Worst President(s) after the 1900's. (Exclusing Bush)

[Pvt.Dirt]

Originally Posted by EAsTon

I'm not going to start a "debate" about this but the Japanese were not going to surrender unless the US and Allies pushed into the mainlands, you could also say they fight to the death. The Japanese were fighting an un-winalbe war and Truman didn't any more US casualties. He Dropped a nuke and gave them 2 full days to surrender, then the next one came. Thankfully there hasn't been a nuke dropped since but in this case he made a tough decision to try to save lives of his allies and own soldiers.

I understand your thoughts though, people dieing in mass numbers like that is something words can't describe and hopefully nukes will never be launched again (or at least not when I'm alive).

You're 100% correct, there really was no other way to make Japan surrender. I actually believe that it was the right thing to do in that situation. Yes, thankfully there hasn't been another nuclear attack, the closest being of course the Cold War and maybe you could throw Vietnam in there too.

[Big Red 11]

Originally Posted by -paT_BiZzL3-

He made the decision of dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I understand that he did it to get Japan to surrender, but I know that there had to have been another way to do that.

Yea, there was another way. The other way was to launch a full-scale ground invasion of the Japanese mainland. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. Marines would have stormed Japanese beaches and would have taken each city, town, and village. And each and every Japanese soldier and civilian that could hold a rifle or a knife would have fought tooth and nail to protect their sacred homeland.

The A-bombs actually kept casualties to a minimum, because such an invasion would have cost millions upon millions of japanese and american lives, and decimated most of the country.

[BoyEngland]

Originally Posted by Big Red 11

Yea, there was another way. The other way was to launch a full-scale ground invasion of the Iraqi mainland. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. Marines would have stormed Iraqi beaches and would have taken each city, town, and village. And each and every Iraqi soldier and civilian that could hold a rifle or a knife would have fought tooth and nail to protect their sacred homeland.

Now tell me why they didn't just nuke the middle east when it all kicked off.

On topic: I would have voted for daddy Bush for giving birth to the retard that leads your country today, but he wasn't bad as a president.

From that list, I would say Clinton was the worst president. The bills, etc he passed weren't his downfall. His inability to keep his professional life and personal life separate were is he let the country down.

I realise the press are often the ones to mix to two for any famous person, but Clinton didn't really do much to avoid it. His whole, "I didn't have sexual..." speech was pretty much his only clear effort to clean his name.

Although Nixon overall tried too hard at everything he did, he wasn't as bad as Clinton. The others, I don't know too much about so can't comment.

[Big Red 11]

Originally Posted by BoyEngland

Now tell me why they didn't just nuke the middle east when it all kicked off.

On topic: I would have voted for daddy Bush for giving birth to the retard that leads your country today, but he wasn't bad as a president.

From that list, I would say Clinton was the worst president. The bills, etc he passed weren't his downfall. His inability to keep his professional life and personal life separate were is he let the country down.

I realise the press are often the ones to mix to two for any famous person, but Clinton didn't really do much to avoid it. His whole, "I didn't have sexual..." speech was pretty much his only clear effort to clean his name.

Although Nixon overall tried too hard at everything he did, he wasn't as bad as Clinton. The others, I don't know too much about so can't comment.

Luckily for us, the Iraqi government didn't have the entire population of Iraq brainwashed and willing to give their lives.

Clinton, really? I still fail to see how getting his pole smoked was a punishable offense.

[BoyEngland]

I didn't choose him for having "sexual relations with this woman" but he shouldn't have thrown politics and blow jobs in the mixer.

All famous people should lead either A) one flawless life with nothing anyone can bring back to haunt you, or B) 2 totally separate lives that never intermingle.

Because choice A is impossible, he should have gone with B.

[Cylon]

I see where you are coming from with Hoover, pat. I think it was an unfortunate situation for him as he stepped into the Great Depression. He had a plan to elevate the country back to its glory days, but unfortunately for him, his "trickle down economics" failed miserably. For not having any previous actions or people to confer to for advice, I think Hoover did what he could do, although I do think he could have done much more to help the people of America as you stated.

I personally voted for Nixon. If you are going to be elected to lead the United States of America, you know all eyes and ears are going to be on you. What he did with the whole Watergate incident was a complete embarrassment of not only himself, but the country as well. I could only imagine the disappointment and regret the people of America had for putting such a man in office.

While the incident with Clinton created some controversy, I don't think it affected the image and moral of the country as much as the actions of Nixon and other presidential scandals (Harding).

[Mr~Pan]

Bill, he did nothing but coast on the good economy. He did do some good over seasons things but for our country he did not accomplish much and his wife is just a dike.

Originally Posted by -paT_BiZzL3-

He made the decision of dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I understand that he did it to get Japan to surrender, but I know that there had to have been another way to do that.

Wow have you had a history class yet?

Originally Posted by Big Red 11

Yea, there was another way. The other way was to launch a full-scale ground invasion of the Japanese mainland. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. Marines would have stormed Japanese beaches and would have taken each city, town, and village. And each and every Japanese soldier and civilian that could hold a rifle or a knife would have fought tooth and nail to protect their sacred homeland.

The A-bombs actually kept casualties to a minimum, because such an invasion would have cost millions upon millions of japanese and american lives, and decimated most of the country.

Thank you Teacher red!

With a full scale invasion we would of lost thousands upon thousands of soldiers because as red said they were willing to sacrafice everyone. It took 2 bombs to make them surrender, they didn't even flinch after the first one.

[-paT_BiZzL3-]

Originally Posted by Mr~Pan

Wow have you had a history class yet?

Yes I have. Have a 95 in US History. :smile:

[Mr~Pan]

Originally Posted by -paT_BiZzL3-

Yes I have. Have a 95 in US History. :smile:

Good boy, then you should know why we did that! Usually after a bomb is dropped that kills a couple hundred thousand people people fold but the Japs were willing to sacrafice everyone for their silly cause. Same thing will happen if we ever go to war with China they will sacrafice everyone to save what they have. We would have to drop a bomb on them or have everyone on our side to win.

[-paT_BiZzL3-]

Originally Posted by Mr~Pan

Good boy, then you should know why we did that! Usually after a bomb is dropped that kills a couple hundred thousand people people fold but the Japs were willing to sacrafice everyone for their silly cause. Same thing will happen if we ever go to war with China they will sacrafice everyone to save what they have. We would have to drop a bomb on them or have everyone on our side to win.

O believe me, I understand that. I'm just not too fond of a mass killing of a hundred thousand people. Then again, It limited US Casualites. I guess I'm 50/50 on this subject.