Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jimmy Carter was an officer on a nuclear sub. He had no degree in anything akin to nuclear physics, but his son does. Jimmy was a peanut farmer, his family's business.
He is a nice man but he is weak. He struggled under a terrible recession and very high interest rates under his administration. Iran toyed with him. He was basically ineffective. The tyrants of the world like him, which speaks volumes to those who can read between the lines. Trying to negotiate with a terrorist is like trying to negotiate with a rapist.
Carter has a bachelor degree in engineering from the United States Naval Academy and had completed the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion training course, which included graduate work at Union College. You're technically right he has no degree in nuclear engineering, but then one didnt exist at that time. The people who would have taught such a course, if available, would have been navy nuclear trained officers like Carter. The Navy's nuclear training program is widely regarded as the most demanding technical program in the military.
Carter's attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages was unsuccessful, but I place that squarely on the military. Carter put Charlie Beckwith in charge of the operation. I'm not sure what a President can do to make a military operation successful other than choose good leaders and provide them the resources needed. Beckwith certainly is/was the premiere special forces warrior of the era. I wonder whom the armchair generals would have chosen for the job.
Carter has a bachelor degree in engineering from the United States Naval Academy and had completed the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion training course, which included graduate work at Union College. You're technically right he has no degree in nuclear engineering, but then one didnt exist at that time. The people who would have taught such a course, if available, would have been navy nuclear trained officers like Carter. The Navy's nuclear training program is widely regarded as the most demanding technical program in the military.
Carter's attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages was unsuccessful, but I place that squarely on the military. Carter put Charlie Beckwith in charge of the operation. I'm not sure what a President can do to make a military operation successful other than choose good leaders and provide them the resources needed. Beckwith certainly is/was the premiere special forces warrior of the era. I wonder whom the armchair generals would have chosen for the job.
Wrong.... The Carter Admin decided that it should be a joint operation. At the time the services had never done an all branch special ops before. The mission failed because as Winston churchill once said the biggest difference is a common language.. As a result of the failed mission the military formed a new school called J.O.B.S Joint operational Brevity System. A common language with common meanings. Another difference is the 4 branches all used computers which spoke different languages. The failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Carter admin. The demanded a joint operation over the protests of the military. The Military actually predicted a high possibility of failure do to the reasons I gave... Take it a step further. Carter gutted the military by nearly 50%. At the end of his term the equipment was run down, obsolete and with a high cas rep %. The legacy of the Carter admin was a first rate military converted into a 3rd rate joke. Thats why it cost so much to rearm. It wasn't just in purchase of new sytems and develpment. It was also to repair what we already had that was allowed to degrade due to lack of funding.
Wrong.... The Carter Admin decided that it should be a joint operation. At the time the services had never done an all branch special ops before. The mission failed because as Winston churchill once said the biggest difference is a common language.. As a result of the failed mission the military formed a new school called J.O.B.S Joint operational Brevity System. A common language with common meanings. Another difference is the 4 branches all used computers which spoke different languages. The failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Carter admin. The demanded a joint operation over the protests of the military. The Military actually predicted a high possibility of failure do to the reasons I gave... Take it a step further. Carter gutted the military by nearly 50%. At the end of his term the equipment was run down, obsolete and with a high cas rep %. The legacy of the Carter admin was a first rate military converted into a 3rd rate joke. Thats why it cost so much to rearm. It wasn't just in purchase of new sytems and develpment. It was also to repair what we already had that was allowed to degrade due to lack of funding.
Got any proof of this wild rant? BTW back in the late 70s the military wasn't using computers for much tactically. The computers they had were mostly stand alone. I think you must not have been in the military back then like I was.
The Iranian hostage crisis was not exactly Carter's fault. He did try to send a rescue effort, however, at the time the US was inexperienced in desert warfare, and we were not prepared for what was planned. High interest rates are what pulled our economy back on track, unfortunately it was just about the same day Reagan got elected that everything seemed to magically fix itself.
He could have been a good president, but he got in at a rough time. Obama's potential for problems if he gets elected is probably going to be even worse. I suspect he'll get extremely frustrated when he realizes that the changes he wants to make will not be easy to enforce.
Carter was like the parent who makes you eat your spinach and do your homework. Reagan was like the uncle who sneaks you a beer even when you're under aged. Carter loses the popularity contest.
Jimmy Carter is a good man, although I have heard that he supported Lt Cally of Mylai fame. Whatever. That he is a good man is pretty much not in dispute.
IMHO his major problem was that he was not an effective decision maker. He would look at everything from every single angle and then ultimately do nothing. That is not going to fly whether you are the US President of the Duke of Luxembourg.
He also did not pick his staff particularly well. Having Vance and Brezinski together was a recipe for disaster. And he really did not understand how Washington works.
Yes, he got hit with some real tough things. Well, that goes with the job.
As for the much-used and ultimately childish right/left analysis, give me a break already. Democrats and Republicans are human. They are fallible. The Democrats have produced some exceptional presidents (FDR, Truman) and some serious disasters (LBJ, Carter). Likewise with the GOP.
Carter is a man. He is imperfect. He became President and was judged unworthy of a second term by the electorate. Get over it already. Ted Kennedy tried to wrest the nomination from him in 1980. His VP was himself trounced four years later. Its pretty arrogant to imply that just because he was a liberal Democrat, he was a good president.
Carter is a man. He is imperfect. He became President and was judged unworthy of a second term by the electorate. Get over it already. Ted Kennedy tried to wrest the nomination from him in 1980. His VP was himself trounced four years later. Its pretty arrogant to imply that just because he was a liberal Democrat, he was a good president.
Let's look at what Carter put in place:
A National Energy Policy with a reduction in imported oil: Good Idea?
A Federal Reserve focused on reducing inflation: Good idea?
A country that operates on a moral plane of what's right rather than what's expedient: Good idea?
An international policy of bringing former enemies to the peace table: Good idea?
Established the military Rapid Deployment Force: Good idea?
Reduced pork barrel projects in his own party: Good idea?
Deregulated Airlines: Well that may have been a bad call
True, President Carter was by all indicators a nice and decent man, but he had the misfortune of being mired in the situations of the time. I entered the military in '79 and the post Vietnam era volunteer force had some real problems and issues at the time. In general, morale and discipline had become much more lax and coupled with the extreme rates of inflation of the time the pay was pretty lousy. I don't become wanderlust in nostalgia over the mid to late 70s, but on the other hand I kind of miss the simpler lifestyles in terms of all the consumerism in comparison to today. As for President Carter, he just was not able to somehow lift the country out of a sour mood and funk be it with the economy or foreign relations of the Cold War era. Back in July '79 his "malaise" address was actually on point, but people don't want to hear what ails them, they want solutions presented no matter how much fairy dust has to be spread around. It sure does seem that we are many ways entering a 70's redux, especially now with the most serious issues continuing to develop and still getting a dose of pander and promises from all of the major candidates. The worst of it all is that many of the major promises and ideas have no pragmatic way of working. Heck, who knows, maybe disco will also make a comeback
A National Energy Policy with a reduction in imported oil: Good Idea? (Details?)
A Federal Reserve focused on reducing inflation: Good idea? (Carter had nothing to do with the Fed. Volcker did what he had to do and that actually helped sink Carter)
A country that operates on a moral plane of what's right rather than what's expedient: Good idea? (Give me a break already)
An international policy of bringing former enemies to the peace table: Good idea? (He did not originate that)
Established the military Rapid Deployment Force: Good idea? (Yes)
Reduced pork barrel projects in his own party: Good idea? (Sure he did)
Deregulated Airlines: Well that may have been a bad call (No, that was a good one)
A National Energy Policy with a reduction in imported oil: Good Idea? (Details?)CAFE standards
A Federal Reserve focused on reducing inflation: Good idea? (Carter had nothing to do with the Fed. Volcker did what he had to do and that actually helped sink Carter)Carter appointed Volker. He and Volker saw eye to eye. As did Volker and Reagan.
A country that operates on a moral plane of what's right rather than what's expedient: Good idea? (Give me a break already) Probably an example of why neo-cons are so reviled today.
An international policy of bringing former enemies to the peace table: Good idea? (He did not originate that)Few ideas are absolutely original. What subsequent president has achieved more?
Established the military Rapid Deployment Force: Good idea? (Yes)
Reduced pork barrel projects in his own party: Good idea? (Sure he did)It's in the record and it pissed off Tip O'Neil.
Deregulated Airlines: Well that may have been a bad call (No, that was a good one) Ask a current traveler
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
