Agreed. But let the moron's of ET try to tell you otherwise, and do so in typical style by not even referencing one significant FACT. Thanks for the laugh "AAA". Once again, you have an incredible way of putting your foot in your mouth.
People frequently learn a simplified version of history. For example, we are supposed to believe that Chamberlain was a weak, naive, fool who got thoroughly owned by Hitler. I had issues with this interpretation even in high school. I recently read "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire" and from there I learned that the dominions of the British empire had no desire to fight over Czechoslovakia, that Great Britain had financial issues and that it worried about its pacific possessions falling into japan's hands in the event that Great Britain got sucked into a war in Europe. In addition, the supposedly stupid Chamberlain bankrolled Royal Air Force(Hurricanes, Spitfires and Radar) during peace time and this is what saved Great Britain during Battle of Britain. Line was drawn with Poland and Great Britain&France declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland. People also feel Carter was "weak". A leader's behavior should reflect the actual condition of the country he represents. One can take out his shoe and pound the podium with it a la Khrushchev but that is not smart. Objectively speaking, US was weakened by Vietnam(US got out of the gold standard for a reason) and the OIL embargo. Carter could not behave like a maniac and do whatever he wished. He wanted to take action versus Iran but Brezhnev told him not to do it. A repeat of Vietnam on the heels of Vietnam could not be allowed. Soviet Union was, on the assent (temporarily)during that time because of high oil prices and US defeat in Vietnam. It was the collapse of oil prices and Afghanistan war (which started under Carter) that made Soviet Union unable to "pay its bills". Coming to present time, it is not that Obama is weak, but that US got weakened substantially financially and militarily during Bush administration.
I happen to agree with you that Chamberlain has been treated unfairly by history. It would have been madness for Britain to go to war over the situation in Czech. In any case the events after Versailles and leading up to WW II are far more complex that they are pictured by today's version of pop history. Regarding Carter, I think there are some surface similarities with Obama. Both strive to appear to be decent people, both have a blame-America first mentality and both exude sanctimonius disdain for anyone who disagrees with them. I find your revisionism of the Carter record interesting. Somehow Afghanistan was not a display of contempt for Carter but a cleverly disguised trap. The brilliant Brzezenski stopped Russian expansionism with...a line in a speech. Even as the ineffectual Carter was being mocked about attack rabbits and wailing about the country being in malaise. I know no one ever comes off badly in their own memoir, but this has to be a high point of narcissistic delusion. The facts tell a somewhat different story. The big issue during the Carter years was not Afghanistan but Soviet intimidation of Europe. There was endless handwringing over how to counter Soviet missiles in eastern europe. Reagan of course displayed the leadership to force europe to stand up to soviet bullying. Carter? Not so much. Latin America was also a flash point. Soviet-supported marxist movements were busily undermining pro-US governments in numerous countries, eg Nicaragau, El Salvador, Peru. Carter's contribution? Hand over the Panama Canal to Gen Noreiga and a corrupt narco-government in Panama. And more handwringing over "human rights" violations by US allies. By your standards Iran must also count as a big success for Carter. He and the genius Brezenski managed to overturn a couple of decades of stability and hand the country over, lock stock and barrel, to a crazed islamist fanatic who had apparently wandered in from the middle ages. In a show of gratitude, the new Iranian government seized the US Embassy, held hostages until Reagan took office and executed hundreds if not thousand of people who had cooperated with us. As disastrous as Carter's naive foreign policy and weakness were, they paled in comparison to his domestic policy. An energy policy that Obama would like produced endless gas lines, rationing and empowered OPEC. We experienced historic inflation and interest rates. Carter, never one to accept personal responsibility, blamed the American people and mocked their supposed "malaise." I thought there was pretty universal agreement that he ranked among our worst presidents, but apparently historical accuracy is not something liberals prize.
You are not reading what I said. US was objectively weakened post Vietnam and its behavior should have reflected that. Afghanistan was a dumb war for Soviet Union. Carter began helping the mujaheddin. Ultimately Soviet Union was bled dry there. In essence what happened was a reversal of Vietnam. What was Carter supposed to do in Afghanistan? Order US troops to defend liberty? Carter's energy plan? I would like to see your energy plan when OIL is cut off. There were NO 2 decades of stability in Iran. A shah was overthrown because he was not popular(he was seen as a puppet of the West which he was). End of story. Middle east is a part of the world inherently unfriendly to western nations. As I said many times, I don't care about popular perceptions. Popular perceptions crown Reagan as one of the best presidents while I would give him F-. Reagan should be remembered for one thing: TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT He also repealed the fairness doctrine, created silly and unsustainable economic policies (top marginal tax rate being 28 from 70s) Btw, "tough guy" Reagan got out of Beirut after marines were blown up in barracks, very macho of him. He also did not do squat to Iran but instead negotiated the release of hostages behind the scenes in a shady way. I said it many times and will say it again: The role of "toughness" by a leader in a modern State is greatly exaggerated. We are not dealing with King Leonidas times, we are dealing with times where the leader of the country exhibits behavior proportionate to the relative strength of that country. How hard is it to understand that US position in the world was weakened post Vietnam? Do you honestly believe Reagan would have done better had he been in office during Carter's time? If you say yes, you are delusional.
Let's agree on this much. The US should be cautious of getting involved in wars or nation-building exercises in areas where its vital interests are not at risk. Our superpower weapons give us the ability to obliterate any nation we choose, but they are not so useful in a somalia, iraq or afghanistan, where the main problem is identifying the enemy. As in vietnam, getting involved in wars of attrition with foes who have no regard for the lives of civilians or their own troops is generally not going to work out well for us.