![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Which president does the Illusive Man remind YOU of?
Débuté par
badjezus007
, mars 02 2010 02:30
#1
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:30
badjezus007
-
- Members
- 124 messages
For all you US historians out there, this question is for you!
Retour en haut
#3
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:30
Skilled Seeker
-
- Members
- 4 433 messages
Obama before someone else says it lol.
#4
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:31
I am Mr. Wilson
-
- Members
- 20 messages
Gill Kaiser wrote...
President Bartlet.
Agreed
#7
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:34
Missouri Tigers
-
- Members
- 372 messages
Harry S Truman. He is my favorite president, but also kind of ruthless. He ordered the atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. The ends justified the means because an invasion would kill more people and the war would last longer, but lots of people died.
#8
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:35
badjezus007
-
- Members
- 124 messages
Missouri Tigers wrote...
Harry S Truman. He is my favorite president, but also kind of ruthless. He ordered the atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. The ends justified the means because an invasion would kill more people and the war would last longer, but lots of people died.
Hmm finally a thoughtful, serious response. Thanks for taking your time to answer this question properly.
#9
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:35
Onyx Jaguar
-
- Members
- 13 003 messages
Not before we were wasting troops on random islands that served no tactical purpose. Good times. Damn some of our military leaders in WW2 were inept.
#10
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:36
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien
-
- Members
- 5 177 messages
John F. Kennedy...
Well... he did play him once
Well... he did play him once
#11
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:36
Inquisitor Recon
-
- Members
- 11 810 messages
I would so vote form TIM given the chance.
#12
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:36
kanodin
-
- Members
- 57 messages
Well he's got the ethics of Nixon
The paranoia of Nixon.
The general dislike of human interaction (he lives alone and very few of his own men ever see him) of Nixon.
So I'd Say Herber Hoover.
The paranoia of Nixon.
The general dislike of human interaction (he lives alone and very few of his own men ever see him) of Nixon.
So I'd Say Herber Hoover.
#13
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:38
Skilled Seeker
-
- Members
- 4 433 messages
Yes killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and causing a high rate of birth defects to this day was obviously the right choice to make.
#14
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:39
kanodin
-
- Members
- 57 messages
Skilled Seeker wrote...
Yes killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and causing a high rate of birth defects to this day was obviously the right choice to make.
While that decision is highly questionable, it is very similar to TIM intentionally exposing people to eezo when you put it like that.
#17
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:42
Inquisitor Recon
-
- Members
- 11 810 messages
Skilled Seeker wrote...
Yes killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and causing a high rate of birth defects to this day was obviously the right choice to make.
So Truman should have invaded and lost hundreds of thousands of American soldiers instead? All the while with Stalin grabbing up as much territory as he could in the far east? You don't fight wars through political correctness.
#18
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:43
Zyrious
-
- Members
- 358 messages
Skilled Seeker wrote...
Yes killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and causing a high rate of birth defects to this day was obviously the right choice to make.
Since many historians believe the use of nuclear weapons prevented us from going straight into a world war with russia (instead of the nuclear standoff that took place), i'd say yes, yes it was. Civilians were going to die one way or the other, a land invasion of mainland Japan would have been borderline genocide considering japanese culture at the time (everyone would have been fighting us) so this was by far the best thing WE could have done. Now, NO ONE would have died if the JAPANESE had not attacked in the first place. Amazing concept, that.
#19
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:44
ATKT
-
- Members
- 156 messages
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Not before we were wasting troops on random islands that served no tactical purpose. Good times. Damn some of our military leaders in WW2 were inept.
This is debatable. Guadalcanal was important because if the Japanese took it America and Australia would be cut off from each other. If Wake and Midway and that whole chain in the Pacific were left to the Japanese they would have been able to stage an invasion of Alaska which would give them a foothold in North America. Besides, why would the Japanese take those islands for no reason?
But that's OT.
TIM reminds me of Abraham Lincoln actually, just without the hokey charm. Very pragmatic, very charismatic, very resourceful. Both diplomatic and military wisdom. Presumably self-built, extremely driven, and with strong convictions. The kind of guy that can win a war like the Civil War.
Modifié par ATKT, 02 mars 2010 - 02:45 .
#20
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:44
Skilled Seeker
-
- Members
- 4 433 messages
Well I'd rather soilders die than civilians. At least the soilders know what they're in for when they sign up. Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
#21
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:47
ReTrAcK08
-
- Members
- 11 messages
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Not before we were wasting troops on random islands that served no tactical purpose. Good times. Damn some of our military leaders in WW2 were inept.
You do realize that the "random islands" were all key steps that led us to bombing mainland Japan. There isn't anything between the U.S. and Japan but water and islands.
#22
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:47
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
More people died in the firebombings of Japan than in the nuclear blasts, and without the demonstration of such a devastating weapon, firebombings would have continued. Long-term effects of radiation and fallout were not understood at the time.
OT: I'd say Nixon, Johnson, or Jackson(alien and sedition acts, anyone?)
OT: I'd say Nixon, Johnson, or Jackson(alien and sedition acts, anyone?)
#23
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:47
Inquisitor Recon
-
- Members
- 11 810 messages
Skilled Seeker wrote...
Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
If your tying to win a war, yes your soldiers take priority. Are you among the crowd that criticizes the USAAF and RAF air campaign against Germany as well?
#24
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:48
Nyaore
-
- Members
- 2 651 messages
You're forgetting that Japanese culture at the time would have made it so that it wouldn't just be soldiers that would have died if an invasion was staged. US forces would have had to fight both soldiers AND civillians if they fought their way inland as both tried to defend their country. Heck, I don't think it's all that hard to imagine that more civilians would have died if the invasion happened than were killed by the bombs. That's just how their culture was at the time.Skilled Seeker wrote...
Well I'd rather soilders die than civilians. At least the soilders know what they're in for when they sign up. Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
Dropping the bomb lead to least amount of deaths on BOTH sides, civillians included. Does that make it the right choice? No. But that's moral ambiguity for you.
Anyways I agree that TIM reminds me a lot of Truman in some ways, though in all honesty he really doesn't perfectly resemble any of them.
Modifié par Nyaore, 02 mars 2010 - 02:49 .
#25
Posté 02 mars 2010 - 02:48
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
There was a draft going on at the time, so you still fail.Skilled Seeker wrote...
Well I'd rather soilders die than civilians. At least the soilders know what they're in for when they sign up. Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
