When was the world most safe?

[QuantumPion]

While I despise Clinton, his era probably was the safest we have seen, but not because of anything he did or did not do. It was the safest merely because it was a lull between the collapse of the soviet union, and the rise of nuclear-armed islamo-fascists/N. Koreans.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
I guess the real question I'm answering is which president strove to make the world (but America most importantly) safer, not just enjoyed a safe tenure.

Well in that case I would have to say either Teddy Roosevelt (began America's role as a world power) or James Madison (secured our freedom from the British, war of 1812).

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no safety this side of the grave.

The most logical answer so far.

But the truth is the greatest fear to one is always one's own self.

 

[Lemon law]

To ayabe,

Who writes---I just completely disagree with the notion that SAC being dominant somehow made the world safer.

There I agree---it just proved to be a spur to soviet development as they leapfrogged us with rockets---the 1957 beeping ball--spudnik changed everything.

But perhaps we will agree when I say in the 60 year history of the nuke- for those having nukes,
using nukes came with grave consequences---and that has kept some relative peace during that period. The danger occurs when you have a leader who decides the consequences may not be all that grave----and that Iraq like GWB self-deception could really prove fatal.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The answer is Clinton in this particular instance.

Hardly. Ethnic violence in the Balkans and other former Soviet satellite states at the end of the Cold War...the failed Somalia mission...the rise of Islamic terrorist groups with the resources and means to strike on American soil.

On the economic front, America enjoyed a brief era of prosperity under Clinton, although arguably not because of anything he specifically did...however, the world stage is a completely different story, and if anything, Clinton, as did Bush Sr., failed to define America's role in a post Cold War world.

JFK...he comes off the list because of Bay of Pigs, a near nuclear slugmatch with the Soviets, Vietnam, etc.

Reagan...hard to say really...he certainly was a master of Cold War politics, but American wars on the periphery certainly layed the foundation for instability in many parts of the Third World.

A better question is not when the world was most safe, but rather which Presidents truly grasped and successfully mitigated threats to American interests.

I would say Lincoln and FDR are two Presidents who stand out as two noteable examples.

I think just about everyone here is defining safe in different terms.

Risk of world-wide nuclear annihilation during Clinton's years ~ 0

Risk of two super powers deciding to have a war by proxy in a foreign land during Clinton's years ~ 0

I think these are two of the most important characteristics in defining what having a safe world actually is. Not meaning is only the US safe, but rather stability throughout the entire world. There will always be localized regional conflicts, but these don't compare to the prospects of WWIII or something similar.

All things considered the genocides in the 90's were pretty pale when compared to previous or current on-going genocides.

Yeah, the allowed slaughter in Africa didn't threaten the world. The killing of Muslims in the Balkans, thereby giving more credence to the rise of anti-west in the Middle East, the cruise missiling of an ASPIRIN factory, the bombings of a US embassies and a warship. Safe fraking world that was. Oh, what about the first bombing of the WTC. The ignorance of Reno and Clinton's Justice department only set us up for them successfully killing thousands here.

Let us not forget that hack treat with North Korea that allowed them unfetted work on their nuclear program because we decided to look away. We can't blame Carter, he's a favorite son of the left who has wrecked more US foreign policy than most presidents.

Of course it was safer away from here than home, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian (sp) Gonzales... I guess the safest people during Clinton's term were the terrorist overseas as we were much more willing to deprive our own citizens of life and liberty.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
While I despise Clinton, his era probably was the safest we have seen, but not because of anything he did or did not do. It was the safest merely because it was a lull between the collapse of the soviet union, and the rise of nuclear-armed islamo-fascists/N. Koreans.

agreed. The question was not "which president made our nation the safest", but rather, which term were we most safe in. Clinton just happened to be president durng one of the safest periods in our recent lifetime. To extend gratitude towards Clinton because of that would be just as foolish as extending gratitude to him for the success of Reaganomics, which Clinton also enjoyed while in office.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Answer is still Reagan. Who, along with Thatcher, brought the Evil Empire to its knees without firing a shot? Answer: not Slick Willy

Out of all our Presidents, we were safest under Polk. but he's not an option. I'm following the rules.

We were at war with Mexico during Polk's term.

The factual answer (although no one is going to like it) is Calvin Coolidge (who otherwise was the worst president in US history IMO). Not only was the US not at war with anyone during his term, but the entire world was at a state of relative peace at the time. Possibly the only time in world history that such a thing took place. Coolidge deserves no credit for this though, it was just the "the calm before the storm" between world wars I and II.

 

[yllus]

I thought Bush Sr. did a fantastic job of handling the Gulf War and more importantly, the fall of the U.S.S.R. That could have been a catastrophe.

 

[2Xtreme21]

The answer is Reagan if you believe laying the ground work for the quagmire we're in now is considered "extremely safe."

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Answer is still Reagan. Who, along with Thatcher, brought the Evil Empire to its knees without firing a shot? Answer: not Slick Willy

Out of all our Presidents, we were safest under Polk. but he's not an option. I'm following the rules.

HAHAHAHA!!!

Did I just hear "Reagan 1 teh cold wor!!!!11one"?

Awesome.

 

[ntdz]

Clinton's term was the most safe IMO. JFK and Reagan are ruled out because of the cold war, and Bush is ruled out because we are in two wars right now.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: CocoGdog
Right now we are "safe" but the "danger" of terrorism lurks. But if you're a history buff, JFK nearly started a nuclear war with Russia.

What? If you believe JFK "nearly started a nuclear war with Russia", you're not much of a "history buff".

I wouldn't say that JFK was totally responsible for it, as the Soviets were the ones to place the missiles on Cuba, but everyone wasn't kicking back drinking Mai Tais while him and Khrushchev were ratcheting up to WWIII.

The Joint Chiefs/Military Industrial Complex were itching for a war. Kennedy was trying to avert one.

http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/

As president he is ultimately responsible, as many on this forum are so fond of pointing out.

Yeah, responsible for averting a war, unlike some presidents.

 

[johnnobts]

yes, reagan did win the cold war, it wasn't a tie.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
yes, reagan did win the cold war, it wasn't a tie.

Reagan didn't win the cold war. He didn't do anything that resulted in the cold war ending.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: johnnobts
I guess the real question I'm answering is which president strove to make the world (but America most importantly) safer, not just enjoyed a safe tenure.

Well in that case I would have to say either Teddy Roosevelt (began America's role as a world power) or James Madison (secured our freedom from the British, war of 1812).

Is that what they teach you the war of 1812 was about?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: CocoGdog
Right now we are "safe" but the "danger" of terrorism lurks. But if you're a history buff, JFK nearly started a nuclear war with Russia.

What? If you believe JFK "nearly started a nuclear war with Russia", you're not much of a "history buff".

I wouldn't say that JFK was totally responsible for it, as the Soviets were the ones to place the missiles on Cuba, but everyone wasn't kicking back drinking Mai Tais while him and Khrushchev were ratcheting up to WWIII.

The Joint Chiefs/Military Industrial Complex were itching for a war. Kennedy was trying to avert one.

http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/

As president he is ultimately responsible, as many on this forum are so fond of pointing out.

Yeah, responsible for averting a war, unlike some presidents.

Because Iraq is the same as global nuclear war....

He averted the war (which he helped escalate) by the skin of his teeth. If you are really going to point to JFK as some naive boob who was totally manipulated by the Pentagon and the CIA I would suggest not holding him in such high regard.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: johnnobts
yes, reagan did win the cold war, it wasn't a tie.

Reagan didn't win the cold war. He didn't do anything that resulted in the cold war ending.

Shh... they're not really, what you call, "educated" where they come from.

 

[BoberFett]

Terrorism is not a danger. It's a bogeyman. On the grand scale of things, terrorism is one of the smallest causes of death in the world. Since the end of the cold war and the looming nuclear threat, the world is a relatively safe place. Obviously that doesn't apply on a local level, as there are many place which are quite dangerous. But the world as a whole is not a particularly dangerous place and hasn't been for almost 20 years.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was condemned to die the moment I was conceived.

 

[sandorski]

Given those choices, Clinton. If Daddy Bush was thrown in there, he'd be about on par with Clinton, for not only was the Cold War over, but the degree of International cooperation regarding "safety" was likely even higher than it was under Clinton and Terrorism had yet to appear against the US.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Reagan didn't win the cold war. He didn't do anything that resulted in the cold war ending.

Shh... they're not really, what you call, "educated" where they come from.

Well it really depends on what you define as the contributing factors to the Cold War ending. Reagan certainly understood the stakes, and the political maneuvering, that defined the Cold War. His dealings with Gorbachev makes for a truly engaging study of international politics.

I think the Reagan Administration set the tone for the Cold War ending...does he deserve total credit for the fall of the Soviet Union...perhaps not...but he was certainly a key player in how the Cold War ultimately came to an end.

Liberals like to dismiss Reagan's accomplishments much as conservatives choose to dismiss Clinton. Both Presidents had their failures and faults...both men also accomplished great things.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: CocoGdog
Right now we are "safe" but the "danger" of terrorism lurks. But if you're a history buff, JFK nearly started a nuclear war with Russia.

Obviously you are lacking in your knowledge of history!!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: johnnobts
yes, reagan did win the cold war, it wasn't a tie.

Reagan didn't win the cold war. He didn't do anything that resulted in the cold war ending.

If you believe the statement that Reagan did nothing to end the cold war then you would also have to believe that Clinton did nothing to bring about the peaceful years of the 1990s. After all, name one Clinton policy that resulted in the relative peace of those years?

Clinton inherited a peaceful world from Bush 41, who gets a lot less credit than we have given him on this topic.

In fact, in regards to the topic of this thread I would say that the most peaceful time in recent world history was probably during Bush 41?s term, with the exclusion of the Iraq War.

If you define ?safe? as meaning a time in which there was little threat of a major world conflict then the time between the effective fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of the violent Islamic Fascist movement would be the ?safest? time since post WW 2.
Effectively the fall of the Soviet Union began when Gorbachev took over in 1985, although would be a year or two before things really began to change.
In 1987 the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was signed, which was essentially the beginning of the end of the cold war arms race. And in 1998 the Eastern Bloc countries of Europe were given free reign to do as they please essentially ended the Soviet Bloc. From this point forward the cold war was basically over and there was virtually no threat of mass warfare between the US and Russia.

Following this the world enjoys 3-4 years of relative peace with no major conflicts. This ends with the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Following our victory there the world again enjoys several years of relative peace up until the late 90s when Islamic terrorism starts its fast spread across the globe. After that is was just a matter of time before we would be forced to confront the terrorism threat with force as we did in Afghanistan. (This MIGHT have been avoided if we had been more aggressive in hunting down and killing the terror leaders in the 90s, but there was little call or support for that type of action prior to 9-11.)

Therefore I would say the world was most ?safe? during the period between 1988 and 1998 when the only conflicts in the world were minor regional ones without much threat of spreading beyond those areas. Take away the 6 month period around the Iraq war and I don?t think there was any threat of a major war during this period.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Terrorism is not a danger. It's a bogeyman. On the grand scale of things, terrorism is one of the smallest causes of death in the world. Since the end of the cold war and the looming nuclear threat, the world is a relatively safe place. Obviously that doesn't apply on a local level, as there are many place which are quite dangerous. But the world as a whole is not a particularly dangerous place and hasn't been for almost 20 years.

I am not sure which planet you are from with this analysis, but on 9-11 nearly 3000 Americans were killed in one day.
Name for me one other day since World War 2 in which that many Americans were killed.

To say it is not a threat or a bogeyman would be to totally disregard the loss of life from that day. Now we could have just ignored 9-11 and not invaded Afghanistan, maybe launched a few missiles, and essentially said that the loss of a few thousands people is part of the cost of living in the world today. Or we could have taken the action that we did in eliminating the threat of terror emanating from Afghanistan.

?But the world as a whole is not a particularly dangerous place and hasn't been for almost 20 years?
I am not sure how you can make such a statement, unless you just accept the loss of a few hundred people as the price of living in a ?free world.?
US 2001=2,992 dead
Bali 2002=202 dead
Madrid 2004=191 dead
London 2005=51 dead
Bali 2005=20 dead
And these are just the major attacks; there are dozens of smaller attacks in the last 5 years that have cost dozens if not hundreds of lives.

The question is do we accept the loss of life via terrorism as just the cost of living in a free world, or do we confront it and fight it and try to put an end to it?

 

[Shortass]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The question is do we accept the loss of life via terrorism as just the cost of living in a free world, or do we confront it and fight it and try to put an end to it?

Fight terrorism? How? You can't without complete and utter lockdown. Hell, all it takes to be a terrorist is create a small homemade bomb and detonate it in a public area. ZOMG TERRORIZT. I could kill 20 people tonight if I wanted to, with, I dunno, a baseball bat and some clever planning. You CANNOT fight terrorism as an entity, and any attempt to do so will only result in further loss of life.

How about we cut our military funds in half and put the money towards our country's other, many pressing issues. Then we can spend a little extra on agencies that can actually do a little work in monitoring terrorist ORGANIZATIONS, like the one that actually kill 3,000 people in one day. We'd be saving a sh!tload of money and we'd be upsetting a MUCH smaller population in doing so.

Defense is the best defense. Information is the best defense. Going on a 'crusade' and stopping the darn terrorists in the world is, well, insane. Literally insane. Stop me from bombing a cafe right now. Oh wait, you can't, and neither can anybody else in the world. People willing to put my generation and future generations in the line of fire over an impossible ideal is stupid.

Edit for cutting down that obnoxiously huge quote.