Pres. Bush - New Nuclear Weapons

[Starcom826]

Disputed.

Not really, just by idiot revisionists and whackjobs with a vendetta against the US who want to load their flames.

[blackhorse]

Off the top of my head:

*large breath inhale*

There's the funding and supplying of Hizbollah's activities around Israel in Lebanon, the funding and supplying of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the funding of Syrian forces across the water

The middle east was already in a mess before all this took place. Iran didn't create that mess. There was no Hizbolla before Lebanese invasion. There was no Hamas before the Intifada started.

, the proxy government (set up through Syria) that controls Lebanon,

Blame it on Syria. Syrian forces have been there in Lebanon since Lebanese Invasion.

the funding and arming of the Iraqi Insurgency, undoubtedly funding of the Taliban in Afghanistan, funding of other various extremist groups,

Keep that in mind that they are all unproven accusations. I will believe it when I see it from a non-US source. We all remember the Colin Powell presentation and how fake it was.

abducting innocent British soldiers and holding them hostage,

I don't think its remotely related to creating any mess bigger than Iraq.

pursuing nuclear weapons despite the rest of the world saying "no,"

It is still need to be proven that Iran has any nuclear weapons. And even if it does, it can't be blamed. Saddam didn't have and Iraq got invaded whle NK has and they don't get invaded. Nuclear weapons have become a powerful detterent and they become even more important when Iran is now surrounded by its most feared Nation (US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan).

[blackhorse]

declaring the Holocaust a fiction and threatening to push Israel into the Mediterranean Sea,

Some reports talk of "lost in translation". Even so, I don't see any mess. They are just words from an attention-######.

and funding and supplying North Korean nuclear weapons research.

and where is the mess?

vs America:

Invading a brutal totalitarian regime in Afghanistan and attempting to set up a democratically, self-determined government,

I will give this to you. I was never a fan of Taleban, even though they did bring stability and security after years of ravage.

Invading a brutal totalitarian regime in Iraq

On false pretext, fake evidence, dossiers and against the will of the Iraqi people. Thinking of Chalabi and his thugs were the real Iraqis and taking their word.

and attempting to set up a democratically, self-determined government,

which needed American endorsement for Iraqi constitution. Which has no say on deciding if American bases should remain in Iraq. Whose police and militiary personnell have been convicted of murdering hundreds of sunni men in revenge.

and getting involved in a scandal involving the college-prank-like "torture" of a few Iraqi POWs.

College prank? Tying up ones testicles and passing electricity, creating a blob of naked men is hardly college prank. May be you have gone though this in your college life, but in the muslim world its a worser thing than shame.

[blackhorse]

Not really, just by idiot revisionists and whackjobs with a vendetta against the US who want to load their flames.

The man who opposed Nuclear bombing and was bitter when Truman ordered that bombs be dropped, went on to become the president of USA. If I ignore the fact that, recently, whackjobs have be making it to the office, Eisenhower was one the most brilliant and admired American presidents.

[Starcom826]

The man who opposed Nuclear bombing and was bitter when Truman ordered that bombs be dropped, went on to become the president of USA. If I ignore the fact that, recently, whackjobs have be making it to the office, Eisenhower was one the most brilliant and admired American presidents.

Just because he opposed it does not imply that what Saith said about it wasn't true.

[blackhorse]

Just because he opposed it does not imply that what Saith said about it wasn't true.

Thats the whole point. What xsaithx said is "disputed" and not necessarily true. And Eisenhover was probably the most informed man during WW2, after all he was incharge of the whole battle plan.

[Starcom826]

Thats the whole point. What xsaithx said is "disputed" and not necessarily true. And Eisenhover was probably the most informed man during WW2, after all he was incharge of the whole battle plan.

No, it is not disputed. Not by any serious historian. They may question the decision to use it for other reasons, but not like that. The fact that Eisenhower may not have wanted to use it does not imply anything about why he did not want to use it.

[blackhorse]

No, it is not disputed. Not by any serious historian. They may question the decision to use it for other reasons, but not like that. The fact that Eisenhower may not have wanted to use it does not imply anything about why he did not want to use it.

Not true. A number of historians have questioned the actual intentions of the use of atom bomb and there was a neowin thread about this. Search will lead you to it. I will leave this issue with following quote from Henry L. Stimson, secretary of war/state during WW2 and some links including an excellent interview with Eugene Jarecki, maker of "Why we fight".

A number of historians now agree that Truman, Stimson, and Byrnes were influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by this fact when they chose to reject other available options for ending the war. Like the language of others, Stimson's specific words to describe the new "master card" of diplomacy are also difficult to ignore:

"Let our actions speak for words. The Russians will understand them better than anything else. . . . we have got to regain the lead and perhaps do it in a pretty rough and realistic way. . . . we have coming into action a weapon which will be unique. Now the thing is not . . . to indicate any weakness by talking too much; let our actions speak for themselves."

More info: http://www.ncesa.org/html/hiroshima5.html

At one point in the film, Gore Vidal says that during WWII, the Japanese wanted to surrender before the atomic bomb was dropped and that Eisenhower didn?t want to drop it but Truman did, in part because he wanted the opportunity to flex American muscle in the face of the oncoming cold war. What was some of the evidence that you encountered that supported that big charge?

The claim has two parts, and it is meant to give people greater texture in understanding the historical significance of the bombing of Hiroshima and NagasakiThere is evidence ? through broken Japanese code during the war and entries in Truman?s diaries ? that suggest that the Japanese were interested in conditional surrender and the Americans were seeking unconditional surrender. er.

The darker part of the claim, that has been contested back and forth by historians, is the idea that there was some other motivation to dropping those bombs than simply ending the war withIt is known that there was a conversation between [secretary of State] Jimmy Burns and Truman in which the idea arose that they had spent so much money on the Manhattan Project, if they didn?t do something to show something for it at the end of the war, they were gonna be chased out of town. So there?s sort of the haunting notion of an early military-industrial economic pressure on proper decision making. mThat is furthered in a series of private meetings Truman has where he is advised that the Japanese are looking for surrender, but they are looking to do so through Russia, as a kind of intermediary, and Mr. Truman does not want them to seek peace through Russia, because it would empower Russia. He would prefer to see it through a smaller, more neutral power. So part, and I only say part because I don?t want to end up in the extremity of historical revisionism?of Mr. Truman?s decision is inspired by wanting to fire a pre-emptive warning shot across the bow of our impending greatest rival.reatest rival.

Full interview