Conquer Club

JJM wrote:

JJM wrote:That crooks doing better than Truman. I say Truman was absolutle magnificent and here they put a crook before him.

The bombing had to be done. I admire Truman for being brave enough to fire McArthur.

Responding to yourself again, I see.

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:That crooks doing better than Truman. I say Truman was absolutle magnificent and here they put a crook before him.

Hold on...you're calling out Jackson for Native American genocide, but Truman killing over 100,000 Japanese citizens (not even counting those that died after the two initial nukes) still leaves him with "magnificent"? How is that, exactly?

I want to hear more about Andrew Johnson!

JJM wrote:

JJM wrote:That crooks doing better than Truman. I say Truman was absolutle magnificent and here they put a crook before him.

The bombing had to be done. I admire Truman for being brave enough to fire McArthur.

That was one thing I don't admire him for. MacArthur was the top general because he knew how to win wars, and that was his job. If MacArthur had run for President, he would have won hands down, which means he was one of the most popular and respected generals the US has ever had. Yes, he wanted to A-bomb the Chinese, however Truman acted the coward in this by firing MacArthur for wanting to go against Communist China after the Chinese had attacked US and South Korean forces when the US and South Korea were on the edge of victory. Just look up the "Voice of God" speech. My internet is being laggy right now, so I can't really post it myself.

In regard to Truman, let's get it in the correct perspective. How many of you fought against the Japanese? Better yet, ask someone who did. They are going fast, so you better do it soon. Ask your fathers, grandfathers, and in some cases your great grandfathers. I'm willing to wager that most, if not all responses from individuals directly fighting in the war (WWII) would have considered it a treasonous act if Truman did not use every resource available to end the war as quickly and with as few of American casualties as possible. Like the atomic bomb.

Some of you folk are trying to make value judgements based on your own experiences and values developed here in the twenty-first century and not in the world at war mid twentieth century. It was war. A world war. A horrible, no holds barred (except for poison gasses), hate filled, revenge motivated war. Cities were being fire-bombed for God's sake! I believe more Japanese civilians were killed during fire bombing raids on Tokyo and other cities than in each individual a-bomb explosion. Over 100,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo fire-storm alone, with in excess of 250,000 injuries. General Curtis LeMay was the commander of XXI Bomber Command, the bomb group that did the bombing. It was his idea.

What Truman did should never be put in the same category as what Jackson did.

Truman made the best decision he could given the circumstances of 1945 which was end the war.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:That crooks doing better than Truman. I say Truman was absolutle magnificent and here they put a crook before him.

Hold on...you're calling out Jackson for Native American genocide, but Truman killing over 100,000 Japanese citizens (not even counting those that died after the two initial nukes) still leaves him with "magnificent"? How is that, exactly?

I want to hear more about Andrew Johnson!

Committed genocide on Reconstruction bills with his veto?

InkL0sed wrote:Committed genocide on Reconstruction bills with his veto?

Well for the record, Jackson's action (the Trail of Tears---and including defying the Supreme Court decision) was based on his view that State's Right's superceded Federal ones. Georgia's Supreme Court Ruled against the Natives, and threw out their treaties. Jackson told the Natives that they had 2 choices. Respect Georgia's authority or GTFO. The indians would not recognize Geogian authority, so they were thrown out.

However yeah, he clearly had no respect for the natives lives. He had no problem letting them die.

Shivas wrote:I'm willing to wager that most, if not all responses from individuals directly fighting in the war (WWII) would have considered it a treasonous act if Truman did not use every resource available to end the war as quickly and with as few of American casualties as possible.

Juan_Bottom wrote:There are those in Japan that felt no resentment towards the United States for their usage of the atomic bomb on Japan. A fighting man's view of the atomic bomb came from Captain Mitsuo Fuchida, who had led the air attack on Pearl Harbor and who had been one of those investigating Hiroshima the day after the disaster. In his opinion, once a nation embarked upon war, it was obligated to go all out. To possess a weapon that could ensure victory and not use it would be to break faith with a nation's people as well as to disgrace the memory of lost comrades and make their sacrifices meaningless. What must be remembered is that during the Second World War, both Nazi Germany and expansionist Japan tried to perfect the atomic weapon, it would be absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Japan and Germany wouldn't have used it if they got it first. Americans were still dying, a solution arose that would end the loss of all American lives and end the war quickly. They seized it. Captain Fuchida also added that given the culture of his nation, Japan would inevitably have used the atomic bomb over the United States if it meant their assured surrender.

Though again, the bombs were not dropped to achieve victory. They were dropped to get Japan to stop fighting.

Yay Georgia!

Juan_Bottom wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
I want to hear more about Andrew Johnson!

Committed genocide on Reconstruction bills with his veto?

Details?
Edit.. I am an idiot, obviously. But remembering presidents and vice presidents never was my strong suit.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Well for the record, Jackson's action (the Trail of Tears---and including defying the Supreme Court decision) was based on his view that State's Right's superceded Federal ones.

states don't have rights

McArthur was a good genral but he didn't listen to Truman's orders so Truman fired him.

JJM wrote:My top 15 List would be
1. Teddy Roosevelt
2. Lincoln or Coolidge
3. Lincoln or Coolidge
4. Truman or Reagen
5. Truman or Reagen
6. Taylor or Jefferson
7. Taylor or Jefferson
8. James Madison
9. Benjamin Harrison
10. Cleveland
11. G. W. Bush
12. Eisenhower
13. G. H. W. Bush
14. Wasington
15. McKinley

You can see how much I like Truman.

William Henry Harrison.



The man....

The legend....

The best damn thing to ever happen to the United States of America....

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Well for the record, Jackson's action (the Trail of Tears---and including defying the Supreme Court decision) was based on his view that State's Right's superceded Federal ones.

states don't have rights

Andrew Jackson was the 7th President of the United States (1829–37), which of course was before the Civil War. He was also a southerner. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States (1861–65). I hope that helps to explain Andrew Jacksons views.


On a side note, I am of the opinion that individual States, like people, don't have rights only if they are unwilling to fight for them.

JJM wrote:McArthur was a good genral but he didn't listen to Truman's orders so Truman fired him.

It was more about his public critisism of the president really. You can't go around calling your boss a twat to everyone who will listen and then not expect to be fired. No matter who you are.
Besides, it was too soon after WWII that MacArthur wanted to drop the new bomb and start another major war again. The people still loved their hero, but they weren't going to follow him like that again. Not without being directly threatened or attacked like Pearl Harbor.

Abraham Lincoln was a fascist. He shut down newspapers which criticized him, imprisoned his political enemies without trial, and fought a war the deny self government to the south. Why anybody would consider him a great president is beyond me.

Mr Scorpio wrote:Abraham Lincoln was a fascist. He shut down newspapers which criticized him, imprisoned his political enemies without trial, and fought a war the deny self government to the south. Why anybody would consider him a great president is beyond me.

He imprizioned his political enemies that joined the south. some of those thimgs he had to do.

I keep picturing Obama entering the White House for his first time after the inauguration opening closet after closet only to find them all filled to capacity with empty beer cans that Bush had shotgunned, crushed on his forehead, and tossed in the closet for the next guy to deal with.

And maybe some Billy Beer cans left over from Carter's days in the office

InkL0sed wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:That crooks doing better than Truman. I say Truman was absolutle magnificent and here they put a crook before him.

Hold on...you're calling out Jackson for Native American genocide, but Truman killing over 100,000 Japanese citizens (not even counting those that died after the two initial nukes) still leaves him with "magnificent"? How is that, exactly?

I want to hear more about Andrew Johnson!

Committed genocide on Reconstruction bills with his veto?

I confess, though It is obvious, that I had the two confused. I admit my failure. Learning names, faces and dates never was my strong suit growing up. (finally learned it was important in college ...).

One thing this thread has taught me is that I have to review my American History a good deal before my son gets old enough to ask me about it.

(sadly, in THIS school system, I have some time.....)

This is easy. Andrew Jackson. He had keggers on the White House lawn. I mean, what's not to like? (except for maybe that whole blankets drenched in diseases thing...)

Wolffystyle's two pence.

Wolffystyle wrote:This is easy. Andrew Jackson. He had keggers on the White House lawn. I mean, what's not to like?

Wasn't that Coolidge? Who, during prohibition, had trucks delivering various alchoholic beverages pulling up to the White House steps?

(or am I thinking of Harding.. or both?)

William. Henry. Harrison.


Who else can boast having three first names?

Why would anyone want to?

You wouldn't. Because you're NOT William Henry Harrison.

I got three first names...

(and a last name)

Mr Scorpio wrote:Abraham Lincoln was a fascist. He shut down newspapers which criticized him, imprisoned his political enemies without trial, and fought a war the deny self government to the south. Why anybody would consider him a great president is beyond me.

I don't think wartime actions compare with peacetimes.

As for fighting a war to deny self-government. Sorry, old argument -- you lost!

Mr Scorpio wrote:and fought a war the deny self government to the south.

no sorry the civil war was not about the south fighting for self government it was about the south fighting to keep their house negroes

hope this helps

Also, the southern states already had self-government. It was called state governors and state legislators. It was also called being able to vote for, you know, president and members of Congress.