Best President Thread

#28
#28
Toujours Pret said:
Yeah, because Operation Downfall would've been bloodless for the allies and the Japanese people.
Click to expand...

So if Japan had the bomb, you'd think they'd be justified in dropping it on 2 of our major cities in order to avoid a potentially drawn out war*?

* Even though I don't think the war would've been long and drawn out.
 
#29
#29
The point being that it's hard to compare, given the wide variety of circumstances the presidents faced while in office.
 
#30
#30
Velo Vol said:
The point being that it's hard to compare, given the wide variety of circumstances the presidents faced while in office.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is presidents who faced great adversity are almost always highly praised, even if they created said catastrophes.

If everything ran smoothly during your presidency, you're not likely to be highly rated.....like in John Tyler's case (how is he considered one of the worst presidents? Historians are retarded.).
 
#31
#31
Velo Vol said:
So land expansion is the criterion we're using to judge?
Click to expand...

No, but it is important as it effects everything else in our history afterwards. I would argue the Louisiana Purchase is the single most important American event besides the American Revolution.
 
#32
#32
n_huffhines said:
So if Japan had the bomb, you'd think they'd be justified in dropping it on 2 of our major cities in order to avoid a potentially drawn out war*?

* Even though I don't think the war would've been long and drawn out.
Click to expand...

I respect your posts and I like your different line of thinking, but I just don't see how you can believe this. Every piece of historical evidence i have ever read says that upwards of 1 million lives would have been lost and the invasion of the mainland would have taken at least one year.
 
#34
#34
DefenseisDesire said:
I respect your posts and I like your different line of thinking, but I just don't see how you can believe this. Every piece of historical evidence i have ever read says that upwards of 1 million lives would have been lost and the invasion of the mainland would have taken at least one year.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it just depends on what you read. Either way, civilians should be off limits, IMO.
 
#35
#35
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, it just depends on what you read. Either way, civilians should be off limits, IMO.
Click to expand...

There is collateral damage in every war, and always will be. If you don't want you country bombed, make sure that you don't have people in office that will try to piss off people they shouldn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#36
#36
DefenseisDesire said:
Why? Do you just like him because no one wanted him as president and he was filling in for WHH and thus got nothing accomplished?
Click to expand...

I like do-nothing presidents. If somebody is labeled a do-nothing president, all it means is they didn't radically grow the Federal government (except for in the case of Hoover...he radically grew government, and somehow is labeled "do-nothing").

Why do we want presidents to "do stuff"? How much better off would we be if W had been a do-nothing president? I'd like to live in that alternate universe.
 
#38
#38
g8terh8ter_eric said:
There is collateral damage in every war, and always will be. If you don't want you country bombed, make sure that you don't have people in office that will try to piss off people they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Wow. Those civilians weren't collateral damage, they were the target. No matter how badly I want a POTUS who won't piss off other countries, we keep electing them. I don't think I deserve to die.
 
#41
#41
DefenseisDesire said:
I respect your posts and I like your different line of thinking, but I just don't see how you can believe this. Every piece of historical evidence i have ever read says that upwards of 1 million lives would have been lost and the invasion of the mainland would have taken at least one year.
Click to expand...

You should read the primary documents detailing the discussions between Stimson and the Japanese and between Stimson and Truman. The Japanese were willing to surrender, so long as the Emperor would remain the Emperor, even if it was so only as a powerless figurehead. Truman was not willing to give in to that stipulation. We dropped two bombs; then, Russia started to loom and it looked like they would invade the mainland. We agreed to Japans stipulation that the Emperor remain as a figurehead.

The same terms that Japan was willing to accept before we dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese civilians they accepted after. The atom bombs changed nothing (they certainly did not cause fear for the Russians, who were actually more aggressive toward Japan after we dropped the bombs).
 
#43
#43
n_huffhines said:
Wow. Those civilians weren't collateral damage, they were the target. No matter how badly I want a POTUS who won't piss off other countries, we keep electing them. I don't think I deserve to die.
Click to expand...
They where told it was coming.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
g8terh8ter_eric said:
There is collateral damage in every war, and always will be. If you don't want you country bombed, make sure that you don't have people in office that will try to piss off people they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

When civilians are killed when they are intentionally targeted, it is not collateral damage; it is murder. It is no different if we do it with a uniformed air force or if al Qaeda does it with a couple of guys in civilian clothes on an airliner.
 
#48
#48
n_huffhines said:
I like do-nothing presidents. If somebody is labeled a do-nothing president, all it means is they didn't radically grow the Federal government (except for in the case of Hoover...he radically grew government, and somehow is labeled "do-nothing").

Why do we want presidents to "do stuff"? How much better off would we be if W had been a do-nothing president? I'd like to live in that alternate universe.
Click to expand...

I agree with that in the modern era. (Post 1900 ish) However, in Tyler's time there were radical problems facing the country (slavery, Native Americans, expansion). He was also essentially ineffective at garnering support for things. It's not that he did nothing out of principle, it's that he was never meant to be President and it showed.
 
#49
#49
therealUT said:
You should read the primary documents detailing the discussions between Stimson and the Japanese and between Stimson and Truman. The Japanese were willing to surrender, so long as the Emperor would remain the Emperor, even if it was so only as a powerless figurehead. Truman was not willing to give in to that stipulation. We dropped two bombs; then, Russia started to loom and it looked like they would invade the mainland. We agreed to Japans stipulation that the Emperor remain as a figurehead.

The same terms that Japan was willing to accept before we dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese civilians they accepted after. The atom bombs changed nothing (they certainly did not cause fear for the Russians, who were actually more aggressive toward Japan after we dropped the bombs).
Click to expand...

I'll have to look at that. I'll admit I've never looked at primary sources relating to that and I've always just taken it as fact that the Japanese were not going to surrender. I just looked at it as a natural progression from losing ten of thousands of men fighting over Iwo Jima and Okinawa to losing millions fighting over territory the size of California.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top