Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Second Thought : Truman should've hit a Japanese Naval Base - but hiroshima also had a shit load of japanese soldiers so it wasnt all civilians

At 6/5/05 09:15 PM, Dinodoode wrote:

At 5/20/05 10:36 PM, Dark_Hiei wrote: The dumbest president if not bush probably truman for sending the a-bomb to hiroshima.

They attacked Pearl Harbor dumbshit!

Japan kills 3000 in an airstrike and you drop 2 atomic bombs on them killing tens of thousands of innocent people.
Bin Laden kills 3000 in an airstrike and you invade 2 countries killing tens of thousands of innocent people.
Atleast you guys (USA) are consistent.

But to stay on topic, GW Bush is the worst. Sad part is, he aint done yet.

At 6/3/05 04:05 AM, ScrunchMuppet wrote: Al-qaeda gives warnings too.
I fail to see the difference.

The difference is that we dropped those bombs to END a conflict. Al-Qaida works to CAUSE conflicts, not the other way around. Al-Qaida gives warnings with the sole intention of causing terror, not to give innocents time to evacuate. They target innocents with the sole intention of demoralization of the western resolve.

There is a HUGE difference.

At 6/1/05 03:28 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/1/05 05:50 AM, MDayShakespeare wrote: Bill Clinton.
1. Selling nuclear technology to North Korea for campaign money. This was America's technology, yet Clinton gave it away to one of our enemies (and yes N. Korea was one of our enemies back then) for his own personal gain which in turn threatens the safety and security of our nation.

Well North Lorea wasn't considered an enemy of the United States, so he did nothing wrong.

OMG. You're an idiot. Seriously, they have never been one of our allies. Clinton might have been buddies with him, but they were never one of our nations allies. And yes at that time, they were on our watch list. Do your fucking research.

2. Lying under oath. This is a felony. If any of us did this, we would still be in jail.

He's been tried, he was found not guilty, get over it.

Get over it? It's not like I lose any sleep over it at night, but I think when someone commits a felony such as perjury they should be held accountable.

3. The numerous and outragous pardons he gave to convicted felons. (Most were either buddies of his or contributed money previously of after he pardoned them).

It is a president's right to pardon a felon if he pleases.

Yes, it is president's right, but like any right it can be abused and Clinton clearly did so.

4. Stealing huge amounts of historical artifacts and furniture from the White House (once again, these weren't his for the taking. They were the property of the U.S.) Then if that wasn't enough, he basically trashed the rest of the White House after the 2000 election before he left because he knew Bush was coming in. This kind of blatant disregard for the country's propert and one of our national landmarks is inexcusable and just goes to show what kind of a person he is.

Haha, I heard about that story, and it turns out it was total bullshit. I can prove it to you if you want.

Okay, prove it.

6. White Water scandal. Basically, in case you haven't done your research, him and Hilary ripped off a bunch of people in Arkansas (back when he was Governor) in fraudulent real estate deals. Nice way to pay back the people who voted for you Bubba.

Bill and Hiliary were never charged with any crime, and if you had any credible evidence to back you up, then you could easily leak it to the media. But you can't, because there is no credible evidence linking the Clintons to WhiteWater.

Yes, there is. You just don't want to believe it.

7. When Pakistan knew the location of Bin Ladin back in '98 (I believe) and called Clinton to let him know this, Clinton did nothing.

Actually, he did. He even had a plan to kill bin Laden, but if he implemented the plan then he'd be handing a war over to the Bush administration. So he gave them the plan after he left office, and they did nothing. I can prove this if you deny it.

Okay, once again prove it. Even your comment here shows that he did nothing. He waited and tried to pass the buck to the next guy.

10. For the economic recession that we saw and are still recovering from. Yes, this recession that the liberal media tried to blame on Bush started back in the last two years of Clinton's second term and he did nothing to try to stop it.

Haha, economic recession, that's a good one. Too bad no one but the conservatives actually believe that, huh?

And too bad liberals loved Clinton so much that they can't see any of his flaws, yet hate Bush so much that they see nothing but made-up flaws. Clinton did horrible horrible things, and while there were things he did that were good for the nation, they don't make up for what he did wrong.

blah, blah, blah. Most of what you wrote is poorly researched crap I could easily disprove, but go ahead, try to prove me wrong. C'mon, I dare ya.

Actually, all of your comments are not even poorly researched but lack any research whatsoever. It's easy to say "prove me wrong" when you provided no proof yourself.

...a difference, but it matters not. The primary controversy over George W. Bush's foreign policy is his invasion of Iraq, which has no clear objective other than to secure oil for United States use. The USA has gone completely out of hand with it's laissez-faire policies, for big business has downright abused governmental powers. Al-Qaeda only lived in Afghanistan under the aid of the Taliban; they were NOT in Iraq until Bush moved in. All of a sudden, Al-Qaeda operatives suddenly manifested and started causing havoc. Right now, we are not solely battling the remnants of the Ba'ath party and the Sunnis...Al-Qaeda is responsible for causing all the recent mischief.

At 5/20/05 11:13 PM, TimeFrame wrote: I dont really check out president from way back when. But judging by the recent presidents, i would say Bill Clinton.

These are my reasons:
-Womanizer
-aldulterer
-under funded the military and intelligence agencies
-sold US secrets
-lying
-engaging the military the most of any recent president w/ underfunding
-dodged the draft and protests the war in another country and later becomes president

youre an idiot.
besides the scandal, bill clinton has done a lot of good things for the us (especialy economy). but a retard like you would just be blinded by the Oh no! He had sex! shit.. besides wtf is wrong with being a PIMP?

At 6/6/05 06:22 PM, kramer3d wrote:

youre an idiot.

you're a moron for responding to something i wrote more than 2 weeks ago.

besides the scandal, bill clinton has done a lot of good things for the us (especialy economy). but a retard like you would just be blinded by the Oh no! He had sex! shit.. besides wtf is wrong with being a PIMP?

What's wrong with america? The fact that people are losing morality and stupid fucks like you who take opinions in the politics forums like they're an attack against their life.

NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, NIXON,

At 5/21/05 12:34 AM, drDAK wrote:

I think very positive and it's hard to think of terrible Presidents in my mind. I may disagree with them but all served their countries pretty well (for the most part). Although I did hate FDR's racial motives for moving Japanese-Americans to special reservations, if there's one thing that ticks me off about one president in particular.

The reason he put them into camps was to protect them from angry racist americans

How come everyone thinks Nixon was the worst just because he got impeached?

He was a good president all the way up till the watergate scandal

And dude.........you probably are in 5th grade...................

At 5/21/05 12:30 AM, AnzRage wrote: I love bush. You people just fear death.

Woohoo, Bush supporters unite!

At 6/5/05 09:15 PM, Dinodoode wrote: They attacked Pearl Harbor dumbshit!

Let's compare statistics, ok?
Pearl Harbor 1,700-2,400 depending on Source.
Civilians: 68
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo Fire Bombings (not including Kyoto and other bombed cities): 200,000+ civilians

This appears to violate the proportionality rule of the status quo.
And a tid-bit to keep in mind, according to Ralph Epperson Japan attempted to surrended twice before the two nuclear bombings. This bullshit about saving lives by avoiding an invasion is just that, bullshit.

George Bush is the man! He is like the coolest president ever.

The Japanese got what was coming to them Peral Harbor was no joke. Think about it. thow i am glad usa and japan are friends today. =)

Dam democrats. Them and their cheezy speaches. The only democrat i liked was Howard Dean-aaaaahh!!!!! lol. They raise taxes A-LOT

Lyndon Banes Johnson.

War Powers Act of 1964

At 6/7/05 07:13 PM, Dinodoode wrote: How come everyone thinks Nixon was the worst just because he got impeached?

acctually nixon was never impeached he resigned.......but he acctually did alot of good like bring the vietnam war to a close which *cough cough* democrats started

At 6/7/05 08:27 PM, chaos999 wrote:

At 6/7/05 07:13 PM, Dinodoode wrote: How come everyone thinks Nixon was the worst just because he got impeached?

acctually nixon was never impeached he resigned.......but he acctually did alot of good like bring the vietnam war to a close which *cough cough* democrats started

Not to mention Nixon did a king gesture of bombing a neutral country. :)

At 6/2/05 09:49 AM, ScrunchMuppet wrote: TheTop 5 Worst of the Worst.

1) Woodrow Wilson
2) Lyndon B. Johnson
3) George Bush Jr.
4) Franklin D. Roosevelt
5) William J. Clinton
DisHonorable Mention) George Bush Sr.

Oh give me a break, all those presidents are far better than Grant. Let me remind you that if we didn't got involve in WWII that we would have never had gotten out of the depression and we would probably either be over run by communists or nazis.

GRANT IS THE WORST PRESIDENT, NO ONE IS WORST THAN GRANT.

At 6/7/05 10:51 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/7/05 07:42 PM, awkward_silence wrote: Let's compare statistics, ok?
Pearl Harbor 1,700-2,400 depending on Source.
Civilians: 68
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo Fire Bombings (not including Kyoto and other bombed cities): 200,000+ civilians

You failed to account the million American lives which would have been lost if we invaded Japan. But I'm sure that was an honest mistake, right?

Are you blind? Read the rest of my post dipshit. I that Japan had tried to surrender, Twice! The first on Feb 14 45' the second in July. They were trying to get out of the war.

At 6/8/05 03:32 PM, Tal-con wrote:

No, they weren't. Maybe if you looked in a History book you'd learn that they wouldn't surrender if it was unconditionally, which was the only offer we were giving them.

Two quick points on that,(1) yes if they were trying to surrender to the the Allies on two seperate occassion then they were trying to get out of the war.
(2) Their only condition was that the emperor would be saved, which he was anyways, so I don't by this unconditional bullshit. Their only condition they had we let them keep after they proclaimed they could go without it.

Only after the 2 A-bombs did they accept our terms for surrender, Hey, we were about to drop a third bomb on Tokyo, if anything we were being merciful.

Where are you getting this? We only had two bombs, the third had been used in the ?Trinity test on July 16, and Tokyo was one of the last places that we wanted to use and atomic bomb. In the peace memorial in Hiroshima they talk of the city selection process, and Tokyo was one of the first ruled out.

They weren't even really fighting, they were just flying their fuel-filled planes into kamikaze missions into our boats, what honor is in that?

Very honorable if you know their society. The major religion at the time was Dai-shinto. In which (all shinto believes this, but Dia emphasized it more than any other) The Emperor is a direct descendant of the Gods (through Jimmu). And in Japanese culture, it is dishonorable to fall at the hands of your enemy, thus given a choice, the honorable thing is to take your own life. So what could be more honorable to a Japanese in 1945 than to take your own life, protecting your divine emperor, and eliminatinh hords of your advisaries at the same time.

At 6/8/05 03:50 PM, awkward_silence wrote: Two quick points on that,(1) yes if they were trying to surrender to the the Allies on two seperate occassion then they were trying to get out of the war.
(2) Their only condition was that the emperor would be saved, which he was anyways, so I don't by this unconditional bullshit. Their only condition they had we let them keep after they proclaimed they could go without it.

They wanted to keep the emporer in power. Which would have ended up with Japan starting another war.

And besides that, we signed a treaty with Britain and Russia saying we would only accept unconditional surrender.

Hoover. King of making the Great Depression even worse. Dead proof that trickle down economics and sitting on your ass doing nothing don't help.

At 6/8/05 04:15 PM, Tal-con wrote: No, you misunderstand. They had no conditions. Absolutely none. They wanted to make conditions to save the emperor before we dropped the bombs, but for some reason we wouldn't accept. After the 2 A-bombs they surrendered unconditionally, but we were nice enough to let them keep their emperor. Seriously, you need to look this up in a History book, you seem a little confused.

I think you are the one confused, afterall you just restated what I said. Protecting the emporer was their only real condition before the bombing. We didn't grant them this... and you know the rest

Umm... from my school text book? That legitimate enough for you?

You said yourself that we were building a third bomb. We were months from its completion though. Any threat made on Tokyo was empty.

Yes Emporer Hirohito was in power until the 80's when he died. However, like most of Japan's history, he was merely a figure head after WWII.

Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm) The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) (all also from (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm)); Major General Curtis LeMay (http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog23/feature/)); and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (both from (http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm)).

Japanese officials themselves said that it was not the Atomic Bombings that hurried their surrender(August 15), but the quik and decisive movements of the soviets in Mainland China and Korea (august 8) that worried them most.

At 6/8/05 04:17 PM, Tal-con wrote: No, they did keep their emperor. He died sometime in the 1980's, in fact.

He had no power though.

At 6/9/05 03:40 PM, Tal-con wrote:

No, there is a difference between having 1 condition that the emperor doesn't die, and having no conditions, but we were nice enough to let him live anyway. The latter is what had happened.

You keep restating what I said as a point to prove me wrong, interesting.

But we were still in the process of making it, which is plainly what I had just said. Even Tokyo had maintained their "honor" for a few more months, they would've been history.

A threat made on August 10 (for all intensive purposes) for actions that were not concievable until (most likely) the following year is pretty much an empty threat. Not to say that if the war had been going on in the following year with vengefull force, we wouldn't have used it, but still...

If they were essentially defeated, which I agree on, then they should've surrendered already. When you're at war, you're at war.

True, but do you obliterate? The answer is no, especially in highly civilian populated areas. If there is a rebel stronghold in Baghdad, you attack the stronghold, you don't nuke the city. All those chief military officials said that it was unnecessary, and I trust Douglas MacArthurs opion over yours, no offence.
The common belief (from gathered intellegence) was that they were waiting until we landed on Kyushu to negotioate better terms for an Armistace.

I would think an an atomic bomb would worry someone more than a few troops.

If you want to argue with the Japanese officials that did the surrendering, over why they did so, that is your purogitive. Personally I will take the 1945 Japanese officials words.

Even if they were already defeated, and even if they had Soviets coming in from China, they should've surrendered. We gave them so many warnings that we were going to nuke them, they're just stupid for not doing so.

No evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was that we could not give the Japanese any warning." (http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm)

The Japanese Emporer is still just a figure-head. He has no real power. The leader of the coutry is democratically elected. The current prime ministers name is Koizumi. Check him out, his a Japanese Richard Gear.

Warren Harding, duh.

He was blatantly under the influence of the mob. And a horrible president.

At 6/9/05 03:45 PM, Tal-con wrote: The United States eventually gave back his power, and his military, but not until long after the war.

Naaaahhhh thats not true. First off his military was never given back, there are strict limitations on it still to this day.

And second, his position of power as emporer was strictly figurehead, he had no declared powers in the constitution.

At 6/9/05 06:51 PM, awkward_silence wrote: No evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was that we could not give the Japanese any warning." (http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html

the a-bomb may have killed millions of people, but it ended the war, and had the war not ended it would have killed millions anyway so good onhim.