Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Worst U.S. President Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 14:33 |
The atomic bomb is great, it saved more Japanese lives than American ones, including my granparents. I will always be thanbkful that truman allowed me to exist by dropping hte bomb.
My worst is Andrew Jackson, he is undeniably the worst president in US history in every way. His social backwardness, economic mismanagemnt, and murder of lots of people places him as a true fool. He commited genocide, intentionhally weakend the economy, and was played like a puppet on tariffs. The entire American Whig party was formed basically for the reason of bringing everyone who hated him into one party.
I would say time will tell, but GW looks to be heading down the same round as Jack-o.
Thomas Jefferson is antother president I really hate, but you can find my feelings on him in another thread in the modern section.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 15:26 |
Originally posted by Thegeneral
Did you know that Bush had a 4.0 in college,
which is .1 above Kerry, whom many said was smarter. I don't
believe he is dumb, that is just a steriotype of Texans. |
I know people with high IQs that never amde it through the University
and found problems in school: they found it very boring and absurdly
disciplined. Can you tell us which is his IQ (which was no doubt
measured in the mlitary and/or school). I' m sure it's not above
average and I suspect it's rather low instead.
Also anyone who truly believe in creationism over all scientifical evidence can't be much smarter than, let's say, a chmpanzee.
Edited by Maju
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 16:03 |
I think Bush is far from the worst president. I'd say he was average to below average.
The worst in my books is Buchannon because he did nothing to stop the
upcoming civil war. Other bad presidents tha come to mind include
Grant, Johnson, and Ford.
Jackson could go one way or another, but he had a lasting legacy.
|
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 16:08 |
Originally posted by Tobodai
The atomic bomb is great, it saved more Japanese lives than American ones, including my granparents. I will always be thanbkful that truman allowed me to exist by dropping hte bomb.
My worst is Andrew Jackson, he is undeniably the worst president in US history in every way. His social backwardness, economic mismanagemnt, and murder of lots of people places him as a true fool. He commited genocide, intentionhally weakend the economy, and was played like a puppet on tariffs. The entire American Whig party was formed basically for the reason of bringing everyone who hated him into one party.
I would say time will tell, but GW looks to be heading down the same round as Jack-o.
Thomas Jefferson is antother president I really hate, but you can find my feelings on him in another thread in the modern section. |
I agree Jackson was a feind who destroyed the Cherokee Nation, he hate Indians.
If reincarnation is true then I hope he comes back as a donkey for several life times but I don't believe in this but if there is a Hell I am sure he is there.
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 16:40 |
The worst in my books is Buchannon because he did nothing to stop the upcoming civil war. |
Of course pick on the only gay president!
[quote]
Did you know that Bush had a 4.0 in college, which is .1 above Kerry, whom many said was smarter. I don't believe he is dumb, that is just a steriotype of Texans.[/q]
No they were both C students, yet Kerry managed an equivilent GPA to Dubya with a heavy dose of extra curricular activities. One of these two men was student body president and the other was a cheerleader, care to guess who was who?
|
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 16:53 |
Those american soldiers lives were not worth the death of so many innocents, people, families, children. If you fight a war, you fight it and accept military casualties, you dont go killing your enemies families, and children to be. |
The Japanese had mobilizied the entire population to fight off the invaders. Those families you speak of would have faced the American army with rifles and whatever tools and farming implements they could find, lets not forget the willingness of Japanese civilians to commit suicide at Okinawa by throwing themselves off the cliffs. You think the Atomic Bomings were bad? Just imagine uncountable waves of Japanese old men women and children armed with vintage rifles, spears and shovels charging headlong into the tanks, machine guns and artillery of an American army.
Besides lets not forget Japanese savagry throughout their campaigns in the Pacific Rim. If anything the American firebombing campaign of 44 and the atomic bombings of 45 were but a taste of what the Japanese had been doing since the 1930s.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 18:22 |
On the A-bomb: why didn't the US and Japan negotiated a peace? The
Japanese knew they couldn't win but they didn't want to be occupied,
that's why they had movilized all their resources.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Thegeneral
Chieftain
Joined: 05-Mar-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 18:40 |
The US wanted to deter any other wars like that by using a show of force. That was shown by the A-Bomb.
On another note, the Soviets were closing in and the US wanted to keep them out of Japan. To end the war quickly, they used the A-bomb. Not only did it quicken their defeat, but it saved probally a millions lives or more. Japan knew they were done but woul dnot go out without a bang.
|
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 18:44 |
The Japanese didnt have a unit that surrendered during the war and they still were fighting all over Asia, they were not beaten and confined to the island. Even so, many on the island were starving. If Operation Downfall (the conventianal attack of Japan) had taken place, we know now that more would have probably starved to death than from a prolonged war alone than the bombs, nevermind the fighting.
Regarless of how bad it looks using today's morality, in the interest of both countries the best choice was made!
More bad presidents?
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 20:54 |
Despite the Japanese emperors wanting to surrender the military which effectively ruled the nation prefered death to defeat. The emperor tried to surrender earlier but a coup stoped him until an aide smuggled out his taped radio broadcast. If not for that aid the war would have continued even past nagasaki.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 21:05 |
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 22:08 |
Are you two (or three) saying that slow murder of hundreds of thousands of civilian people was justified just because the US didn't want to negotiate the terms of Japanese surrender?
|
What would you have preferred Versailes redux? Actually this is a misrepresentation since the terms Japan was willing to negotiate seemed more consistent with a Japanese victory!
I can't believe that anyone can defend such a point of view. More when such prominent US commanders as McArthur and Eisenhower thought that it was totally gratuitous from a military point of view (source). Its clear that any neutral justice court, abiding by the conventions of Geneva, would have condemned Truman and his circle to the hardest penalty for the most awful of war crimes: indiscriminate massacre of civilians. |
Dude do you even know what you're talking about? The Japanese were in the process of mobilizing the entirety of their civilian population!
Edited by Laelius
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 22:09 |
And stop acting indignent I could accuse you of being a monster for wanting the US to invade Japan and cause the slaughter of millions of Japanese.
The only true crime here IMHO is the extent the US went to cover up japanese atrocities. Does anyone know the name of that Japanese unit that killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese in bizarre and horrendous medical experiments?
Edited by Laelius
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 22:42 |
Originally posted by Laelius
And stop acting indignent I could accuse you of
being a monster for wanting the US to invade Japan and cause the
slaughter of millions of Japanese. |
Why should I? It's truly indignating. If at least you could separate
ethics from geopoltics and discuss both in separate levels... but you
seem needed of total justification.
The only true crime here IMHO is the extent the US went to
cover up japanese atrocities. Does anyone know the name of that
Japanese unit that killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese in bizarre
and horrendous medical experiments? |
That's another story... but it doesn't justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, instead aggravates it.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 00:54 |
Thanks for the ( source) Maju, its a good article. Did you read Support for use of atomic bombs above it? Its not too bad either.
With all due respect, this is going to carry this thread way off topic so start a different one if you want to continue using your hindsight ethics please.
|
|
baracuda
Colonel
Joined: 13-May-2005
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 722
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 01:15 |
The Japanese had mobilizied the entire population to fight off the invaders. Those families you speak of would have faced the American army with rifles and whatever tools and farming implements they could find, lets not forget the willingness of Japanese civilians to commit suicide at Okinawa by throwing themselves off the cliffs. You think the Atomic Bomings were bad? Just imagine uncountable waves of Japanese old men women and children armed with vintage rifles, spears and shovels charging headlong into the tanks, machine guns and artillery of an American army. |
The families I speak of have nothing to do with the war, their only fault was to live in or close to those areas, generations of people rendered infertile, or gave birth to mutated children. Im sure things really look clean and good on paper, US drops A-bomb to 2 civilian cities, 250 000 people killed in an instant. And the rest suffered until they too died of various cancers.
If the civilians had killed themselves, and so on, that wouldnt have been that much a loss maybe many would have died and commited suicide by jumping of some place, but that is their choice and their own right. It wont affect those who choose to live and those that live 20-40-50 years after the war.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 09:34 |
No matter how ugly, from a strategic position the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings brought a swift end to the war. Yet a new and more important moral dilemma arose: killing of innocents for a greater cause. My sympathies go to those Japanese families that did not have the chance to defend their homeland. My sympathies also go to the millions of Chinese and other east asians that had to succumb to catastrophy under Imperial Japan's hegenomy. And, of course, for ending the war to save American lives that would have been innumerable had the bombings not happened. But it still was dang ugly.
Edited by Seko
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 09:37 |
Originally posted by Thegeneral
No one could have foreseens the insurgence
comeing from other countries and blowing themselves up to kill
civilians and soldiers.
|
Everybody else did. He was warned. People who knew what they were talking about told him. He was too stupid to listen.
He has committed too many stupidities to count or list. What about
all that idiotic stuff about 'looking into Putin's eyes'? What about
being too stuoid (and cowardly, another evidenr personal
attribute) to walk down the road and talk with Cindy Sheehan?
That would have been a smart thing to do.
The US has never been in a worse economic and military plight than
it is right now. And still he stupidly goes around threatening to use
force against Iran and Syria. When it is abundantly obvious that the US
isn't strong enough to meet its existing commitments, so the very
threat is laughable. The US has never been laughed at and disrespected
the way it is now.
You can't possibly expect him to see the future.
|
Yes you can. Other people did. Contrast the stupid handling of this war
with his father's smart handling of the Gulf War. The father was smart.
The son is stupid.
We did not alienate countries.
|
You certainly did. Why do you think there's so much opposition to the current US administration?
We said they could help, and they rufused.
|
And you failed to realise that not helping was the smart thing to
do. That you were on a downhill path to disaster from which the
European countries in particular were trying to rescue
you. The biggest idiocy in all this is that you were warned what would
happen. We were trying to help. Iit was the US that was too blind and
stubborn to recognise that.
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 10:47 |
Originally posted by Thegeneral
Lol, you really truly believe he is dumb?! My word, looks as if the media has gotten to you all. Pitty.
The intelligence was a mistake, Bush has said that. What more do you want? You want us to pull out right now so more Iraqis can die?
He never underustimated the Iraq situation. He was right on target when it started. The Iraqi ""army" fell quickly. No one could have foreseens the insurgence comeing from other countries and blowing themselves up to kill civilians and soldiers. You can't possibly expect him to see the future.
We did not alienate countries. We said they could help, and they rufused. And the attitude that "your either with us or against us" is completly in your own mind and completly made up. If that was our attitude and we could not understand the fact countries did not want to help us, then we would be at war with half of Europe.
|
Have you considered the possibility that it is you to whom the media has gotten to? Maybe you've been watching too much Fox News...
You know, up here in Canada, before the Iraq war, we had everyone, down to small local newspapers, commenting on how Iraq could quickly turn into a quagmire, and on the high possibility of an insurgency or even a civil war. If they could foresee this, why shouldn't Bush and his cabinet?
And yes, you have been alienating countries, and worse, the common people in many countries around the world. France was the US's oldest ally, ever since the War of Independence, and yet the French were treated as a scapegoat, to deflect the American people's attention from the real issue. I can definitely see a rise in anti-Americansim in Canada, and we are your brothers after all: I can't think of any people who are more similar to you, and yet America has a pretty bad image here. How could this happen? Is every one else but the American government at fault for this? Or are you just denying the obvious?
You have to face it: Bush is one of the worst presidents in US history, through his handling of the Iraq war, of international affairs, and of the US economy. I don't the image of the US around the world has ever been this bad.
You really should start doing some independent research of your own, keep an open mind, and stop watching only Fox News and listening to talk radio. Go on some websites from around the world: the BBC, the CBC, if you don't speak any other language but English. The way the rest of the world sees this matter is very very different from the way it's presented in the heartland of America...
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Serge L
Baron
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 485
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 14:23 |
Truman, for the reasons stated above (the bomb + bad management of post war international relations)
Please, American friends, do realize the worst American, in our
non-american point of view, is the one who wants to bully the rest of
the world using force, even though he can have some circumstantial
reason to do it.
For the same reason, G W Bush is second on that list.
|
|