Verified answer

Jimmy Carter was a product of the Cold War. He served as an Officer in the Navy on submarines during the Cold War. His relationship with the Soviet Union was similar to Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's and Ford's.

He was caught short and claimed shock at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but US defense posture under Carter was no different from that of his predecessors.

and the detractors don't give you any information.

Carter opened sales of agricultural products to the Soviets, who quickly increased purchasing, fueled by the desire of the Soviet people to eat meat. Now some people claim this was because as a farmer, Carter was favoring the American farmer. Is that such a bad thing? In the long run this drain on the Soviet economy had two effects. It gave the Soviets a taste for the "luxury" of eating meat and established a drain on the Soviet Union, who watched ready money flow over the border for these grain imports.

Where prior presidents had opened up cultural exchanges and imports from the Soviet Union, Carter opened up exports.

Why did Communism fall? It had a basic inability to fund luxuries, like meat, for its populace while funding weapons programs to maintain it's empire.

As for the rest of the world, Carter was well respected for his work in civil rights.

it is a sturdy yet complicated question and the respond could desire to be long sufficient to be a e book. Carter took over the country in plenty distinctive circumstances. The Republican variety exchange into heavily tarnished by utilising Watergate. Obama took over the country after yet another relatively undesirable Republican President in spite of the actual undeniable fact that the Bush Presidency exchange into caulked crammed with scandals yet none that have been given the attention like Watergate. it may take a team of investigators and prosecutors to handle all the scandals throughout the Bush Presidency. so as that they've been the two elected after remarkable Republican mess united statesand that's the place the similarities end. The shortest version is “NO” those 2 presidencies are no longer even close. The some distance perfect could like us to have faith that they are comparable through fact that Carter exchange right into a failure. the biggest distinction is the media throughout the tow eras, whilst Carter exchange into President is the Media exchange into truthful now all they care approximately is rankings and money.

Jimmy Carter was perceived by leaders around the world as a weakling. He slashed the U.S. military budget and preached peace and sacrifice.All with the best of intentions,I believe. But the bottom line was the Iranian hostage crisis,The Opec oil embargo,and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.He was much better suited to be a Church Pastor than President of the U.S.

Carter didn't get along with anyone except maybe Yasser Arafat (PLO) since he put a wreath on his grave after he died.

Carter's primary problem was that he keep to himself and didn't reach out to those that could've helped him, making his presidency harder than it should've been.

His presidency was weak overall

hia, i'm Jimmy Cotta.

Thanks to me - Carter is now the second worst president