Best President of the 20th Century

[StorminNorman]

thank you, mr. high school textbook.

i know why truman did it. i don't think it's justified or warranted. i'm of the opinion that a civilian's life should never be intentionally taken.

If a President has a choice between the life of civilians of another country or the life of his own people - he has to pick to save the latter.

 

[PhotoJones]

If a President has a choice between the life of civilians of another country or the life of his own people - he has to pick to save the latter.

i think destroying the military bases would've weakened their tiny little nation just as good as "pyschological" methods.

of course, i'm no expert.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

The civillians killed form the a-bombs would be dwarfed in comparison to the casualties both sides would have faced had the US attempted to invade Japan. It would have liked dragged the war on for several more months.


I think FDR is a bit overrated. He was a great president but the fact that he was in office during WWII really inflates his greatness. I'd go with TR as the best of the 20th century. Before his presidency, the government was pretty much a tool of big businesses.

 

[Gonking]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

 

[Gonking]

9 votes Theodore Roosevelt?

why would anybody vote for this f**** who intervened in almost all latinamerica and invaded half of the caribbean countries ?

 

[Memphis Slim]

truman definitely gets some negative points for the usage of atomic bombs.

You're kidding right????

 

[Memphis Slim]

t:

 

[hippie_hunter]

So what. His affairs don't have any affect on his job performance.

Though for a Governor/President, you'd think he'd have a better choice in women.

 

[Gonking]

t:

Who cares about his mistresses?

The important thing is what he did in government not in bed

 

[Addendum]

9 votes Theodore Roosevelt?

why would anybody vote for this f**** who intervened in almost all latinamerica and invaded half of the caribbean countries ?

I voted for him because I agree with his Progressivism, the importance he placed on conservation, the Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act, and the railroad regulations he placed.

I don't care about latin america

 

[Gonking]

I don't care about latin america

That's why the world hate your country

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Its sort of shocking to see people voting for certain Presidents.But then again,its understandable.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

9 votes Theodore Roosevelt?

why would anybody vote for this f**** who intervened in almost all latinamerica and invaded half of the caribbean countries ?

Look up what he did on the domestic front.

 

[Addendum]

That's why the world hate your country

Oh noes! The world hate my country! Whatever will I do

 

[Hobgoblin]

Theodore Roosevelt has always been my favorite. He did a lot fo good during his 8 years: fought the trusts, set up the National Park System, had the Panama Canal finished (even if he went about it illegally ), etc.

FDR is a close second, maybe even first, by TR is still my favorite.

 

[PhotoJones]

i guess we just should be happy that no one voted for bush...yet.

 

[The Chairman]

i guess we just should be happy that no one voted for bush...yet.

Bush Sr. actually was a pretty solid president compared to his son, at least from my understanding. Flawed, yes, but far superior to his son...which really isn't saying much.

 

[mwm1331]

that's the worst argument, ever.

why does no one ever answer the question of why we couldn't bomb military bases with regular, non-nuke bombs?

the bombing of those two cities is like using a grenade to kill a fly.

Becasue the people og japan had been so brainwashed by japanese propaganda that women were prepared to kill thier own children so our marines wouldn't "eat them" In the When we liberated islands off the japanese coast the civilians were throwing thier children off cliffs and jumpin in after them. The will of the people had to be broken, just as we had doen to the germans. In eevry war the will of the people has to be broken, when it isn't, when you try to "win hearts and minds" you end up with the situation we have in Iraq. War isn't nice, civilians always die, and the innocent always suffer. The best you can fo is be brutal enough to break the populace fast, so that more don't die.

 

[PhotoJones]

Bush Sr. actually was a pretty solid president compared to his son, at least from my understanding. Flawed, yes, but far superior to his son...which really isn't saying much.

yes.

 

[PhotoJones]

Becasue the people og japan had been so brainwashed by japanese propaganda that women were prepared to kill thier own children so our marines wouldn't "eat them" In the When we liberated islands off the japanese coast the civilians were throwing thier children off cliffs and jumpin in after them. The will of the people had to be broken, just as we had doen to the germans. In eevry war the will of the people has to be broken, when it isn't, when you try to "win hearts and minds" you end up with the situation we have in Iraq. War isn't nice, civilians always die, and the innocent always suffer. The best you can fo is be brutal enough to break the populace fast, so that more don't die.

yeah if you believe THAT kind of propaganda.

and i swear i'm going to kill the next person that uses the term "liberate" in reference to america invading a country.

 

[mwm1331]

yeah if you believe THAT kind of propaganda.

and i swear i'm going to kill the next person that uses the term "liberate" in reference to america invading a country.

Its not propaganda. it simple history. Unless you break the will of a people to fight, they will fight, and more will be killed in the process. And I still maintain we liberated Iraq, As well as Afghanistan.

 

[Addendum]

The U.S. was liberating countries in the Pacific during World War 2.

Study Imperial Japan and what it was doing in China, and in the island nations of the Pacific. K?

As for now, Afghanistan was necessary since their then-government was in league with al-Qaeda.

Iraq was unnecessary

 

[PhotoJones]

Its not propaganda. it simple history. Unless you break the will of a people to fight, they will fight, and more will be killed in the process. And I still maintain we liberated Iraq, As well as Afghanistan.

kill your tv, man. or least cut back on the fox"news".

and no hannity or rush for a week. you're grounded.

 

[Gonking]

and i swear i'm going to kill the next person that uses the term "liberate" in reference to america invading a country.

Yes, it's the same term that terrorism uses. Ironic.

 

[mwm1331]

kill your tv, man. or least cut back on the fox"news".

and no hannity or rush for a week. you're grounded.

I love how predictable you are. If someone doesn't take your "wisdom" as gospel then obviously they must liten to fox news. (Im actually surprised you didn't refer to it as faux news) try reading the art of war, the prince, von clauswitz, any of the great millitary thinkers. The same theme runs through all thier writings.
Or better yet look at what happened in WW2, The firebombing of dresden, the blitz, the constant bombing raids on london. Both sides recognised this central concept. Both put it to practise, only we did it better. Thats why we won.
If the morale of the people can not be sustained the war itself can not be sustained.
But hey don't let a little thing like reality bother you, it doesn't seem to have ever intruded upon your thoughts before.