Talk:Old mass murderers

This. . . seems in poor taste to me. Researcher 18:15, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Yea, Let's at least ah...flesh it out a bit. Maybe with I duuno a Kennedy or a Lincoln or something. CЯacke ®
 * If we wanted to be even-handed, we could include Johnon's escalation of Vietnam or Truman's dropping of the nuclear bomb on Japan. Andrew Jackson could also probably make the list (didn't a lot of people die on the Trail of Tears?) Researcher 18:27, 14 December 2007 (EST)
 * Wasn't Trail of Tears under Jackson's successor? Anyway, don't you think we're moving a bit too far into "Great Men" (or "Not So Great Men") territory here? Events like these don't happen because of just one person, after all. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 18:32, 14 December 2007 (EST)
 * I'd go with Johnson, because he was A). a democrat B). Inherited his war and could have walked away (though at the cost of his office, "President GOLDwater", kinda rolls right [ahem] off the tongue, don't it?) and 3). Easy enough to find numbers for. CЯacke ®
 * That's kind of my point, actually. If we are going to blame the Iraq War squarely on GWB, then... At the least, we should also blame Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the American people. Researcher 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)
 * I'm with Researcher on this - it's easy to pile on Bush for a number of reasons, but to blame him uniquely for Iraq lets too many people - from Paul Wolfowitz on down to Pfc. Jesse Spielman - off the hook. And this (almost) smells of trying to throw GWB in with Stalin et. al. as a "mass murderer," which is intellectually dishonest. If this is the route we want to take, will we put in Clinton for the inordinate number of child deaths that Iraq suffered unfer the sanctions he could have removed with the stroke of a pen? It kind of pisses me off that the so-called anti-war movement (hello? anybody out there?) has given Clinton a pass on the fact that more Iraqi kids died under Clinton than Bush, and that people think that the Democrats will somehow "do better," when recent history tells us otherwise. PFoster 19:01, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Well
If we're not going to "balance" it should we just ax it then? CЯacke ® 19:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)
 * Honestly, I'd even prefer that. It seems useless and unnecessarily nasty. Researcher 19:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)
 * I'ma leaving the talk page up to see if I get a complaint by the author. CЯacke ® 19:16, 14 December 2007 (EST)