about it :’(
Don't talk yourself down Geronimo. I think you could write a fabulous list. A bunch of the lists on here are about as attractive as an autopsy and stink just as bad. Keep it short and simple, don't make stuff up and have someone who knows grammar and vocab check your list before submission. They aren't checked too thoroughly by the looks of it. Get your own little piece of interwebs history on this site. I have two and its about time for me to write another!
*still off topic*
–i finished one of those last week
go to forums, p.m. me
How can we forget clinton here. He showed the world how down to earth (???) a President can be. In some manners, literally. At the end of the day, he's just a man.
Clinton is a legend. He proved that he`s just like you or me.
What? Getting blown by a fatty or two, selling the United States to NAFTA and exposing gay military personnel? I havent done any of that.
No no noooo. No noo. No. Tell me he isnt like you. Please tell me he doesnt think that colonialism was a great thing. Or many other things.
Reagan was stupid, but was a president at a lucky time. Like Obama. And like Taft. Kennedy was a lucky president at a stupid time, a time of assisinations. An assisan is unlucky, but they live. Also King who would have made a better black president because he’s black and not Hawaiian. I also did not like when Elenaor Roosevelt was president. We had Eva Peron who was good but E. Roosevelt did let everyone blame things on FDR which was wrong. Peron did that to Juan and Che but she had more charisma.
* w * … * t * … * f * …… ? … ? … ! … ?
It cant be all bad. To my understanding he’s talking a lot about ass.
Something pushes me to start decoding his message. “An assisan is unlucky, but they live”
Thats deep man. Thats deep. I think i might get the answer to the meaning of life. Like something greater than 42. I think it also has the code to the whereabouts of osama. Hawaii or the place where E Roosevelt was president (the roosevelt household or something like that)
i would tell you that i think youre over-thinking this, but i like where youre going….
help millard fillmore find osama, so we can show armidildo that he *does* exist.
You completely lost me at "Reagan".
(s)he lost me at "milliard"………
…….and again at "stupid"…….
…………….and at "taft" ???………………………
….and…and
But hey, at least we learned that MLK wasn't Hawaiian LOL.
hahahaha
this is as good a time as any to point out that (s)he didnt say mlk ——- king mswati of swaziland is black, and not hawaiian.
and obama being president "at a lucky time" is quite astute.
without the "we had peron" referencce, i'd almost think we had mississippi's worst elementary school history teacher of all time, here.
and boy o boy did elanor roosevelt get jyped — she doesnt appear in my roommate's western civ. book with all the rest of the u.s. presidents.
I just assumed (I know, bad move on my part) that (s)he was referring to MLK. But based on the rambling and incoherent quality of the post I guess I shouldn't take anything for granted.
The king of Swaziland is a dangerous retard , his country is so poor yet he lives in sickening opulence , his country has the highest percentage of HIV positive people in the world 40% but last month he says aids is bull***** people shouldn't fear it .I think he got aids from one of his wives and he's trying to pull the rest of the crabs back into the pot . Any way …….. Swaziland has made excellent contributions to south African weed stock so i cant be that mad at him…
This is what happens when someone eats a whole box of dramamine.
WOW! Did someone forget their medication today?
“Also King who would have made a better black president because he’s black”
Thank god to that. Imagine if he were a white black president. He’d get all the stick.
I thought that's what Obama was
he does get all the crap. You are right
"Kennedy was a lucky president at a stupid time, a time of assisinations."
That's the most profound statement ever. It was a stupid time, wasn't it?
yeah — it's just too bad that was the only sentence in that post that made any kind of sense whatsoever.
its likda like those posts from brock. in a string of twelve comments, 11 of them were a reference to being bored / *****ty lists / etc….., and the other one, the one in the middle, was smart. but the 6 prior, and 5 post – comments, hazed the intuitiveness of the 1 good one.
well, i suppose the taft comment made sense too — it was just so randomly placed that it threw me off for a couple hours.
Have you ever studied history?
im not american but they are great
Hahahaha!! Reagan on this list. If it was a list of worst presidents ever, sure! But not this one surely!!
America doesn’t exist. It’s a conspiracy theory created by Europe so they can secretly replace tea with coffee.
loooooooooool
Ronald Reagan and the Pax Americana? How about Ronald Reagan and the destruction of America? The economic mess you're in right now is a direct result of Reagan's dismal monetary policies. Trickle down economics? Any idiot can tell you that it won't work. Can't. The rich folks are always gonna throw up a damn to stop the flow. It's human nature. The climate of greed that he started has been allowed to flourish by subsequent administrations. And look where it got you. Broke. Unless of course you're in the 1% club. The 1% (it could be a little more eh?) that hold more of the wealth than the other 99%.
Reagan was honest in his rhetoric and a decent man; it's unfortunate that he was wrong so often.
Geeesh dont you see that those 1% represent the american dream? How could you make those 99% to keep spending the little money that they have without a “goal”, without the promiss that one day, if the work enough and believe, that they will be rich? And those 99% have to be convinced to hate taxes and taxes for the rich, cuz when those 99% will be rich they will have to pay those taxes. People dont ask when they’ll be rich, they just know they dont want tl pay taxes when they will be. Thats plain stupid. Look at how many people hate “social” health care. Geesh you got me started. I hate that. Im still on vacation. I wanna relax not blow a fuse.
Another commie mommy?
" Lincoln’s act loses rank on this list, however, for two reasons in particular: the Proclamation never accounted for the border states, which were neither Confederate nor Union, and were allowed to keep the institution of slavery; and the Proclamation came far too late to be worth anything, since the War had already been raging for 2 years, and the Confederates had no intention of honoring Lincoln’s orders until forced to do so."
You pointed out that he didnt actually do what he is remember for. I agree with you. Why is he on the list then? It seems as though its politically incorrect to make a greatest presidents list without mentioning Lincoln. I cant help it, everytime I see Lincoln being praised as a president I get really annoyed. This guy threw democracy out the window. Sic semper tyrannis!
I agree… The Emancipation Proclamation did absolutely nothing.
At the time the southern states were the CSA. To southerners, they were a separate country. What remained of the USA still considered the southern states part of the US.
What does this mean? Well it would be the same as Germany saying that no citizen of the US could eat pizza ever again. Americans would laugh and Germans would be flabbergasted that the US isn't listening.
If Lincoln really wanted to abolish slavery in the US he should have freed the slaves in the north first, (There were still some slaves in the northern states until 1865) and not try to pass laws in regions he had no control over.
Thank you!
Damn this is a good list. Well written and ever so informative. Several of those Presidents had some bad raps so it was actually pretty cool to see someone get their greater moments into the limelight (even if they didn't overcome the perceived damage they may have caused in the long run)
Not again…one more america inspired list
Dont worry YET another Monarch list coming tomorrow
I did submit a follow-up list about a month ago. It's new and improved with more detail and better grammar!
Cant wait
I'm not into politics but this list is awesome. Abraham Lincoln is my favorite American president.
I think I might have done it, finally. I spent about a week, off and on, drafting this list, to try to be as fair as I possibly could. I didn't count up the Dems versus Reps. Except for #s 10, 9, 6 and 3, most of the others are Reps, but I included two Dems at #s 1 and 2. I'm conservative myself, not affiliated with either party. I make up my own mind.
Here's a controversial, but non-inflammatory list. I never intended to irritate anyone with any of my lists, and as I very obviously have done so in the past I apologize. This one's a good list, I think.
I think you did just fine, FlameHorse. You're always going to have someone tell you what you should have done/said. You can't please all of the…yadda, yadda, yadda.
What's the point of assembling cookie cutter, bland lists? Lists that make you THINK, that inform you, that make you put facts together in different ways without being purposefully inflammatory or controversial are the BEST lists. Just view the contrary posts as proof that you have indeed done your job!
Freia
yes, this is a good list.
And if it's the truth, it should not matter if someone is irritated.
It's an excellent list, FlameHorse. It doesn't matter whether or not people are going to agree with you on every item, you researched beautifully, wrote beautifully, and produced a list of outstanding value.
Your hard work paid off FlameHorse. I could tell you were trying to be as fair as possible. Really nice job on this one.
It was a great list, ignore the people who seem to think it is funny to send abuse online.
Keep it up!
FlameHorse, very good list. Very well researched and carefully thought out. I'm hoping you can do the opposite list as well. I actually learned a few things from your list. Thanks much for your hard work on this one. Great job.
I like the list in general but hate all the biased points. I think it's hard to write unbiased but I think most of these lists need to be more objective.
I think this list is very objective. Most Americans lean one way or the other on the political spectrum, and flamehorse has praised the actions of both sides. The comments are a different story, and some of them really show how Americans have an "us versus them" mentality. I mourn for the "united" part of the USA.
Yeah, after the US saved you from being occupied by the Germans
Canada says hi.
Yeah, but only after pearl harbor was attacked not when the jews were being killed
That's the same thing a lot of Americans say when someone criticizes the US. So I guess being saved from a dictatorship warrants some kind of gratitude.
Then tell me, where was that gratitude when we helped you win the American Revolution? That's right, without the Netherlands, you'd still be a part of England.
When you started your revolution, you were woefully undersupplied. But luckily the Dutch braved the English to supply you with your much needed muskets and blackpowder. Did we stop when the English attacked us? No sir. In fact, we were the first to start diplomatic relations with your country. If that isn't worth some gratitude, I reckon nothing is.
And don't get me started on how we practically laid the foundations for your country with our settlements in the America's.
Washington:
"He led by example more than anything, because the country was just getting started and did not yet have terrible internal problems such as civil war, civil rights, etc."
I'm not sure what to say about that statement. It's either shows a lack of attention to what you're writing, or a serious lack of an understanding of how this country was founded. The country had NOTHING BUT terrible internal problems, including a complete lack of structure for governance, no financial framework, simplistic trade agreements, etc. etc – all wrapped up with infighting and bickering as to how to solve these problems. These internal problems that you brushed aside threatened to tear down the country before it had a chance to get started. It took a man like Washington to lead us all through it, having the political ability and personal skills to get people to move forward.
I'm sorry, but I didn't read much of the list after that.
Violin.
Same here. I didn't even comment past this one. I just think the list is interesting. That's all I have to say.
I think you're a little off here. The Monroe Doctrine was created to prevent other imperial powers from settling the western hemisphere. It was specifically designed to protect the soverignty of the United States. It has allowed the U.S. to have the longest unsecured peaceful border in the world. It has allowed other nations in the western hemisphere to declare their independence from other imperial powers who oppressed their colonies. That policy has allowed the U.S. to become a superpower in the world in less than 200 years. The philosophical protection it created for the U.S. allowed Americans to focus on developing a government by the people and for the people proving it unnecessary to rely on either religion or birth to detemine leaders.
What you´re saying doesnt necessarily discount Armin´s argument. You´re saying that the Monroe Doctrine was designed to protect US interests and allow the US to become a superpower. It created a philosophical protection for the US… You see how that works? It was a policy that didnt really take into account the interests and soverignty of other states on the American continent (Central and South America). It also set a precedent of interventionism in order to "protect American interests abroad" that wreaked havoc on governments in many countries, some with visible repercussions to this day. So yeah, Americans might praise the Monroe Doctrine but dont think most people in Central and South American will agree with you.
Given Central and South America are no longer under the control of European imperial states and are free to govern themselves … they may tend to disagree with you. Given the staggering numbers of those peoples who leap across our border illegally … indicates to me they tend to like the protection afforded to them by the Monroe Doctrine. I'm just saying.
Given the number of people who leap the border illegally, prohibiting European intervention maybe wasn't the wisest thing to do. And it indicates to me they like the wealth afforded by the Monroe doctrine. Which they may have had, if the US didn't topple their governements because of the Monroe doctrine, and installed dictators. I'm just saying
God bless Ronald Reagan! America sure could use a man like this now.
An Alzheimer's victim?
I'd take that over an idiot who vacations every week *cough*obama*cough* anyday.
You must have loved Dumya. Man spent more time on vacation than any president in history, even after he sent our men and women off to die for his oil cronies. Went golfing and said he was doing it for all the boys. What a *****ing hero.
What a douchebag you are.
Little late to the party, aren't ya? And with such a witty retort! Truly you are an inspiring example of the public school system here in the good ol' U.S. of A., as well as a shining example of fetal alcohol syndrome. Any of your parents' kids live or were they all stillborn like you? Go ***** yourself, you right wing piece of ***** *****. Oh, and have a nice day, retard.
So you weren't a big fan of Dumya, I take it. More days spent on vacation than any president in history. Yeah, he got a lot of good work done. LOL
I figured people would be saying his greatest act was that time he played George Gipp.
He should have listened to W.C. Fields, "Never Work With Children Or Animals"…a sentiment a heartily second!
And I still like George better than Ronnie…he was smarter, though not better looking.
Just look at the two wars and the economic mess we're in right now. He might be gone, but his failed legacy still haunts us.
Wow sounds like the argument dems used while bush was in office…. i'm glad republicans like it too
Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was an illegal and unconstitutional act – otherwise why did we need an amendment to free the slaves a few years later?
Also, Lincoln did not want to free slaves, he said so many times. He preferred to ship them to Liberia or Haiti.
True, and he also did it to make sure that France did not enter the war on the south's side.
I think this is one of the best political lists I've read. I do believe it was unbiased and I'd love it if people could separate their politics from their political party. At the end of the day, I want a country that runs well. Yes, I believe my particular party has better ideas for that, but I can be open to the other side…
Great list, as usual, FlameHorse! I'm no expert in history but I do love the subject.
Where`s Dwight Einsenhower? Exclude the fact that he was a mass-murderer, The "Military Industrial Complex," speech, makes more sense today than it did then that`s a dead cert.
MacArthur should have been President, not Ike
Mass murder????? What a dumbass you are!
Great List, well written, good job!
Not as many "Too American" comments as I thought there would be. One question: Without America what would there be to complain about? Yes that's sarcasm you hear.
God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.
America, my dear land,
Where bigfoots roam the countryside,
And chupacabras suck the farm-goats dry,
Where UFO's descend on my backyard every Thursday,
And in the deep dark country roads Mothmen ply.
This makes me laugh because people post comments like this and expect people not to say that Americans are too patriotic. It's kind of like trying to lure us into a trap lol nobody fall for it.
Anyway I'm English and I have no problem with America. When I went they were some of the kindest people I've seen, and anyway who cares if they are patriotic I think England would be if we had only just been formed like 200 years ago so don't be cruel and let them have their moment.
(the second to last sentence should read "the general thrust OF item #2")
Good points to consider. I'd have liked to get a lot of info into each item, but the list is already quite long, so I left some out. About the sloppiness, yeah, it is kinda sloppy. Sorry.
No worries! That's just one guy's humble opinion, and you'll always get an absolute arse such as myself piping up when you have your list submitted on this site. Although hopefully at least my comments aren't downright ruuuude like a lotta' contributors to this site (Randall, Woyzek – yeah you heard me!).
: )
Suck my anus, Smithy!
(Woyzeck always gives the audience what they want).
Then why haven't you disappeared forever into a cloud of noxious dust?
That's near the bottom of my to-do list, after "***** everybody in the world with my enormous throbbing cock".
(Woyzeck always leaves the audience wanting less).
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday dear America,
Happy Birthday to you.
O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern impassion'd stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev'ry gain divine!
O Beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
You guys would be better suited to trying out for Glee than The Great Debaters. Not a single useful thought to be found in a head full of simple propaganda.
#10 should #1, it was the catalyst that eventually led the US to a constitution, and the balance three equal branches of government.
haha number 7. your maths don't quite add up..
New to listverse like to just tell all love this sight so intresting and find myself on it for hours everytime great site keep it up
Glad you liked it. There's a little button on your keyboard that has a right-pointing slice of pizza, and a little dot under it. Push that one now and then, and people will thank you.
Btw: i would like to add some of my personal fav ruler acts that did good:
Napoleon III ‘s demand for the haussmann renovation of Paris. It was a big change that made the city so beautiful and loved.
Gorbachev’s glasnost policy, it gave more freedom to speech.
Im not an expert about this one but surely clement atlee’s introduction of the nhs has to be good move.
Glad everyone liked it who liked it. I expected a flame war, but it's not that bad this time.
Haha well down FH. To be honest there havent been too many "great" Presidential Acts so to come up with 10 is hard to argue with!
It was a bit too optimistic in some parts but it’s a valiant effort on your part (hell people cant be pleased on a talking donkey list). You put much work into it. Congratz dude. Fine list.
When I read the title of this list, the only thing I could think of is "Its FlameHorse" because no one else could make a awesome list like you
Awww thank you! How much I owe?
Suck him much?
I usually find the subject of political history way too boring to ever bother lifting a finger to turn the next page.
But that's where this site fills the gap. Having a list like this written by one of our best authors (besides Jamie) makes the subject more accessible and I feel smarter for it.
Thanks for keeping history in a nutshell, and in words even my teenage son can grasp.
Great list flame. I once again thought this would be very boring to read but this wasn’t the case. Any list that puts Kennedy at No.1 has to be a good thing as, yes, he’s a hero as others have said. Both Kennedy and Lincon both tried to bring in tax free money (or a variant), and both paid with their lives.
Not trying to be argumenative or anything but Neither Lincoln nor Kennedy's deaths had much if anything to do with taxes. Lincoln was shot because Booth had the twisted idea that ot would make him a hero to the South and him and those he conspired with felt that the Civil War had been Lincolns fault, and Kennedy was shot because Oswald was an extremely disturbed man.
FLamehorse, I love your lists, however this one is poorly written not in eloquence, but the information is largely wrong (especially #1, watch the documentary "the red button" we have come closer).Anyways was too tuired to nitpick but half are not well researched, and look right out of a high school text
How can anybody hate a country that gave the world Ranch Dressing and Ice Cream?
What's ranch dressing?
Quite simply the greatest condiment ever made. You can mix it with ketchup & bbq sauce. It goes great with potatoes of any kind, all raw vegetables, cheese stix, chicken tenders, beef skewers etc, etc. When in powder form it makes a great seasoning in burgers. It's used in conjuction with wing sauce in some establishments, and even goes well with some marinades. An abomination it clearly isn't. Typical American, fattening concoction?….Well, yes.
Simple. Ranch dressing is truely an abomination to any even half-classed palate. It at least deserves great vexation towards those who use it as an all-purpose condiment for everything from fries and pizza to carrots and pretzels.
Next you'll have a Utahn extolling frysauce. Where, oh where, is this world headed under such leadership.
together?
~yuck~
Educational history lesson today – Thanks Flame.
How come Kennedy is such a hero for solving a mess he created himself?
He didn’t create any mess. He’s seen as a “hero” for being able to successfully avert a threat to our country’s security, peacefully and without resorting to means that would conceivably have led to self-destruction.
If he hadn't stuck to that nonsense Monroe doctrine, everything would've been fine.
If you think “everything would be fine” by just allowing a potential enemy to have you by the balls, you’re a fool.
Maggot i think armin means to say that such incidents like the bay of pigs invasion werent very kosher. It helped radicalise the cubans.
Or why not google this guy: Vasili Arkhipov?
Agreed, Kennedy did a good job avoiding the disaster (though at the time it was thought that the soviets would invade berlin if the us invaded cuba) but its amazing what kind of generals you had.
"a potential enemy to have you by the balls, you’re a fool." you tried to give your potential enemy a slap across the head.
Bay of Pigs was more of an inherited problem for Kennedy than one that he created on his own. It was a total debacle and an embarrassment for anyone involved, including Kennedy himself, but don't blame him for it. It's like a Tea Party nutjob blaming Obama for the economic crisis, and I'm certain you wouldn't be flattered by that comparison
Actually, what I meant was that the placing of missiles on Cuba didn't significantly change the power balance between the US and the USSR. So provoking the Soviets with the blockade wasn't necessary. And with that provocation Kennedy put the entire world in great peril.
And the Soviets didn't have the US by the balls. A few rockets on Cuba didn't matter on a greater scale, since the great number of ICBM's in Russia itself was the main threat to the US. It was a game of chicken to see who had the greatest cojones, and it was a irresponsible thing to do.
Admittedly, he repaired the mess he made. But I just think repairing one's own mess isn't heroic, but just the right thing to do.
A few rockets on Cuba didn't matter on a greater scale, since the great number of ICBM's in Russia itself was the main threat to the US.
I don’t believe Russia-based missiles at the time had the range to reach the US mainland, which is why placing them in Cuba was a big deal. They had demonstrated that capability with their space program, but I don’t think the technology was implemented in their ICBMs yet. I could be wrong there but even if so, launching from Cuba still gave them faster strike capability, which did affect the power balance.
But it didn't affect the power balance enough to risk all out nuclear war. It was a risky thing to do, and he not only gambled with American lives, but also European ones.
That is not true at all. If missiles in Cuba weren't a big deal, neither would have been the missiles in Turkey, which Khrushchev damn well wanted to get rid of. And much less the CURRENT defense missiles that the US wanted to put in the Ukraine to "protect itself from Iran." Have you seen Russia's reaction at all? They've threatened violence in retaliation to a DEFENSIVE SYSTEM. And we're talking about the 21st century, an era in which the US sure enough has the firepower to annihilate Russia even without missiles installed in the Ukraine. And look at the mayhem it's caused. Now let's go back 40 years, at the height of the Cold War, when distance was MUCH BIGGER A DEAL than it is right now. You can't possibly be serious when you say that placing missiles within striking distance of ALL major cities in the East Coast of the United States was not going to alter the balance of power. You seriously can't. And on top of that, you've got that bearded madman on that island, who REPEATEDLY SAID to Khrushchev that he wanted the USSR to launch preemptive strikes on the US, WELL KNOWING that the immediate aftermath of this would be a full-blown invasion of Cuba by American forces.
Once again, you truly can't expect to be seriously if you think that placing missiles within 90 miles of a country does not change things. You really, really, really, REALLY cannot.
@andres: Well unlike with economy he could have stopped it. It was a millitary attack *about* to happen. Not something that was impossible to stop. And i love tea and never drink coffee
@armin:Im sorry dude but even though 3 nukes wont be a *major* threat i still wouldnt like to a miami rezident during that time. Just like the soviets were mad about the turkey issue, they were poking each other and only dangerous issue was when they were throwing bombs at russian submarines. THAT was a very dangerous thing to do but its the army’s fault. And you know that the army isnt full of the smartest people out there.
You're right, but I'm saying, Kennedy didn't exactly mastermind the Bay of Pigs invasion. It's not that he *made* a mistake, it's that he could have *prevented* a mistake and he didn't. Which, one could argue, is a mistake on itself, but the bottom line is that Kennedy did **not** create the mess in the first place