Posted on 12/06/2006 6:46:51 AM PST by presidio9
Agreed.
The whole "Hiroshima" thing brings me back to my basic premise that I think should apply in all wars or actions when the decision is hard:
Who is better?
That is the critical question.
You can talk about "million American SOLDIERS" lost for a Japan invasion, or a million Japanese CIVILIANS (mostly) lost for "the bomb", but who is really better worth keeping?
We are. We were better than the Japs (sorry, no PC here) and are better than the Muzzies (always were and will be). So if it has to come to the dreadful decision, I pick US to save.
And Harry's one of the few Democrat presidents I respect and admire.
I guess many people do too. An aircraft carrier is named after him. I don't know much about him, but considering there are only 12 carriers to have one named after you means something.
I meant from a scandal plagued failed expectations perspective.
Consider Nagasaki interest due for Pearl Harbor.
It depends on how you view it - if from the perspective of public scandals, yes Harding's administration wasn't good. If you mean in actually managing the country - better than he's given credit. He was certainly better than a lot of C- Presidents like Pierce, Buchanan, Fillmore, Taylor, Tyler.
Regards, Ivan
Please. Roosevelt was a commie who wouldn't mind having some of that Soviet-style statism for himself. Mr. benevolent dictator as it was.
Fortunately, it worked.
The man is a fool. Our casualties from an invasion of the Home Islands of Japans would have been horrific. However, the atomic bomb saved more Japanese lives than American. We had total domination of the sky. We would have bombed Japan for months. Every major city would have been fire bombed with casualties that would have made Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like an afternoon tea party. The Japanese fought on Okinawa to the last man. They would do the same on the home islands. They would give no quarter nor would we. It would be a battle of extermination. Japan should be grateful that we dropped the bomb on them and thus give them a "face saving" way to surrender.
You make some valid points about FDR, but Wilson deserves considerably harsher than Bartlett gives him. The notion that Wilson was "forced by the Germans into WWI" is simply laughable; also, he single-handedly reversed what could have been the beginnings a considerably less painful transition to racial equality that was beginning to develop during the Teddy Roosevelt years (for no other better reason than to satisfied his bigoted prickitude).
This idea being pushed by some people today that Japan had really given up before the bombs were dropped is nothing but revisionist history being pushed by people who seem to have an unnecessary guilt complex.
LOL!
I don't think that the Whig standard-bearer in 1844 was a man of the left. However I think in a race between the Democrat Polk and the Whig Clay, the leftist historian would be sympathetic towards Henry Clay and the Whigs. I cannot see a leftist historian happy about 54, 40, or fight, war with Mexico, support for Texas annexation (which potentially strengthened the slave states), acquisition of California and Oregon, reduction of tariffs, and anybody referred to as "Young Hickory," but as O'Reilly often opines, I could be wrong.
I wonder if "its" campaign bumperstickers will say Rodham, Rodham-Clinton, Clinton, or just Hillary! (again)
Really, I could use a few Wilsons, but I don't think there are any more of him out there.
TS
And, of course, Benjy wasn't a president, so he's not part of this discussion.
If a third-party anti-slavery candidate had not siphoned off some votes in New York state that otherwise would have gone to Clay in 1844, he would have defeated Polk, and we might not have had the war with Mexico in 1846. Whether we would have eventually acquired the Southwest is hard to say. Just as if Ralph Nader had not run in 2000, Gore might have won, and Afghanistan and Iraq would still be under anti-American dictatorships.
Sometimes you have to drive the point home.
"As a historical figure, I despise Henry Clay. He was arrogant, pompous and nearly always wrong."
I know how you like Quincy (JQA), but when it came to James Polk, John Quincy Adams was the very anti-thesis of a class act. It was said of him, that when discussing Polk, John Quincy Adams "elevated personal calumny to an art form." He said of Polk that he wasn't qualified to be "...an eminent County Court attorney." Adams disparaged Polk for having "no wit, no gracefulness of delivery, no point of argument, no elegance of language, no philosophy..."
I know this is politics, and a byproduct certainly of the famous, or infamous "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay, that effectively sealed Jackson's defeat in the 1824 election. Jackson, and to a lesser extent, his protege, James Polk, never forgave Adams or the machinations of Clay. The animosity was not a oneway street, for Adams and Clay bristled, as they were relegated to the sidelines during the Jacksonian era.
Stalin was fighting a force that was occupying his country. Do you suggest that Stalin might have backed out of the war if he did not get support from his allies? To suggest such is equally disengenuous. I may be wrong about my assessment of FDR and Stalin, but IMO, FDR was ingenuous in his dealings with "Uncle Joe"; trusting everything Stalin said. Stalin was disengenuous with FDR, giving the impression that conquest of eastern Europe was not formost in his mind.
IMO, FDR was "had" by Stalin.
Also, if defense of IWO JIMA was any indication of what the Japanese would do to defend their homeland, then Truman was right to drop the Atomic Bombs. Plus we had to make Japan think we had a whole arsenal of them. If they knew we only had two, they probably would not have surrendered.
Imagine fighting a battle like Iwo Jima today?
How could you not mention Carter and Clinton?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.