Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Truman -- Eisenhower -- Kennedy and JohnsonTruman was not a war criminal. The decision to drop the atomic bombs was sound. By that point Japanese civilians of both sexes were drilling as a militia for a last-ditch defense of the Home Islands and, since there were not enough rifles to go around, they were drilling with bamboo spears. An Allied ground invasion would have flooded the gutters of every town in Japan with Japanese blood. The body count from the atomic bombing was trivial by comparison, gave the Japanese an honorable excuse to surrender, and brought a neat end to the whole conflict. And I've never heard of the U.S. being accused of any war crimes in Korea.
I've never heard Eisenhower called a war criminal. He was politically responsible for the Vietnam War in that he refused to allow the all-Vietnam elections provided for by the Geneva Accords, which Ho Chi Min's party certainly would have won; but no Americans committed any war crimes there under his watch.
Kennedy and Johnson are more complicated judgments.
Right. The first boomers were born in '46, during the Eisenhauer days. They've had 13 presidents. So the thread-starter is saying that the following people are war criminals:He's not a boomer. He's my age. A boomer will have had a shit ton of presidents in their life and at least a few weren't war criminals.
Its a really dumb premise.
What are you talking about?Jesus fuck sigh...
It's "hower."
You need to stop inferring that other people are stupid...
Right. The first boomers were born in '46, during the Eisenhauer days. They've had 13 presidents. So the thread-starter is saying that the following people are war criminals:
Eisenhauer
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II
Obama
Trump
Biden
A couple of questions for mayfly:
Why are Americans living overseas excused?
Please define what you mean by war criminal. No doubt, many unsavory (disgusting) activities occurred in warlike settings during all those years, but the charge of "war criminal" is for very specific, very personal actions. And it applies to a person, not just a policy that results in a war crime that happens secondarily while that policy is being executed. In other words, you have to drive it back to the intent of the person (president) you're talking about. I doubt we can do that with most (if any) of those men listed.
We were too busy killing each other so the white man kinda snuck up on us.nevermind that your nation was founded on the genocide of Native Americans,
Says the idiot who just jumped on straw-conservatives in another thread.I'm up early, My typing is off. AJ is cranky. Ain't it wonderful.
Says the idiot who just jumped on straw-conservatives in another thread.
Maybe you should walk off that fist cup of coffee before you hit the keyboard.
To governments, human life is nothing more than something to be expended in the pursuit of power.Anyway. That's minor & not why I'm hitting the walls.
The way the Anglo press is treating Ukraine is no different than they treated Aphghanistan, Iraq, Syria and so on.
Same platitudes and cheap tears, no major self-reflection or changing policies brought by when one of your own is being attacked.
We're just oggs and baboos to them.
And the "economic sanctions?" I keep thinking Naomi Klein.
To governments, human life is nothing more than something to be expended in the pursuit of power.
That doesn't automatically make the expenditure a "war crime." Nor does "war crime" get to be redefined by changing circumstances and beliefs at some nebulous point in the future.
But then he can't blame us for supporting it.If you just said every president who has engaged in foreign relations has done some dirty shit to that country, you'd be closer to the truth.