When was the world most safe?

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 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.

This may surprise you, but I give little credit to Clinton on American national security, though he wasn't the disaster that Bush II has been.

My best answer to the question at hand would probably in fact be Bush I.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: 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.

Muslims had a problem with the west LONG before anything happened in the Balkans, and we actually put a stop to it. Remember, Clinton's illegal war?

None of this compares to the threat of of what I outlined above, sorry you hate Clinton, I'm not giving him credit necessarily but the facts are the facts.

The US is not the world and NONE of these things you've mentioned compare to the threats we face now or previous to Clinton/Bush Sr., get a grip. Elian Gonzales? Go eat your wheaties before coming in here with that crap.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, considering we havn't had a major terrorist attack on us soil since 9/11, I think we are doing a good job stopping terrorist from attacking us. You may disagree.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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.

True, but there is a concern that terrorists will gain access to, and I hate to throw the term in, but WMDs. Unlike the Soviets or even the Chinese, terrorists are not rational actors.

Despite all the sabre rattling and wars on the periphery, a nuclear slugfest between America and the Soviets was never a rational course of action. The entire strategy of deterrence through mutually assured destruction essentially mitigated the risk of either nation launching a pre-emptive strike.

Terrorists on the other hand don't seem to care how many people they kill, and because they do not swear allegiance to a sovereign nation, they have no base population to protect from a possible retaliation.

Terrorism is probably the greatest threat to world security and peace...and terrorism existed, and proved quite dangerous, well before Bush took office.

 

[outriding]

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

Lets say he did win the war.

But that war was won based on the Soviet Union colasping from the burden of trying to keep up with the US.

What you have now is a bunch of cold war surplus Soviet arms which ended up in terrorists hands.

Regardless if Raygun ended the cold war he made it much worse in the future.

I give a big thumbs down on RayGun.

I cannot remember the book but it was written by a counter-terrorist durning the Clinton era and she described how they would block terrorists from getting arms and they would sieze money from them, I know it is not as flashy as stopping a bunch of terrorists right before they blow up a building.

 

[Thump553]

I've got to agree with ProfJohn on this, and pick Truman (up until USSR got the bomb). That was a dangerous period but mostly for Eastern Europe and Greece. Figures, I wasn't alive then.

Second place I would pick a tie-Eisenhower (after the Korean truce) and Clinton-but basically because we were extremely lucky on how the ball bounced as far as the Balkan war went. That could have been a total fiasco, ended up being a minor footnote in US history. After Korea, the fifties were very calm on the surface-but USSR was at it's zenith in both craziness (tail end of the Stalin era) and military might.

As far as terrorism goes, it's importance (to date) is not the number of lives lost to date but the impact it has had on our lives.

Those that pick JFK either weren't around then, don't have the foggiest idea of what went on then or are talking out of their b*tts. In the nineties there was at least one convention of US, Cuban & USSR officials who presided during the Cold War. Look up McNamara's (JFK's Sec of Defense) articles about that conference & how close we actually came to nuclear missles flying. Plus our misguided invasion of Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and the ramping up of the Vietnam War. JFK was a great president but it was a risky time.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: outriding

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

Lets say he did win the war.

But that war was won based on the Soviet Union colasping from the burden of trying to keep up with the US.

What you have now is a bunch of cold war surplus Soviet arms which ended up in terrorists hands.

Regardless if Raygun ended the cold war he made it much worse in the future.

I give a big thumbs down on RayGun.

Because you believe that ending the threat of Nuclear war has made the world a more dangerous place... ummm think about that for a minute.
I'll take a few dozen 9-11 type attacks and Iraq Wars over 1 nuke on New York City.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here is something very ironic. If you go back and look at each President since World War 2 and decide if the world was more or less safe after they left office and look at your results.
Truman: End of WW 2. Much safer
Eisenhower: After Korea as safe as when he took office
Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis, Pay of Pigs, Start of Vietnam. Less safer.
Johnson: Escalation of Vietnam. Less safer.
Nixon: Ended Vietnam, Opened China via his visit. More safer
Ford: The same.
Carter: Russians invade Afghanistan, Iran hostage crisis, weakened US military, Less safe.
Reagan: End of cold war, end of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, end of Soviets in Afghanistan. Much safer.
Bush: After Iraq War 1 the world was very safe and stable.
Clinton: Peaceful through out his term, but India and Pakistan both went Nuclear during his term and the rise of terrorism toward the end of the 90s left the world a more dangerous place than when he took over.
Bush 43: Don?t think we need to even talk about the mess we have now. The only good thing is that he has 2 years to fix the mess.

Now looking at the list and it seems to me that the Republicans generally left the world safer while the Democrats left the world less safe. This would be fitting with the general theme that Republicans are better on foreign policy and Democrats are better on domestic policy.

If you disagree with this analysis then explain what I missed, and leave out Bush 43 since there is no debating the world is much more dangerous today that in 2001. However, in the 50 previous years the three times Democrats were in office the world ended up more dangerous after wards.

 

[Aisengard]

Unfortunately for you, your tenuous analysis goes right out the window with the most vicious of Republican administrations.

 

[Ferocious]

The only time there was a real danger of nuclear war was during the Cuban missle crisis.

And Kennedy fixed that threat.

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is something very ironic. If you go back and look at each President since World War 2 and decide if the world was more or less safe after they left office and look at your results.
Truman: End of WW 2. Much safer
Eisenhower: After Korea as safe as when he took office
Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis, Pay of Pigs, Start of Vietnam. Less safer.
Johnson: Escalation of Vietnam. Less safer.
Nixon: Ended Vietnam, Opened China via his visit. More safer
Ford: The same.
Carter: Russians invade Afghanistan, Iran hostage crisis, weakened US military, Less safe.
Reagan: End of cold war, end of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, end of Soviets in Afghanistan. Much safer.
Bush: After Iraq War 1 the world was very safe and stable.
Clinton: Peaceful through out his term, but India and Pakistan both went Nuclear during his term and the rise of terrorism toward the end of the 90s left the world a more dangerous place than when he took over.
Bush 43: Don?t think we need to even talk about the mess we have now. The only good thing is that he has 2 years to fix the mess.

Now looking at the list and it seems to me that the Republicans generally left the world safer while the Democrats left the world less safe. This would be fitting with the general theme that Republicans are better on foreign policy and Democrats are better on domestic policy.

If you disagree with this analysis then explain what I missed, and leave out Bush 43 since there is no debating the world is much more dangerous today that in 2001. However, in the 50 previous years the three times Democrats were in office the world ended up more dangerous after wards.

The republican in office right now made the world "less safe".
Your analyzing the time when they took office and when they left. What about in the middle.
Nixon with Vietnam made the world "less safe".

And
"Most safe" is a relative term.

IMO, the "most safe" period was probable with Reagan through Clinton (wow, a Democrat left the world "safe")

"Least safe" is well...easy to figure out eh?
I think the "least safe" period was a combination of present day and the Cuban missile crisis.

 

[Infohawk]

Clinton. The imminent threat of nuclear war receded and while there was the threat of terror, it wasn't as pronounced as it is now because "Bush Jr." hadn't come onto the scene. And of course Clinton wasn't ignoring intel on terror like the Bush administration was.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is something very ironic. If you go back and look at each President since World War 2 and decide if the world was more or less safe after they left office and look at your results.
Truman: End of WW 2. Much safer
Eisenhower: After Korea as safe as when he took office
Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis, Pay of Pigs, Start of Vietnam. Less safer.
Johnson: Escalation of Vietnam. Less safer.
Nixon: Ended Vietnam, Opened China via his visit. More safer
Ford: The same.
Carter: Russians invade Afghanistan, Iran hostage crisis, weakened US military, Less safe.
Reagan: End of cold war, end of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, end of Soviets in Afghanistan. Much safer.
Bush: After Iraq War 1 the world was very safe and stable.
Clinton: Peaceful through out his term, but India and Pakistan both went Nuclear during his term and the rise of terrorism toward the end of the 90s left the world a more dangerous place than when he took over.
Bush 43: Don?t think we need to even talk about the mess we have now. The only good thing is that he has 2 years to fix the mess.

Now looking at the list and it seems to me that the Republicans generally left the world safer while the Democrats left the world less safe. This would be fitting with the general theme that Republicans are better on foreign policy and Democrats are better on domestic policy.

If you disagree with this analysis then explain what I missed, and leave out Bush 43 since there is no debating the world is much more dangerous today that in 2001. However, in the 50 previous years the three times Democrats were in office the world ended up more dangerous after wards.

I knew I couldn't agree with ProfJohn for too long and the above obviously partisan "analysis" brings that home. To comment upon just a few of examples:

Nixon: definately not a safe time for draft age young men, many of whom died during this supposedly safe period. (Fortunately I managed to lose this lottery). Remember his ramping up of the Vietnam War through such things as the secret bombing and invasions of Cambodia? Remember hyperinflation because of his economic policies? I remember when a 16% thirty year mortgage was normal, thanks to Nixon (and started by LBJ).

Ford: a relatively quiet time but the Cold War was still very close to boiling over at any time. Ford's presidency could be used to support the argument that a strong Congress hamstringing the President makes us safer.

Reagan: We got d*mn lucky the USSR didn't have a Reagan/GWB type cowboy in charge, or he certainly would have let the nukes fly. Remember Iran/Contra? Remember Reagan's deliberate wars and torture in Central America, in direct violation of US law as passed by Congress? Remember "the missles begin flying in five minutes" type of so-called jokes? Remember how he turned tail and ran after the Beruit barracks bombing-probably the single most significant incident in inspiring radical Arab terrorists today? Remember our busted economy because of his hyper-military spending? We were lucky to survive Reagan-in many ways he made the world more dangerous.

PS: using a lame-o wireless keyboard so please excuse typos.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I knew I couldn't agree with ProfJohn for too long and the above obviously partisan "analysis" brings that home. To comment upon just a few of examples:

Nixon: definately not a safe time for draft age young men, many of whom died during this supposedly safe period. (Fortunately I managed to lose this lottery). Remember his ramping up of the Vietnam War through such things as the secret bombing and invasions of Cambodia? Remember hyperinflation because of his economic policies? I remember when a 16% thirty year mortgage was normal, thanks to Nixon (and started by LBJ).

ummm Vietnam ended during Nixon's term, meaning the world was safer and less prone to a major war AFTER Nixon had left office.

Reagan: We got d*mn lucky the USSR didn't have a Reagan/GWB type cowboy in charge, or he certainly would have let the nukes fly. Remember Iran/Contra? Remember Reagan's deliberate wars and torture in Central America, in direct violation of US law as passed by Congress? Remember "the missles begin flying in five minutes" type of so-called jokes? Remember how he turned tail and ran after the Beruit barracks bombing-probably the single most significant incident in inspiring radical Arab terrorists today? Remember our busted economy because of his hyper-military spending? We were lucky to survive Reagan-in many ways he made the world more dangerous.

Well despite all that COULD have happened due to Reagan, none of it actually did happen. And instead we saw the end of the Soviet Union and therefore the end of the cold war and risk of a major nuclear war. The world was FAR safer in 1988 than it was in 1980, you can not doubt that.

As for Clinton, as I said the world was peaceful through out his term. However Islamic terrorism started is expansion in the late 1990's and it wasn't until 9-11 that trouble brewing during the 90s came to the surface.
I would say the world was moderatly more dangerous after Clinton left office compared to when he took office. I would only blame Clinton for lack of action on terrorism, but there were many factors involved that created the atmosphere in which there was this lack of action.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: azazyel
when we were still in trees

no, because then we had to worry about dinosaurs, remember?

 

[CanOWorms]

Obviously after WW2. The devastation brought to Europe signalled the end of their freakishly savage empires. It was the beginning of the end of the British, French, etc. empires. Unfortunately, the process is still ongoing. It would have been nice if they were completely reformed.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: wizboy11

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is something very ironic. If you go back and look at each President since World War 2 and decide if the world was more or less safe after they left office and look at your results.
Truman: End of WW 2. Much safer
Eisenhower: After Korea as safe as when he took office
Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis, Pay of Pigs, Start of Vietnam. Less safer.
Johnson: Escalation of Vietnam. Less safer.
Nixon: Ended Vietnam, Opened China via his visit. More safer
Ford: The same.
Carter: Russians invade Afghanistan, Iran hostage crisis, weakened US military, Less safe.
Reagan: End of cold war, end of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, end of Soviets in Afghanistan. Much safer.
Bush: After Iraq War 1 the world was very safe and stable.
Clinton: Peaceful through out his term, but India and Pakistan both went Nuclear during his term and the rise of terrorism toward the end of the 90s left the world a more dangerous place than when he took over.
Bush 43: Don?t think we need to even talk about the mess we have now. The only good thing is that he has 2 years to fix the mess.

Now looking at the list and it seems to me that the Republicans generally left the world safer while the Democrats left the world less safe. This would be fitting with the general theme that Republicans are better on foreign policy and Democrats are better on domestic policy.

If you disagree with this analysis then explain what I missed, and leave out Bush 43 since there is no debating the world is much more dangerous today that in 2001. However, in the 50 previous years the three times Democrats were in office the world ended up more dangerous after wards.

The republican in office right now made the world "less safe".
Your analyzing the time when they took office and when they left. What about in the middle.
Nixon with Vietnam made the world "less safe".

And
"Most safe" is a relative term.

IMO, the "most safe" period was probable with Reagan through Clinton (wow, a Democrat left the world "safe")

"Least safe" is well...easy to figure out eh?
I think the "least safe" period was a combination of present day and the Cuban missile crisis.

Personally, I think the world was safer when Clinton took office than we he left it. Two terrorist attacks and a 3rd one 8 months after he left office. However, the duration of his term was safer than any of the 3 other presidents listed. Also, I think JFK's term was significantly less safe than now...we aren't facing total destruction at the hands of Russia, we're facing possible small scale (compared to nukes) terrorist attacks.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
The only time there was a real danger of nuclear war was during the Cuban missle crisis.

And Kennedy fixed that threat.

Exactly. He deftly managed the crisis despite extreme pressure from the hawks on both sides .

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Thump553
I knew I couldn't agree with ProfJohn for too long and the above obviously partisan "analysis" brings that home. To comment upon just a few of examples:

Nixon: definately not a safe time for draft age young men, many of whom died during this supposedly safe period. (Fortunately I managed to lose this lottery). Remember his ramping up of the Vietnam War through such things as the secret bombing and invasions of Cambodia? Remember hyperinflation because of his economic policies? I remember when a 16% thirty year mortgage was normal, thanks to Nixon (and started by LBJ).

ummm Vietnam ended during Nixon's term, meaning the world was safer and less prone to a major war AFTER Nixon had left office.

Fancy twist of logic-changing the standard from when was the world most safe to an artbitrary static point of the end of the President's term. Not only that, but in this case you are factually wrong. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. The last US troops left Vietnam six months later, April 30, 1975. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Reagan: We got d*mn lucky the USSR didn't have a Reagan/GWB type cowboy in charge, or he certainly would have let the nukes fly. Remember Iran/Contra? Remember Reagan's deliberate wars and torture in Central America, in direct violation of US law as passed by Congress? Remember "the missles begin flying in five minutes" type of so-called jokes? Remember how he turned tail and ran after the Beruit barracks bombing-probably the single most significant incident in inspiring radical Arab terrorists today? Remember our busted economy because of his hyper-military spending? We were lucky to survive Reagan-in many ways he made the world more dangerous.

Well despite all that COULD have happened due to Reagan, none of it actually did happen. Wrong again. Our dirty little wars in Central America DID happen. Iran-Contra-the deliberate violation of US law in waging an illegal war contrary to express US law-DID happen. Reagan DID turn tail and run after the bombing of the Beruit barracks (aside-can you imagine how hysterical the rightwingers would have been if Clinton pulled that little stunt?) And instead we saw the end of the Soviet Union and therefore the end of the cold war and risk of a major nuclear war. For which we owe a debt of gratitude to Gorbachev-for his sane reaction to Reagan's cowboyisms-not to Reagan.The world was FAR safer in 1988 than it was in 1980, you can not doubt that.

As for Clinton, as I said the world was peaceful through out his term. However Islamic terrorism started is expansion in the late 1990's and it wasn't until 9-11 that trouble brewing during the 90s came to the surface.
I would say the world was moderatly more dangerous after Clinton left office compared to when he took office. I would only blame Clinton for lack of action on terrorism, but there were many factors involved that created the atmosphere in which there was this lack of action.

Bold portions are my comments.

 

[ProfJohn]

Geez Thump keep repeating the same lines over and over until someone else starts to believe them.

Re-read your wikipedia link. Official US involvement in Vietnam ended on January 27 1973. By March 1973 the last combat soldier leaves Vietnam. The April 30th date is the fall of Saigon when Americans abandoned the US embassy. The number of US forces in Vietnam reached its peak in April of 1969 (543,482) and fell afterwards; by January 1972 the number is down to 133,000. Also, look at the deaths by year in Vietnam.
1965:1,863
1966:6,143
1967:11,153
1968:16,592
1969: 11,616
1970:6,081
1971:2,357
1972:641
Notice how the numbers went UP under Johnson and down under Nixon, under who would you have rather served?
As I said before, Nixon ended US involvement in Vietnam, making the world a safer place.

Reagan: Post all the accusations against Reagan you want, the fact remains that the Soviet Union was gone, the Warsaw Pact was gone and the threat of major world wide war between the US and the Soviets was gone by time he left office.
All of your illegal war and running from Lebanon statements do not replace the fact that the world was safer post Reagan.

Interesting Vietnam fact: Two-thirds of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers, two-thirds who served in World War II were draftees.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is something very ironic. If you go back and look at each President since World War 2 and decide if the world was more or less safe after they left office and look at your results.
Truman: End of WW 2. Much safer
Eisenhower: After Korea as safe as when he took office
Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis, Pay of Pigs, Start of Vietnam. Less safer.
Johnson: Escalation of Vietnam. Less safer.
Nixon: Ended Vietnam, Opened China via his visit. More safer
Ford: The same.
Carter: Russians invade Afghanistan, Iran hostage crisis, weakened US military, Less safe.
Reagan: End of cold war, end of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, end of Soviets in Afghanistan. Much safer.
Bush: After Iraq War 1 the world was very safe and stable.
Clinton: Peaceful through out his term, but India and Pakistan both went Nuclear during his term and the rise of terrorism toward the end of the 90s left the world a more dangerous place than when he took over.
Bush 43: Don?t think we need to even talk about the mess we have now. The only good thing is that he has 2 years to fix the mess.

Now looking at the list and it seems to me that the Republicans generally left the world safer while the Democrats left the world less safe. This would be fitting with the general theme that Republicans are better on foreign policy and Democrats are better on domestic policy.

If you disagree with this analysis then explain what I missed, and leave out Bush 43 since there is no debating the world is much more dangerous today that in 2001. However, in the 50 previous years the three times Democrats were in office the world ended up more dangerous after wards.

Get some facts about history for the love of GOD!

"Clinton: Peaceful through out his term, but India and Pakistan both went Nuclear during his term"

:shocked:







Why can't you learn to do some basic research before posting all the crap you are responsible for on this forum?




:thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

 

[thegimp03]

Probably JFK...

 

[LouPoir]

Reagan years - just needed to worry about the Russians nuking us. I felt a lot safer back then.

Today is the least safe I have ever felt.

Lou

 

[Pyrokinetic]

Most safe? What a ridiculous topic. How do you define "safe?" Safe from what? What term? Like any one President can make us "safe." If anybody felt more "safe" just by having a Republican or Democrat in the White House then you are deluded or a fool.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Unlike the Soviets or even the Chinese, terrorists are not rational actors.

This is the single biggest misunderstanding on terrorism. Any serious unconventional warfare analyst will tell you terrorists ARE absolutely rational political actors. They just play a game most people don't understand.

Edit to vote for the OP poll: Clinton's term by far.

Of course is a very general question. If you happen to live in Rwanda, his term was the least safe...