Personally, I think your comparison speaks volumes to your lack of differentiating between parties, but then again this isn't a damn Political Forum or it could get ugly, real fast.
It's bad enough with the crap of Android vs. Apple.
*hint* The whole party system is wrong. There is no party in the world that are right. They are just about power, and money.
All parties need to away. Every single question should be answered by fact and evidene. Not by parties or belief.
The problem is that almost all people make their deceptions on belief and feelings.
Intelligent people like me make my deceptions on fact. If someone can prove that I am wrong, I will change my opinion. That is something 90%+ of all people lacks
Apparently that's what some people think. I wasn't saying I agree with it, but "excessive corporate profits" is one of the current hot button issues. And I was just pointing out that oil companies (as just one example) are criticized for excessive profits, and yet they have nowhere near the profits Apple does. So it's hypocritical of folks to single out one company as making too much money and then praise another which makes even more. And yes, I'm saying Obama was being a hypocrite. But it's not the first time a politician took a single, convenient fact and then ignored the whole story. And it won't be the last.
I wasn't so much criticizing Apple as pointing out the irony of his name being used in the way it was by a politician. It's like when Obama compared the Post Office to UPS, demonstrating that he didn't have a clue how the Post Office operated.
There's so much drivel here. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
- He never promised to get out of Afghanistan within a year. You're thinking of Iraq
- Went to war with Syria? When? Did I miss something? That's a pretty big mistake of you to make, and shows exactly how out of touch and confused you are. But hey, Syria's in the Middle-East so it's all the same shit, right?
- Libya was a NATO operation, and the US contributed. We got out of there damn fast, without a single injury or casualty,I'd hardly consider it a 'war'. It was absolutely the right thing to do, considering Gaddafi basically stated he planned to slaughter all the resistance, street by street. I'm generally against foreign interventions, but this is an exception I was for, and it was an incredibly quick and clean operation by US standards.
- What does 'talk of war with Iran' mean? This is coming mostly from the right, who are attacking Obama on being 'soft' on Iran. There's no evidence he plans to attack Iran, and most of the tough talk is political and meant to appease those accusing him of not standing up to Iran. You can't accuse him of anything based on 'talk', especially when he's not behind the talk.
- I agree with you that an attack on Iran would be a disaster, and trust me when I say I have absolutely no love for Israel, and believe they are the most dangerous country in the region. Still, Israel has been drumming up war with Iran for a long time, this has nothing to do with Obama.
- The bailouts were a necessary evil to prevent the utter meltdown of this country and devastation of the entire economic system, not to mention tens of millions of people. If you knew a bit about the economics of the situation you would see this. I'm against bailouts in general, but this was an extreme case where the consequences of doing nothing would have been insanely disastrous.
SO yeah.. stop lumping everything together in a desperate attempt to make a point. Most of what you said is flat out false, or heavily distorted by your own subjectivity and ignorance.
That's the really sad thing about American politics for at least the last 30-40 years. At one time, people could disagree without making up blatant lies and completely ignoring facts. Lately, it seems that both sides feel free to make things up and act like it's the truth.
I had a discussion with a kid yesterday on the State of the Union Address. Now, I would not expect anyone to agree with every word of the SOU Address. In fact, I could see someone disagreeing with much (or even most) of it. But this kid said "I didn't hear one word that I didn't consider to be bs". That indicates a closed mind which is not interested in hearing and processing any opinions different than its own. If you couldn't find one thing that you agreed with in the entire speech (which covered a wide range of topics and had a surprisingly broad political perspective), then you weren't listening. Your mind was made up before you even turned on the TV - so why bother?
Bush is by far the worst, and under Obama things have turned around.
Are things perfect, no. Are they better then 4 years ago, hell yes!
Sort of.
What people fail to realize is that there's a lag time between the moment a President does something and the results. The first year of Obama's Presidency was pretty abysmal - and things were clearly worse 6 months into his Presidency than when he started. But most of that was obviously the fall-out of the last year or so of Bush's Presidency. Things seem to have bottomed out somewhere in the 2nd year and have been slowly improving since then in most respects. And thank goodness he finally got us out of a $3,000,000,000,000 war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us
Are the current crop of GOP candidates any good, hell no!
That's what the Republicans I know don't seem to get. Obama could be beaten this fall - if the Republicans came up with a good candidate and fully supported him. Instead, the party has become so fragmented that their chances are miniscule. And the structure of the party along with the fragmentation is such that they're likely to choose a radical fringe candidate with no chance of getting elected.
Had they chosen someone like Huntsman, they might have had a chance. Gingrich or Perry? No way.
Too bad we can't get people like Steve Jobs in in government ... Steve would do the following:
1. Immediately eliminate a few big departments which do mostly nothing except employ government employees and pay their benefits, followed by eliminating most all of the waste.
2. Implement technology across the entire government that actually works making the government 40% more efficient.
Just how long are we going to borrow $1 of every $3 spent and how long are we going to keep spending like there is no tomorrow?
Business and government are not the same thing at all and comparing the two are not apple vs oranges but apples vs steam engines. A CEO's job is nothing like what a president has to do. Making money is not the same as governing a country and if you learned anything in school you should know that. Selling services and products is what companies do, maintaining social services, diplomacy, infrastructure, a fair legal system, a safe and clean environment, etc... is what governments do. Companies will do none of the above unless government tells them they must. A CEO like Jobs would make a terrible president, Obama has an understanding of what a government should do for this country. And for all of you Obama haters that think he's the worst president ever, who on earth do you think would have had the steady hand to keep the economy, banks and motor industry from completely collapsing?
The problem was that US gave Iraq a 6 month deadline before the attack. Iraq had plenty of time to destroy their WMD.
Iraq is one of the few countries in the world history that have used WMD, so they had them. That is fact. They killed over 5000 Kurds with gas.
.
one of the others being the USA. they used WMD on Japan. How many died?
the usa had no right whatsoever to invade iraq the second time. if another country did what usa did then the UN and usa would be screaming to heaven about how wrong it was. hypocrites and liars and dummies.
As Shompa stated, this is not entirely true. It is true that none were found in 2003, and of course if there was any Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq there wasn't enough to really start a war there. IMO Bush was mostly just grasping at straws as a means of getting in there so he could oust Hussein.
However, prior to the '91 Gulf War, Hussein was using all kinds of WMDs on Kurds and Iranians. This is fact. It is also fact that after that war, the UN went in several times to try and clean house with some success. Often it seemed more like Iraq would cooperate in some instances only as a means of moving WMDs around or giving themselves more time to dismantle/destroy other stockpiles so as to appear clean.
As for Israel bombing the Syrian nuclear plant, it is believed that both Shaldag and Sayeret Matkal were involved...if so...it was probably a cleaner operation than anything the US has ever done. Those units are serious business.
I had a discussion with a kid yesterday on the State of the Union Address. Now, I would not expect anyone to agree with every word of the SOU Address. In fact, I could see someone disagreeing with much (or even most) of it. But this kid said "I didn't hear one word that I didn't consider to be bs". That indicates a closed mind which is not interested in hearing and processing any opinions different than its own. If you couldn't find one thing that you agreed with in the entire speech (which covered a wide range of topics and had a surprisingly broad political perspective), then you weren't listening. Your mind was made up before you even turned on the TV - so why bother?
Now there's a kid with great intellectual promise. Get him registered to AI and posting on this thread. He'll be in good company.
Bush is by far the worst, and under Obama things have turned around.
Are things perfect, no. Are they better then 4 years ago, hell yes!
Are the current crop of GOP candidates any good, hell no!
You forget about this gentleman named Ron Paul.
Could he win? Zero chance.
Is he better- in my opinion, absolutely. The only non-politician (has his own beliefs and appears unswayed because of the lack of large contributions) of any of them.
Just my opinion, but I find him refreshing. It just seems Obama is Gingrich is Romney is Santorum. Say the right things, then do whatever your political interests are.
Intelligent people like me make my deceptions on fact. If someone can prove that I am wrong, I will change my opinion. That is something 90%+ of all people lacks
= the reason why the western world is falling.
Some people don't like facts. Facts can change.
Opinion can be better, because they can stay the same no matter how the facts might change.
--My apologies to Stephen Colbert for misquoting him
The problem was that US gave Iraq a 6 month deadline before the attack. Iraq had plenty of time to destroy their WMD.
Iraq is one of the few countries in the world history that have used WMD, so they had them. That is fact. They killed over 5000 Kurds with gas.
Iraq didn't have the technical knowledge to manfuacture these when it is cheaper to buy them. Where do you think they got them from and why do you think the US was so hot and bothered to find and destroy those weapon depots?
Just my opinion, but I find him refreshing. It just seems Obama is Gingrich is Romney is Santorum. Say the right things, then do whatever your political interests are.
Do you agree with his plan to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior? How about selling off Federal Lands to the highest bidders? Yellowstone Park owned by Exxon? Canyonlands National Park sold off to the coal and uranium industries? Is that a good plan?
Too bad we can't get people like Steve Jobs in in government ... Steve would do the following:
1. Immediately eliminate a few big departments which do mostly nothing except employ government employees and pay their benefits, followed by eliminating most all of the waste.
2. Implement technology across the entire government that actually works making the government 40% more efficient.
Just how long are we going to borrow $1 of every $3 spent and how long are we going to keep spending like there is no tomorrow?
Totally wrong. Business leaders make lousy politicans. There's this myth that Government should be run like a business but only a dictatorship can be run like a business. And the reason why is that in our political system, everything is a compromise and execs like Steve don't compromise. A business executive dictates from the top. The President's ability to do that is very limited to the edicts he can execute via executive order. Everything else has to go through Congress.
A decision like, "The plastic scratches and is terrible - I want it changed to glass and we need it overnight" could never happen in Government. Saying to government employees, "let's work around the clock for the next two weeks to make this happen - I know you can do it" can never happen either. Government and business are two completely different beasts.
It's Congress that passes spending bills (although the President submits a budget as well). So in actuality, the President has relatively little power to reduce spending. And remember that when the Government does reduce spending, while that potentially can reduce the debt and borrowing costs, it also puts government employees out of work and government contractors out of business. That has negative impact on the economy as well.
Obama wants to consolidate some government departments, but he has no power to do so - he has to get Congress' approval.
I'm not going to get into debates over borrowing and spending. There are good economists on both sides of that issue.
Or just MAYBE, she actually wanted to go, and was honoured to be invited to the State of the Union. There's worse things in the world than your husband who has passed away getting a shout-out by the President of the United States, in the most important and most watched address of the year.
Maybe, just maybe, Powell is an intelligent, normal, sane human being, which is why she showed up, and not some vindictive, irrational partisan. I watched the speech, and the thought never even occurred to me that she's being 'used', nor do I see how exactly Obama exploited her or her husband simply by taking a couple seconds to acknowledge his ingenuity in the context of what he was talking about.
Some of you need to keep your politics out of these threads, because you make utter fools out of yourselves. Not even a fan of Obama, but some of the stuff in this tread is despicable. Still, looking at the clowns running against him on the other side, not sure what rational person can't see he's still the better pick.
one of the others being the USA. they used WMD on Japan. How many died?
the usa had no right whatsoever to invade iraq the second time. if another country did what usa did then the UN and usa would be screaming to heaven about how wrong it was. hypocrites and liars and dummies.
Hello! Japan attacked us first! And on top of that, they were refusing to surrender near the end when they'd clearly lost. The simple fact is that we'd have killed a lot more Japanese citizens if we'd invaded. Goodness gracious you are dumb.
I hesitate to mention that Steve once told Obama that he was headed for a "one term presidency", and the reasons that might happen are still in play. I personally think he's been one of the worst presidents we've had... right up there with Bush.
(typical Obama lover retort) - He's just cleaning up Bush's mess and by the way you're a racist.
Hello! Japan attacked us first! And on top of that, they were refusing to surrender near the end when they'd clearly lost. The simple fact is that we'd have killed a lot more Japanese citizens if we'd invaded. Goodness gracious you are dumb.
Japan attacked first because they had no choice. The US had imposed an oil embargo on them - gee, kinda like what they're doing with Iran.
Hello! Japan attacked us first! And on top of that, they were refusing to surrender near the end when they'd clearly lost. The simple fact is that we'd have killed a lot more Japanese citizens if we'd invaded. Goodness gracious you are dumb.
you are a fool if you still believe that old propaganda. educate yourself to the facts regarding the bombing of Japan.
Comments
Personally, I think your comparison speaks volumes to your lack of differentiating between parties, but then again this isn't a damn Political Forum or it could get ugly, real fast.
It's bad enough with the crap of Android vs. Apple.
*hint* The whole party system is wrong. There is no party in the world that are right. They are just about power, and money.
All parties need to away. Every single question should be answered by fact and evidene. Not by parties or belief.
The problem is that almost all people make their deceptions on belief and feelings.
Intelligent people like me make my deceptions on fact. If someone can prove that I am wrong, I will change my opinion. That is something 90%+ of all people lacks
= the reason why the western world is falling.
So profit = greed?
Apparently that's what some people think. I wasn't saying I agree with it, but "excessive corporate profits" is one of the current hot button issues. And I was just pointing out that oil companies (as just one example) are criticized for excessive profits, and yet they have nowhere near the profits Apple does. So it's hypocritical of folks to single out one company as making too much money and then praise another which makes even more. And yes, I'm saying Obama was being a hypocrite. But it's not the first time a politician took a single, convenient fact and then ignored the whole story. And it won't be the last.
I wasn't so much criticizing Apple as pointing out the irony of his name being used in the way it was by a politician. It's like when Obama compared the Post Office to UPS, demonstrating that he didn't have a clue how the Post Office operated.
Sorry for the confusion.
So he was the second worst president by default and with his own crap, he managed to jump far to the end of the list...
I didn't realize this was huffingtonpost - lol
Bush is by far the worst, and under Obama things have turned around.
Are things perfect, no. Are they better then 4 years ago, hell yes!
Are the current crop of GOP candidates any good, hell no!
There's so much drivel here. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
- He never promised to get out of Afghanistan within a year. You're thinking of Iraq
- Went to war with Syria? When? Did I miss something? That's a pretty big mistake of you to make, and shows exactly how out of touch and confused you are. But hey, Syria's in the Middle-East so it's all the same shit, right?
- Libya was a NATO operation, and the US contributed. We got out of there damn fast, without a single injury or casualty,I'd hardly consider it a 'war'. It was absolutely the right thing to do, considering Gaddafi basically stated he planned to slaughter all the resistance, street by street. I'm generally against foreign interventions, but this is an exception I was for, and it was an incredibly quick and clean operation by US standards.
- What does 'talk of war with Iran' mean? This is coming mostly from the right, who are attacking Obama on being 'soft' on Iran. There's no evidence he plans to attack Iran, and most of the tough talk is political and meant to appease those accusing him of not standing up to Iran. You can't accuse him of anything based on 'talk', especially when he's not behind the talk.
- I agree with you that an attack on Iran would be a disaster, and trust me when I say I have absolutely no love for Israel, and believe they are the most dangerous country in the region. Still, Israel has been drumming up war with Iran for a long time, this has nothing to do with Obama.
- The bailouts were a necessary evil to prevent the utter meltdown of this country and devastation of the entire economic system, not to mention tens of millions of people. If you knew a bit about the economics of the situation you would see this. I'm against bailouts in general, but this was an extreme case where the consequences of doing nothing would have been insanely disastrous.
SO yeah.. stop lumping everything together in a desperate attempt to make a point. Most of what you said is flat out false, or heavily distorted by your own subjectivity and ignorance.
That's the really sad thing about American politics for at least the last 30-40 years. At one time, people could disagree without making up blatant lies and completely ignoring facts. Lately, it seems that both sides feel free to make things up and act like it's the truth.
I had a discussion with a kid yesterday on the State of the Union Address. Now, I would not expect anyone to agree with every word of the SOU Address. In fact, I could see someone disagreeing with much (or even most) of it. But this kid said "I didn't hear one word that I didn't consider to be bs". That indicates a closed mind which is not interested in hearing and processing any opinions different than its own. If you couldn't find one thing that you agreed with in the entire speech (which covered a wide range of topics and had a surprisingly broad political perspective), then you weren't listening. Your mind was made up before you even turned on the TV - so why bother?
I didn't realize this was huffingtonpost - lol
Bush is by far the worst, and under Obama things have turned around.
Are things perfect, no. Are they better then 4 years ago, hell yes!
Sort of.
What people fail to realize is that there's a lag time between the moment a President does something and the results. The first year of Obama's Presidency was pretty abysmal - and things were clearly worse 6 months into his Presidency than when he started. But most of that was obviously the fall-out of the last year or so of Bush's Presidency. Things seem to have bottomed out somewhere in the 2nd year and have been slowly improving since then in most respects. And thank goodness he finally got us out of a $3,000,000,000,000 war.
Are the current crop of GOP candidates any good, hell no!
That's what the Republicans I know don't seem to get. Obama could be beaten this fall - if the Republicans came up with a good candidate and fully supported him. Instead, the party has become so fragmented that their chances are miniscule. And the structure of the party along with the fragmentation is such that they're likely to choose a radical fringe candidate with no chance of getting elected.
Had they chosen someone like Huntsman, they might have had a chance. Gingrich or Perry? No way.
Too bad we can't get people like Steve Jobs in in government ... Steve would do the following:
1. Immediately eliminate a few big departments which do mostly nothing except employ government employees and pay their benefits, followed by eliminating most all of the waste.
2. Implement technology across the entire government that actually works making the government 40% more efficient.
Just how long are we going to borrow $1 of every $3 spent and how long are we going to keep spending like there is no tomorrow?
Business and government are not the same thing at all and comparing the two are not apple vs oranges but apples vs steam engines. A CEO's job is nothing like what a president has to do. Making money is not the same as governing a country and if you learned anything in school you should know that. Selling services and products is what companies do, maintaining social services, diplomacy, infrastructure, a fair legal system, a safe and clean environment, etc... is what governments do. Companies will do none of the above unless government tells them they must. A CEO like Jobs would make a terrible president, Obama has an understanding of what a government should do for this country. And for all of you Obama haters that think he's the worst president ever, who on earth do you think would have had the steady hand to keep the economy, banks and motor industry from completely collapsing?
Unfortunately Iraq war was morally right, but put financial heart attack on US economy.
Iraq'a Weapons of Ass Destruction were a threat to the entire region.
/s
Even UN said that there where WMD in Iraq.
The problem was that US gave Iraq a 6 month deadline before the attack. Iraq had plenty of time to destroy their WMD.
Iraq is one of the few countries in the world history that have used WMD, so they had them. That is fact. They killed over 5000 Kurds with gas.
.
one of the others being the USA. they used WMD on Japan. How many died?
the usa had no right whatsoever to invade iraq the second time. if another country did what usa did then the UN and usa would be screaming to heaven about how wrong it was. hypocrites and liars and dummies.
Right. Just like there were WMD's in Iraq....NOT!
As Shompa stated, this is not entirely true. It is true that none were found in 2003, and of course if there was any Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq there wasn't enough to really start a war there. IMO Bush was mostly just grasping at straws as a means of getting in there so he could oust Hussein.
However, prior to the '91 Gulf War, Hussein was using all kinds of WMDs on Kurds and Iranians. This is fact. It is also fact that after that war, the UN went in several times to try and clean house with some success. Often it seemed more like Iraq would cooperate in some instances only as a means of moving WMDs around or giving themselves more time to dismantle/destroy other stockpiles so as to appear clean.
As for Israel bombing the Syrian nuclear plant, it is believed that both Shaldag and Sayeret Matkal were involved...if so...it was probably a cleaner operation than anything the US has ever done. Those units are serious business.
I had a discussion with a kid yesterday on the State of the Union Address. Now, I would not expect anyone to agree with every word of the SOU Address. In fact, I could see someone disagreeing with much (or even most) of it. But this kid said "I didn't hear one word that I didn't consider to be bs". That indicates a closed mind which is not interested in hearing and processing any opinions different than its own. If you couldn't find one thing that you agreed with in the entire speech (which covered a wide range of topics and had a surprisingly broad political perspective), then you weren't listening. Your mind was made up before you even turned on the TV - so why bother?
Now there's a kid with great intellectual promise. Get him registered to AI and posting on this thread. He'll be in good company.
I didn't realize this was huffingtonpost - lol
Bush is by far the worst, and under Obama things have turned around.
Are things perfect, no. Are they better then 4 years ago, hell yes!
Are the current crop of GOP candidates any good, hell no!
You forget about this gentleman named Ron Paul.
Could he win? Zero chance.
Is he better- in my opinion, absolutely. The only non-politician (has his own beliefs and appears unswayed because of the lack of large contributions) of any of them.
Just my opinion, but I find him refreshing. It just seems Obama is Gingrich is Romney is Santorum. Say the right things, then do whatever your political interests are.
Intelligent people like me make my deceptions on fact. If someone can prove that I am wrong, I will change my opinion. That is something 90%+ of all people lacks
= the reason why the western world is falling.
Some people don't like facts. Facts can change.
Opinion can be better, because they can stay the same no matter how the facts might change.
--My apologies to Stephen Colbert for misquoting him
Even UN said that there where WMD in Iraq.
The problem was that US gave Iraq a 6 month deadline before the attack. Iraq had plenty of time to destroy their WMD.
Iraq is one of the few countries in the world history that have used WMD, so they had them. That is fact. They killed over 5000 Kurds with gas.
Iraq didn't have the technical knowledge to manfuacture these when it is cheaper to buy them. Where do you think they got them from and why do you think the US was so hot and bothered to find and destroy those weapon depots?
You forget about this gentleman named Ron Paul.
Just my opinion, but I find him refreshing. It just seems Obama is Gingrich is Romney is Santorum. Say the right things, then do whatever your political interests are.
Do you agree with his plan to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior? How about selling off Federal Lands to the highest bidders? Yellowstone Park owned by Exxon? Canyonlands National Park sold off to the coal and uranium industries? Is that a good plan?
Too bad we can't get people like Steve Jobs in in government ... Steve would do the following:
1. Immediately eliminate a few big departments which do mostly nothing except employ government employees and pay their benefits, followed by eliminating most all of the waste.
2. Implement technology across the entire government that actually works making the government 40% more efficient.
Just how long are we going to borrow $1 of every $3 spent and how long are we going to keep spending like there is no tomorrow?
Totally wrong. Business leaders make lousy politicans. There's this myth that Government should be run like a business but only a dictatorship can be run like a business. And the reason why is that in our political system, everything is a compromise and execs like Steve don't compromise. A business executive dictates from the top. The President's ability to do that is very limited to the edicts he can execute via executive order. Everything else has to go through Congress.
A decision like, "The plastic scratches and is terrible - I want it changed to glass and we need it overnight" could never happen in Government. Saying to government employees, "let's work around the clock for the next two weeks to make this happen - I know you can do it" can never happen either. Government and business are two completely different beasts.
It's Congress that passes spending bills (although the President submits a budget as well). So in actuality, the President has relatively little power to reduce spending. And remember that when the Government does reduce spending, while that potentially can reduce the debt and borrowing costs, it also puts government employees out of work and government contractors out of business. That has negative impact on the economy as well.
Obama wants to consolidate some government departments, but he has no power to do so - he has to get Congress' approval.
I'm not going to get into debates over borrowing and spending. There are good economists on both sides of that issue.
Or just MAYBE, she actually wanted to go, and was honoured to be invited to the State of the Union. There's worse things in the world than your husband who has passed away getting a shout-out by the President of the United States, in the most important and most watched address of the year.
Maybe, just maybe, Powell is an intelligent, normal, sane human being, which is why she showed up, and not some vindictive, irrational partisan. I watched the speech, and the thought never even occurred to me that she's being 'used', nor do I see how exactly Obama exploited her or her husband simply by taking a couple seconds to acknowledge his ingenuity in the context of what he was talking about.
Some of you need to keep your politics out of these threads, because you make utter fools out of yourselves. Not even a fan of Obama, but some of the stuff in this tread is despicable. Still, looking at the clowns running against him on the other side, not sure what rational person can't see he's still the better pick.
+ 1,000,000 Thank you.
one of the others being the USA. they used WMD on Japan. How many died?
the usa had no right whatsoever to invade iraq the second time. if another country did what usa did then the UN and usa would be screaming to heaven about how wrong it was. hypocrites and liars and dummies.
Hello! Japan attacked us first! And on top of that, they were refusing to surrender near the end when they'd clearly lost. The simple fact is that we'd have killed a lot more Japanese citizens if we'd invaded. Goodness gracious you are dumb.
I hesitate to mention that Steve once told Obama that he was headed for a "one term presidency", and the reasons that might happen are still in play. I personally think he's been one of the worst presidents we've had... right up there with Bush.
(typical Obama lover retort) - He's just cleaning up Bush's mess and by the way you're a racist.
Hello! Japan attacked us first! And on top of that, they were refusing to surrender near the end when they'd clearly lost. The simple fact is that we'd have killed a lot more Japanese citizens if we'd invaded. Goodness gracious you are dumb.
Japan attacked first because they had no choice. The US had imposed an oil embargo on them - gee, kinda like what they're doing with Iran.
Hello! Japan attacked us first! And on top of that, they were refusing to surrender near the end when they'd clearly lost. The simple fact is that we'd have killed a lot more Japanese citizens if we'd invaded. Goodness gracious you are dumb.
you are a fool if you still believe that old propaganda. educate yourself to the facts regarding the bombing of Japan.