Best President Thread

#77
#77
When nations go to war, there's going to be civilian casualties. War is an ugly thing.

That said, at this point I have no opinion on the A-Bombs because I haven't read enough info. It was tragic they were used and so many killed, but until I read more, I can't say they were unnecessary. A part of me does wonder though if the main reason for their use was to try and curtail Stalin.
 
#78
#78
I think Andrew Jackson is on the list of best presidents because he got us completely out of debt, and was the ONLY president ever to do so. BUt I recently read he was racist and mistreated native Americans sooo I don't know.
 
#79
#79
heartvols said:
I think Andrew Jackson is on the list of best presidents because he got us completely out of debt, and was the ONLY president ever to do so. BUt I recently read he was racist and mistreated native Americans sooo I don't know.
Click to expand...

Responsible for the Trail of Tears. Purposely supplied the Cherokee with smallpox infested blankets. Man was a bastard.
 
#81
#81
Weezer said:
When nations go to war, there's going to be civilian casualties. War is an ugly thing.
Click to expand...

When a nation is targeting the enemy and accidentally kills unarmed, innocent civilians, that is one issue that can be, in certain respects, be justified; when a nation is actually targeting unarmed, innocent civilians, that is much tougher to justify and it is, more than likely, murder.
 
#82
#82
therealUT said:
When a nation is targeting the enemy and accidentally kills unarmed, innocent civilians, that is one issue that can be, in certain respects, be justified; when a nation is actually targeting unarmed, innocent civilians, that is much tougher to justify and it is, more than likely, murder.
Click to expand...

Do you not see the logic with regard to the possible target list?
 
#83
#83
OrangeEmpire said:
Do you not see the logic with regard to the possible target list?
Click to expand...

I understand their rationalization, and I think it is bull ****. It was not absolutely necessary to drop the bomb; so any rationalization which states that they would kill less civilians and destroy less cultural sites here (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) than here (Kyoto, Tokyo), misses the point.

The point is that we were never in a situation in which we had to either invade or drop the bomb. Shortly after the Battle of Midway, Japan no longer represented a threat to the United States (they had no power projection capability left).

What we did to Japan was purely punitive and it is never absolutely necessary to punish anyone; one certainly should not soil their own soul in exacting punishment. Deciding to decimate hundreds of thousands of civilians (over a million if we include the fire-bombing raids on Tokyo) was pure barbarism.
 
#85
#85
therealUT said:
I understand their rationalization, and I think it is bull ****. It was not absolutely necessary to drop the bomb; so any rationalization which states that they would kill less civilians and destroy less cultural sites here (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) than here (Kyoto, Tokyo), misses the point.

The point is that we were never in a situation in which we had to either invade or drop the bomb. Shortly after the Battle of Midway, Japan no longer represented a threat to the United States (they had no power projection capability left).

What we did to Japan was purely punitive and it is never absolutely necessary to punish anyone; one certainly should not soil their own soul in exacting punishment. Deciding to decimate hundreds of thousands of civilians (over a million if we include the fire-bombing raids on Tokyo) was pure barbarism.
Click to expand...

3 real reasons we dropped the bombs:

1) because we could
2) gain hegemony over Asia/Pacific
3) flip off the Soviets
 
#88
#88
OrangeEmpire said:
Ok, so after Midway what do you do?
Click to expand...

Shortly after Midway, once the rest of the Japanese Fleet was decimated, you pack up and go home. Increase your vigilance in patrolling the Pacific, in order to protect Hawaii and the Pacific Coast.
 
#89
#89
therealUT said:
I understand their rationalization, and I think it is bull ****. It was not absolutely necessary to drop the bomb; so any rationalization which states that they would kill less civilians and destroy less cultural sites here (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) than here (Kyoto, Tokyo), misses the point.

The point is that we were never in a situation in which we had to either invade or drop the bomb. Shortly after the Battle of Midway, Japan no longer represented a threat to the United States (they had no power projection capability left).

What we did to Japan was purely punitive and it is never absolutely necessary to punish anyone; one certainly should not soil their own soul in exacting punishment. Deciding to decimate hundreds of thousands of civilians (over a million if we include the fire-bombing raids on Tokyo) was pure barbarism.
Click to expand...

Comparing prebomb Japan, and what their capabilities after the war could have been, with postbomb Japan and what their capabilities became, is not so black and white. So, no, you cannot say the post war picture would have been same if they hadn't dropped at least one.
 
#90
#90
slh1089 said:
Comparing prebomb Japan, and what their capabilities after the war could have been, with postbomb Japan and what their capabilities became, is not so black and white. So, no, you cannot say the post war picture would have been same if they hadn't.
Click to expand...

Prebomb Japan had no navy (the destruction of their navy began at the Battle of Midway and was completed shortly thereafter); they had no means to project power across the Pacific.

Further, I can state with categorical certainty that the treaty conditions that Japan was holding out for before we bombed them were the conditions that we accepted after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we ended up accepting those conditions, then do you think it was worth targeting and decimating hundreds of thousands of civilians to try to persuade the Japanese to change their minds?
 
#91
#91
therealUT said:
Shortly after Midway, once the rest of the Japanese Fleet was decimated, you pack up and go home. Increase your vigilance in patrolling the Pacific, in order to protect Hawaii and the Pacific Coast.
Click to expand...

Protect Australia, Philippines, let them rearm?
 
#92
#92
OrangeEmpire said:
Protect Australia, Philippines, let them rearm?
Click to expand...

I have no interest in protecting nations that cannot protect themselves, and protecting colonies (which is what the Philippines was) is very low on my list of things to die for.
 
#95
#95
OrangeEmpire said:
Rearm then?
Click to expand...

I look at it this way: if disarmament does not serve as an independent reason to begin a war, then it cannot serve as an independent reason to prolong a war.

Now, many disagree with me on this point; but, to do so they introduce all sorts of theories of liability, based upon the supposition that one can forfeit their right to life.
 
#96
#96
therealUT said:
I look at it this way: if disarmament does not serve as an independent reason to begin a war, then it cannot serve as an independent reason to prolong a war.

Now, many disagree with me on this point; but, to do so they introduce all sorts of theories of liability, based upon the supposition that one can forfeit their right to life.
Click to expand...

Makes for a good discussion.

Do you honestly believe the threat was removed after Midway?

Their battlewagons were still a threat.
 
#97
#97
OrangeEmpire said:
Makes for a good discussion.

Do you honestly believe the threat was removed after Midway?

Their battlewagons were still a threat.
Click to expand...

They lost six of twelve carriers in 1942 and lost another in 1943; without carrier fleets, there was no way that Japan would have been able to protect their battleships in the middle of the Pacific.

They lost all but one other carrier in 1944. So, either way, by the time we dropped two A-Bombs on Japan, they had absolutely no capability to project power across the Pacific.
 
#98
#98
therealUT said:
They lost six of twelve carriers in 1942 and lost another in 1943; without carrier fleets, there was no way that Japan would have been able to protect their battleships in the middle of the Pacific.

They lost all but one other carrier in 1944. So, either way, by the time we dropped two A-Bombs on Japan, they had absolutely no capability to project power across the Pacific.
Click to expand...

My concern would be localized and allocation of materials.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top