promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Who (or whose policy) killed more, Truman (Atomic bombs), Bush or Clinton?

Truman's atomic bomb drop of Hiroshima and Nagasakli are still killing thousands of people every year, Bush's Iraq adventurism is taking a heavy toll on the Iraqis today and comparatively much less on the Americans, and Clinton's sanctions policy for Iraq killed more than half a million babies alone in Iraq. Please no emotion based answers, just the truth.

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Bush because he is using depleted uranium in Iraq. They say the radiation levels are so high it will have an effect on the people in that region for the next 100 years or quite possibly much longer. George Bush President of the United States is a man without honor. He has spread shame on America, it's Constitution, and it's People. It is a highly embarrassing situation for every Good American. This Man has spun completely out of control and he needs to be stopped immediately. President Bush has reduced and discounted himself to nothing more then a mere "pedofile" and "War Criminal."

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Just the facts?

    The cancer rates are higher in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but killing thousands each year? Show me...

    Also, for your trite comparisons, you will have to subtract the number of lives saved by ending the fighting againt Japan more quickly. What does that number come to?

    Now let's see... How many Kurds did Hussein take out? How many more would he have taken out, not to mention both shiite and sunni? Somehow you are going to have to factor those saved lives into the equation.

    Was it Clinton's sanctions, or was it Hussein's pocketing of American medical and social aid during those sanctions?

    Funny how you forget that...

    It's okay for you to hate our policies. Believe it or not, we probably agree on most of it. But like anyone else in this arguement, Saddam's done nothing wrong, the bath party has never made a mistake, and every problem Iraq has experienced for the last 600 years is America's fault.

    It's ignorant to believe what you want to believe, hold on to the facts that fit your belief, then pretend that those facts that prove you incorrect, don't exist.

    In the middle east, that's what everyone does...

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Truman SAVED a lot of lives by using the A-bomb. In time of war, the lives of your own people are worth more than the lives of the enemy, and you should be willing to trade the latter for the former. The alternative would have been a slow slog through all the islands of the Pacific and a land invasion of the main Japanese islands, which would have cost a LOT more lives.

    Tell me, why should the A-bomb use be considered so immoral? Beofer it was ready we firebombed Tokyo, and killed more people than we did in Hirshima. We also firebombed Dresden and did more damage and cost more lives than Hiroshima. Is it really so immoral that all that damage was done by just ONE (1) bomb, rather than a few hundred?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yeah, even though the Japs had a choice. I still think it was worse in WW2. That's what people don't realize when they talk about our soldiers deaths in Iraq. We have been in wars that more soldiers died in one year than we have lost in four years of this war. What about the American civil war? Hundreds of thousands of people died on our own land in a matter of years. Lincoln was the president. And now he's looked at as one of the greatest presidents in the history of this country. We might have nbeen in Iraq longer than WW2, but I can guarantee you the death tolls are uncomparable. WW1, Korea, Vietnam were far worse than this war. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's only 2 wars this country has ever been in that we didn't lose more than we've lost in Iraq. The first would be the Persian Gulf, the second would be Afghanistan. Can anyone name another one? I seriously doubt it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Josh
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Did any of these decisions perhaps save lives?

    For instance, Truman dropped the bomb. Didn't that save the lives of millions of allied soldiers that would otherwise have to invade?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Considering in New York alone, over 186,000 babies were killed intentionally while in the womb between 2004-2005... this abomination is Clinton's legacy

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Truman's atomic bomb can be excused, he warned them before hand and it was their own fault. Bush, on the ohter hand, he is just stupid. He is killing more people by sending all those troops to Iraqu to "secure Freedome" in a place that has been fighting for thousands of years.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Sean
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Bush

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Truman.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Bush, the younger

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.