Objectively horrible crap done by consensus-good US Presidents

[jefferz]

No mention yet of Bay of Pigs?

That was not only a collosal fuck up - it was also a dick move which resulted in Kennedy looking soft to Khrushchev. This lead directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was nearly the end of the world.

Eisenhower did basically the same thing with German and Italians that were thrown in interment camps.
We traded people that were rounded up for Americans that were in Italy and Germany when the war started.
He didn’t give the people guns and tell them to invade, but he most definitely sent those families to there death.
Just imagine fleeing your home country and taking refuge in America only to have them ship you right back knowing you’ll be executed.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Clinton - Marc Rich

Jesus... Marc Rich... So Bill was raping dudes, too?? Even bigger monster than I thought he was.

 

[zebby23]

Donald Trump's tax cut.

It sad
consensus-good US Presidents

Trump does not apply

 

[ShinkanPo]

lol it's simpler than that. Slavery is on my mind because I'm studying it, so that's probably why I chose that example. I just found out recently about that pardon, and I thought it was out of character for Teddy, because I would have expected him to publicly celebrate the sentencing of a slaver in the early 20th century. It got me thinking about what other horrible shit "good" US Presidents have done. Like generally peace-loving Carter breaking character and aiding Suharto's slaughter in East Timor.

Ah Jimmy Carter funded Suhartos slaughter?

It never occurred to me that Carter is the Slaughter type president, he is described as very religious peanutbutter farmer and very down to the earth.

Hmmn maybe he is willing to behead a terrorist in the oval office after all.

 

[Islam Imamate]

FDR and his jap camps.

This is the most obvious answer. Such an obvious black mark on an otherwise exceptional presidency.

 

[Fawlty]

Well, the Tuskegee experiments span from Hoover to Nixon

I didn't know it went until 72. That's crazy.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I didn't know it went until 72. That's crazy.

Only stopped when a whistle blower leaked it to the press.

 

[Fawlty]

Always stunned when the same people who can offer up "moral arguments" for dropping A-bombs on civilian populations declare the internment camps a de facto, indefensible evil.

Comprehension problem here.

Walking up to a random 5 year old and punching him in the balls for no reason is unquestionably evil and immoral, and completely indefensible. On a really small scale.

Larger-scale horrible things are almost always more complicated and involve more moral gray area. It's more difficult to call them objectively evil. You really do have to factor in the expected casualties from a continued Pacific War. You don't get to not do that and still have an honest argument. And besides, once again, the fact that it's still controversial makes it a weaker entry itt.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I dont think there is much to discuss except the massive cognitive dissonance of a lot of Americans.

The same guy who says gassing people during a war is evil says nuking and irradiating 2 entire cities shouldnt even make a bad things list because its up to debate whether these 100k to 200k civilians deserved to be turned into radioactive ash.

I don't think the two situations are similar enough to be compared so easily but I do think your larger point here has merit. When we do it, we can find some decent reasons for it to have been done but when they do it(whoever they happen to be at the moment)? Fuck em.

 

[Trotsky]

The goal isn't self hatred, and I'm not depressed by anything I've read here. And if self examination produces self hatred, well....

The entire slander of "self-hating" anything is just always a front for "I'm irrational on this issue related to my identity and you should be too."

I've been told "you hate America!" many times in my life, and I actually find it to be one of the more grating accusations because.....for fuck's sake, it's moralizing blind nationalism, something that is distinctly immoral. As if it's treasonous to want your fellow citizens to have better lives or to want your country to stop murdering people, or just to acknowledge the history of your country to move forward more informed.

The campaigns in Texas and Oklahoma to censor their curriculum, such as in History and social sciences, for "unpatriotic" material was one of the single most reprehensible policies that right-wing morons have ever resorted to.

 

[Trotsky]

Always stunned when the same people who can offer up "moral arguments" for dropping A-bombs on civilian populations declare the internment camps a de facto, indefensible evil.

Well, really, neither of them fit the criteria of the OP, as they cannot be said to be "objectively" horrible, since they were arrived upon by known subjective balancing of political interests.

 

[Rod1]

I don't think the two situations are similar enough to be compared so easily but I do think your larger point here has merit. When we do it, we can find some decent reasons for it to have been done but when they do it(whoever they happen to be at the moment)? Fuck em.

Indeed, Assad is facing an existential threat, the US was just pissed at Japan for the Baatan death march and Pearl Harbor.

The reality is, that wars between comparable powers will escalate no matter what, thats why the world powers still have nukes, chemical and biological weapons.

Washington can claim to have the moral high ground, but if anyone tells me that if the US was facing an existential threat they wouldnt use everything under their arsenal is kidding themselves.

 

[Fawlty]

Well, really, neither of them fit the criteria of the OP, as they cannot be said to be "objectively" horrible, since they were arrived upon by known subjective balancing of political interests.

I was trying to avoid this.

Do you at least get what I'm aiming for here? There aren't any political decisions that are purely objective. It's all relative. And relatively speaking, FDR camps are more fitting itt than the a-bombs.

What I had hoped was that some of the less-talked about stuff would get more focus, since it's really easy to pick out the camps or trail of tears.

But in the end we're all getting bogged down on definitions.

I think the topic has a "feel" and I expected people to pick up on it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Indeed, Assad is facing an existential threat, the US was just pissed at Japan for the Baatan death march and Pearl Harbor.

The reality is, that wars between comparable powers will escalate no matter what, thats why the world powers still have nukes, chemical and biological weapons.

Washington can claim to have the moral high ground, but if anyone tells me that if the US was facing an existential threat they wouldnt use everything under their arsenal is kidding themselves.

In both cases it seems to come down to saving manpower. The US knew it would have to commit a massive force and endure huge casualties if it was going to occupy Japan and opted for the bombs to avoid those casualties.

Assad would be avoiding far fewer casualties in terms of raw numbers by resorting to chemical weapons but he already has manpower shortages and every man counts so it seems not an entirely dissimilar motive. So I think you have a point even though I'll admit I'd be more inclined to excuse Truman than Assad and that its probably a little bit of my bias as an American.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

In both cases it seems to come down to saving manpower. The US knew it would have to commit a massive force and endure huge casualties if it was going to occupy Japan and opted for the bombs to avoid those casualties.

Assad would be avoiding far fewer casualties in terms of raw numbers by resorting to chemical weapons but he already has manpower shortages and every man counts so it seems not an entirely dissimilar motive. So I think you have a point even though I'll admit I'd be more inclined to excuse Truman than Assad and that its probably a little bit of my bias as an American.

I think the evil of chemical weapons is overrated, as I don't see how dying due to Sarin is any worse than getting shot and bleeding to death.

Seems like a nice way to die. Compared to Sarin.

Chemical weapons aren't very selective, but conventional artillery or airpower when used by a low tech power like Syria isn't selective either, sometimes you get blown up so fast you don't suffer, sometimes you get hit by shrapnel and bleed to death like the guy above. And as we all know even "surgical strikes" have their fair share of kids and innocents dying.

 

[Trotsky]

I was trying to avoid this.

Do you at least get what I'm aiming for here? There aren't any political decisions that are purely objective. It's all relative. And relatively speaking, FDR camps are more fitting itt than the a-bombs.

No, I didn't pick up on this. And, yes, I do think there are plenty of moves that are "objectively" horrible by political considerations: it just requires that they serve no political/policy purpose except to enrich the lawmaker, facilitate crime, etc.

Pay for play often, or at least not seldom, produces this kind of objective wrongdoing, as detrimental policy is passed only for patronage from those it helps.

What I had hoped was that some of the less-talked about stuff would get more focus, since it's really easy to pick out the camps or trail of tears.

But in the end we're all getting bogged down on definitions.

I think the topic has a "feel" and I expected people to pick up on it.

Well that's the problem with you butthurt libtards. It's all about your "feels" when the world is really about FACTS and LOGIC.

 

[Rod1]

So I think you have a point even though I'll admit I'd be more inclined to excuse Truman than Assad and that its probably a little bit of my bias as an American.

Truman wasnt facing an existential threat, the war was pretty much won at that point.

While i understand the anger and the need to end the war as fast as possible its not like the Japanese were marching to Washington at that point, it was a defeated, blockaded nation at that point.

 

[Rod1]

The type of surrender Japan was willing to accept would have been akin to accepting a German surrender without deNazification.

The Japanese were looking for immunity for the Imperial family, and the US would have to deal with an insurgency if they had tried the Imperial family.

So in the end the Japanese leadership got what it wanted, the only ones who suffered were the civilians turned into ash.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Truman wasnt facing an existential threat, the war was pretty much won at that point.

While i understand the anger and the need to end the war as fast as possible its not like the Japanese were marching to Washington at that point, it was a defeated, blockaded nation at that point.

True but the same can be said for Assad. His regime is far more shaky and damaged but the tide of the war was well in his favor and it was only a matter of time before he took Douma. He didn't seem to want to wait long though.

 

[shitpostmodern]

The campaigns in Texas and Oklahoma to censor their curriculum, such as in History and social sciences, for "unpatriotic" material was one of the single most reprehensible policies that right-wing morons have ever resorted to.

From the 2012 Texas Republican platform:

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"