Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
They may want to, but there's no place to hide. We've been there and done that. WW1 & WW2 were pretty much the result of the US letting the world run amok until we had no other choice or option other than full military commitment.
Of course that perspective requires Americans to actually read and understand history. Good luck on that!
Americans never wanted to be on the wold stage and the founding fathers warned about it. As to ww1 - if it wasn't for W. Wilson, who for a second term used the slogan 'He kept us out of war.' there might have never been a ww2, a militarized USSR, and problems in the Middle East.
As to the Pacific, there might have been a war with Japan. But, without a war in Europe FDR might not have cut off oil supplies to Japan.
The US has been preparing for, fighting and recovering from war since 1905
Sorry- I forgot that all that stuff was Wilson's fault. Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were just reacting to ol' Wilson. And after Japan joined in the fun ther "might" have been a war with Japan. Righto...
Obviously, you don't get the connection between the USA entering the war and how changed the course of the war and what came after it. For, example, Germany defeated Russia in late 1917. On the western front no battle lines were on German soil. Without the USA entering a negotiated peace among Germany, France, Britain or a stalemate might have happened. The rise of Hitler and Mussolini probably would not have happened. No Hitler, no WW2, no German attack on USSR, no iron curtain etc ...
This would not have resulted in the draconian war reparations that W. Wilson didn't want. But the Fr. and Br. ignored WW and he went home.
Br & Fr also split up the Ottoman/Turkish Empire to favor their interests - leading to some of the problems we have today.
Thank you for your apology, it takes a big person to admit when they are wrong.
One significant contribution of the Internet is that it allows large groups of people to create their own virtual parallel worlds and live in them.
Reality is what one believes it to be. In that world, there is no need for education, logic or critical thinking. In fact, they are barriers to "free" ideas and opinions.
In April of 1917, just as the United States was entering that war, Germany passed Vladimir Lenin from Switzerland where he was in exile back into Russia to foment a revolution that would take Russia out of the war and enable Germany to fight on only one front. This led rather quickly to the fall of the Kerensky government and the institution of communism in the new U.S.S.R. It was not a happy institution, there or elsewhere.
I'm not sure that anyone could imagine the success of Hitler and the Nazi Party in the absence of German defeat in the First World War. Small, ruthless vanguards, the communists and the Nazis took advantage of chaotic situations to seize and hold power that they were highly unlikely (to say the least) to have achieved in any other circumstances.
What if the United States had stayed neutral throughout World War One? Maybe Germany would have won (conquered Europe), maybe there would have been a negotiated settlement, maybe Germany would have lost under other terms. Who knows? Certainly I don't. But it's hard to imagine it would have been as bad for the world as the resultant World War Two.
And by the way, Wilson was the absolutely worst president in the history of the United States for many more reasons than this war.
We're attempting to discuss history with folks who believe in "true facts" (as if there are some other kinds of facts). The only problem with that mindset is that once you start inventing alternative "true facts" the whole discussion becomes totally meaningless and deteriorates into propaganda.
"Wilson was the absolutely worst president in the history of the United States". Really? Says who? Why? Based on what facts? Is this the consensus view of historians generally? It would be hard to find a better example of propaganda than this ridiculous and unsupportable statement, presented to us as a "fact". I can think of a couple who I believe were worse in my lifetime, but that's just an opinion, and perhaps not a fact.
See above & research Sedition Act Justice Dept & the American Protective League Espionage Act of 1917 - act made it virtually illegal to criticize the war or the government in any way Ordered the segregation of the civil service & military
Sure thing: you go ahead and "research" all of that stuff, and there's absolutely no doubt that you too will become a believer.
Note the complete lack of specifics, facts, context, commentary, reasoning, logic, interpretation or analysis. None of that stuff is needed if you are in possession of the "true facts". Alternate reality is great- no thinking required.
Wilson earns the honor of worst president (this is in my opinion. Whose opinion would you think I was presenting when I posted something?):
By racially segregating Federal Employees and the Navy; By passing the Espionage Act of 1917; By passing the Sedition Act of 1918; By perpetrating the post-war Palmer Raids.
Perhaps less egregiously (on aesthetic grounds), he famously promoted the movie 'Birth of a Nation'. "History as if written by lightning," as I recall was his considered opinion of Griffith's work.
In my opinion, his establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was the single worst economic 'achievement' in American history.
Sure thing: you go ahead and "research" all of that stuff, and there's absolutely no doubt that you too will become a believer.
Note the complete lack of specifics, facts, context, commentary, reasoning, logic, interpretation or analysis. None of that stuff is needed if you are in possession of the "true facts". Alternate reality is great- no thinking required.
I am curious. When Dex says: "Espionage Act of 1917 - act made it virtually illegal to criticize the war or the government in any way"
how could you have missed this specific fact (Espionage Act of 1917), the context ("war" meaning First World War), commentary (that the act made it virtually illegal to criticize the war or the government in any way), interpretation or analysis (which is the same as the commentary) in Dex's quoted statement?
While I share your reservations concerning the Espionage Act of 1917, the context of reality shows that a number of Supreme Courts have, in the main, found that act to be constitutionally acceptable.
It is also notable that in almost 100 years of government, no president or congress of either party has made any serious attempt to eliminate that act or to curtail it in a substantial manner, despite what I would consider to be major affronts to constitutionally protected freedoms.
But just because we may not agree with a particular law hardly warrants a generalization as broad as "the absolutely worst president in the history of the United States". Personally, I reserve that distinction for one of our more recent entries. But that's definitely only an opinion, not necessarily a fact.
@Old_Joe I ask to understand why people think what they do. People oppose when Presidents persecute, secretly monitor or censure their citizenship, and when they enter into armed conflicts under false pretense. This could describe Bush II, FDR, Wilson, John Adams, Reagan and I'm sure others. I was unaware of some of these examples of things and am glad to be aware of them. Their politics tend to decide which they think were worth it, but I try not to mix politics and investment.
Personally I think that it is hard to say who is the worst when they tend to have such great company.
Personally I think that it is hard to say who is the worst when they tend to have such great company.
I'm going to offer a different perspective. The earlier along the timeline the greater the opportunity for the president to be the worst because they influence what comes after them.
George Washington served 2 terms he could have served more. He set the standard that wasn't broken until FDR.
Some may say that B. Obama is worst - he isn't. He is dealing with what all his predecessors did. FDR made a commitment to the Saudis - BO is following that. Fiscally, and diplomatically he has very little room for change.
W.Wilson broke the founding fathers admonition for getting involved in foreign entanglements. He didn't learn the lessons of European history. He allowed the USA to used and abused and he abused the USA in turn.
This is a tragically funny discussion....having deployed to more countries than I would like to recollect, and seen first hand what it is like when the USA does something vice does nothing....I would be very hesitant to say that America needs to retreat from the world stage.....I am in no way saying that we need to intervene in every little conflict that arises, but I will tell you that an ideology grounded in isolationism will benefit no one here or abroad.
Now...has anyone dumped MAPIX since it closed? And what is your favorite railroad stock?
Re: "Americans want to pull back ..." A lot of this might depend on which Americans the headline is referring to. Some have never had it so good. (I doubt these folks want much to upset the status-quo.) However, sadly, for many others, that's not the case.
Not much to add here except that ... as usual, cman is correct. That's scarey. Regards
Comments
Of course that perspective requires Americans to actually read and understand history. Good luck on that!
As to ww1 - if it wasn't for W. Wilson, who for a second term used the slogan 'He kept us out of war.' there might have never been a ww2, a militarized USSR, and problems in the Middle East.
As to the Pacific, there might have been a war with Japan. But, without a war in Europe FDR might not have cut off oil supplies to Japan.
The US has been preparing for, fighting and recovering from war since 1905
Have you ever actually read a history book?
Obviously, you don't get the connection between the USA entering the war and how changed the course of the war and what came after it.
For, example, Germany defeated Russia in late 1917. On the western front no battle lines were on German soil. Without the USA entering a negotiated peace among Germany, France, Britain or a stalemate might have happened. The rise of Hitler and Mussolini probably would not have happened. No Hitler, no WW2, no German attack on USSR, no iron curtain etc ...
This would not have resulted in the draconian war reparations that W. Wilson didn't want. But the Fr. and Br. ignored WW and he went home.
Br & Fr also split up the Ottoman/Turkish Empire to favor their interests - leading to some of the problems we have today.
Thank you for your apology, it takes a big person to admit when they are wrong.
"probably"
You have any sources or citations for all of this other than Fox News?
hopeless...
Reading a history book and comprehending the implication of the actions are two different things.
Read about the 'Sham' USA neutrality - read some of the comments also they are interesting.
http://hnn.us/article/1531
Reality is what one believes it to be. In that world, there is no need for education, logic or critical thinking. In fact, they are barriers to "free" ideas and opinions.
Fascinating subject matter for epistemologists.
I'm not sure that anyone could imagine the success of Hitler and the Nazi Party in the absence of German defeat in the First World War. Small, ruthless vanguards, the communists and the Nazis took advantage of chaotic situations to seize and hold power that they were highly unlikely (to say the least) to have achieved in any other circumstances.
What if the United States had stayed neutral throughout World War One? Maybe Germany would have won (conquered Europe), maybe there would have been a negotiated settlement, maybe Germany would have lost under other terms. Who knows? Certainly I don't. But it's hard to imagine it would have been as bad for the world as the resultant World War Two.
And by the way, Wilson was the absolutely worst president in the history of the United States for many more reasons than this war.
"Wilson was the absolutely worst president in the history of the United States". Really? Says who? Why? Based on what facts? Is this the consensus view of historians generally? It would be hard to find a better example of propaganda than this ridiculous and unsupportable statement, presented to us as a "fact". I can think of a couple who I believe were worse in my lifetime, but that's just an opinion, and perhaps not a fact.
I also say Wilson was the worst president to date.
1) An attack is made- typically a simplistic, no-context, unsupported allegation.
2) A rebuttal is made or supporting factual evidence is requested.
3) The silence is deafening.
TWOT (Total Waste of Time)
See above & research
Sedition Act
Justice Dept & the American Protective League
Espionage Act of 1917 - act made it virtually illegal to criticize the war or the government in any way
Ordered the segregation of the civil service & military
Note the complete lack of specifics, facts, context, commentary, reasoning, logic, interpretation or analysis. None of that stuff is needed if you are in possession of the "true facts". Alternate reality is great- no thinking required.
By racially segregating Federal Employees and the Navy;
By passing the Espionage Act of 1917;
By passing the Sedition Act of 1918;
By perpetrating the post-war Palmer Raids.
Perhaps less egregiously (on aesthetic grounds), he famously promoted the movie 'Birth of a Nation'. "History as if written by lightning," as I recall was his considered opinion of Griffith's work.
In my opinion, his establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was the single worst economic 'achievement' in American history.
how could you have missed this specific fact (Espionage Act of 1917), the context ("war" meaning First World War), commentary (that the act made it virtually illegal to criticize the war or the government in any way), interpretation or analysis (which is the same as the commentary) in Dex's quoted statement?
It is also notable that in almost 100 years of government, no president or congress of either party has made any serious attempt to eliminate that act or to curtail it in a substantial manner, despite what I would consider to be major affronts to constitutionally protected freedoms.
But just because we may not agree with a particular law hardly warrants a generalization as broad as "the absolutely worst president in the history of the United States". Personally, I reserve that distinction for one of our more recent entries. But that's definitely only an opinion, not necessarily a fact.
Regards-
The Sham Neutrality and resulting entry into ww1
Sedition Act
Justice Dept & the American Protective League - this had American citizens spying and reporting on fellow citizens
Ordered the segregation of the civil service & military
Personally I think that it is hard to say who is the worst when they tend to have such great company.
George Washington served 2 terms he could have served more. He set the standard that wasn't broken until FDR.
Some may say that B. Obama is worst - he isn't. He is dealing with what all his predecessors did. FDR made a commitment to the Saudis - BO is following that. Fiscally, and diplomatically he has very little room for change.
W.Wilson broke the founding fathers admonition for getting involved in foreign entanglements. He didn't learn the lessons of European history. He allowed the USA to used and abused and he abused the USA in turn.
W.Wilson - the worst.
Still not convinced re Wilson, though. Certainly plenty to choose from.
Now...has anyone dumped MAPIX since it closed? And what is your favorite railroad stock?
Edit: I still have my shares of MAPIX. I see no reason to sell just yet.
Not much to add here except that ... as usual, cman is correct. That's scarey. Regards
Thanks