Ethics and The A-Bomb

[Madeline]

You're full of shit. The proof is not in what you stated, it is what you completely avoided. There are two simple yet often overlooked fundamental aspects that prove the bombs were not meant to get Japan to surrender.

(1) We had their offer to surrender before we dropped the bombs. It was the same offer we accepted after we targeted civilians with the A-bombs and dropped them.

(2) The bombs were not dropped to intimidate Japan. There were dropped to intimidate Russia.

CurveLight, if this is the truth, then why has no bright lawyer ever sued the US on behalf of Japan for damages of one sort or another?

You mean like we've been paying off civilians in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc? Or like how Japan is paying off A-Bomb survivors? (not a typo--yes. Japan has been paying A-bomb survivors)

I would guess because it wouldn't get any traction. A recent example is how a Federal court rejected a lawsuit based on "national security." A German Citizen was kidnapped by the US, taken to secret prisons, and tortured before it was discovered he was completely innocent. His whole hellish nightmare lasted for months. Upon his release he sued the US for the above crimes and the case was dismissed for "National Security Reasons."

Without fact checking, I'm confident in saying lawsuits have been attempted and denied.

Well now I feel sorta dumb. I thought this sort of thing was what The Hague was developed to handle?

 

[Madeline]

The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table. None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.

The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.

This is what I mean. Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't. We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened. I thought we KNEW what happened. I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical. Or was it? Do we agree on that much?

I say no. Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table. None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.

The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.

This is what I mean. Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't. We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened. I thought we KNEW what happened. I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical. Was it? Do we agree on that much?

He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.

The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.

We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.

Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.

 

[JW Frogen]

Personally, I don’t think without the dramatic blow of the atomic drops many Japanese military units would have surrendered even if the Emperor had told them to. The military often dictated terms to the government, they had large armies undefeated in China, mass killing civilians every day, they might have just fought on dragging the war out and costing everyone more life, (an invasion of Japan would have cost far more life than the drops on both sides) and allowing the Soviets to expand their sphere of influence in Asia.

Indeed there was a plot to Kamikaze attack the surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri that was stopped by the Emperor’s son, (John Toland, The Rising Sun) so even after the drops there were hard core elements willing to fight on. The drops (Japan did not know how many more bombs we had) made resistance of any kind almost unthinkable.

Also, how does President Truman tell a parent your son died, even in a war prolonged by days or weeks, and I had a weapon that could have ended the war immediately but did not use it.

He couldn’t.

The drops also certainly put a break on Soviet ambitions, they had to think and be cautious about gobbling up territory in the direct post war chaos.

They probably stopped an immediate military conflict with the Soviet Union.

 

[namvet]

The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table. None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.

The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.

This is what I mean. Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't. We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened. I thought we KNEW what happened. I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical. Or was it? Do we agree on that much?

I say no. Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.

Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????

 

[namvet]

Personally, I don’t think without the dramatic blow of the atomic drops many Japanese military units would have surrendered even if the Emperor had told them to. The military often dictated terms to the government, they had large armies undefeated in China, mass killing civilians every day, they might have just fought on dragging the war out and costing everyone more life, (an invasion of Japan would have cost far more life than the drops on both sides) and allowing the Soviets to expand their sphere of influence in Asia.

Indeed there was a plot to Kamikaze attack the surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri that was stopped by the Emperor’s son, (John Toland, The Rising Sun) so even after the drops there were hard core elements willing to fight on. The drops (Japan did not know how many more bombs we had) made resistance of any kind almost unthinkable.

Also, how does President Truman tell a parent your son died, even in a war prolonged by days or weeks, and I had a weapon that could have ended the war immediately but did not use it.

He couldn’t.

The drops also certainly put a break on Soviet ambitions, they had to think and be cautious about gobbling up territory in the direct post war chaos.

They probably stopped an immediate military conflict with the Soviet Union.

agreed !!!! ests were a million American dead in the invasion. ests were always wrong. probably more like 3 or 4 times that number. this weighed heavily on Trumans mind. drop em.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.

This is what I mean. Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't. We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened. I thought we KNEW what happened. I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical. Or was it? Do we agree on that much?

I say no. Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.

Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????

You are arguing the wrong point. There was no surrender on the table before the A Bombs were dropped. The ONLY thing the Japanese offered was a cease of hostilities and the return of captured territory. They would hand over what ever they still had from after Dec 7 and we would hand over what ever of theirs we had from before Dec 7.

It is a bald faced LIE that the same surrender existed before as after and that we ignored it to bomb them.

My link is to SOURCE documents. We have the actual conversations from the Japanese Government.

 

[CurveLight]

The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.

This is what I mean. Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't. We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened. I thought we KNEW what happened. I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical. Or was it? Do we agree on that much?

I say no. Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.

Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????

Pure horseshit. At first the line by Truman was "It saved lives." As it was getting revealed the bombs were not necessary it was "They saved 100,000 lives." As more facts were revealed it became "They saved over 200,000 lives." When Truman's book came out it was "They saved 500,000 lives."

Anyone see a pattern here? Now that we have a lot more facts the number gets increased to "They saved millions of American lives."

All the top military leaders including Fleet Admiral Leah, said the bombs were not necessary.

Furthermore, why didn't we drop the bombs where the highest concentration of Japanese troops were located? We purposefully targeted civilians which made our use of the A-Bombs terrorism defined. You don't target areas that are predominantly civilian. Yeah yeah...I've heard it before the cities were military targets because japanese military socks were made in the cities....or something as fucking silly.

 

[Madeline]

This is what I mean. Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't. We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened. I thought we KNEW what happened. I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical. Or was it? Do we agree on that much?

I say no. Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.

Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????

You are arguing the wrong point. There was no surrender on the table before the A Bombs were dropped. The ONLY thing the Japanese offered was a cease of hostilities and the return of captured territory. They would hand over what ever they still had from after Dec 7 and we would hand over what ever of theirs we had from before Dec 7.

It is a bald faced LIE that the same surrender existed before as after and that we ignored it to bomb them.

My link is to SOURCE documents. We have the actual conversations from the Japanese Government.

Call me selfish, but if it saved even just one American life, I'd have dropped the A-Bomb myself. I am not asking for a pie-in-the-sky ethical debate.

I merely want to know, was it necessary or not? Had Japan surrendered BEFORE we bombed there?

RetiredGySgt says he can prove they did NOT, that he has source documents to back up his position. Well, is there any doubt that he does? Is there some question about these documents?

This is why there should have been a court proceeding. I am just mystified as to why none was ever conducted.

 

[CurveLight]

The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.

This is what I mean. Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't. We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened. I thought we KNEW what happened. I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical. Was it? Do we agree on that much?

He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.

The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.

We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.

Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.

You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we? Here are some links for you to ignore:

Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm

 

[CurveLight]

Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????

You are arguing the wrong point. There was no surrender on the table before the A Bombs were dropped. The ONLY thing the Japanese offered was a cease of hostilities and the return of captured territory. They would hand over what ever they still had from after Dec 7 and we would hand over what ever of theirs we had from before Dec 7.

It is a bald faced LIE that the same surrender existed before as after and that we ignored it to bomb them.

My link is to SOURCE documents. We have the actual conversations from the Japanese Government.

Call me selfish, but if it saved even just one American life, I'd have dropped the A-Bomb myself. I am not asking for a pie-in-the-sky ethical debate.

I merely want to know, was it necessary or not? Had Japan surrendered BEFORE we bombed there?

RetiredGySgt says he can prove they did NOT, that he has source documents to back up his position. Well, is there any doubt that he does? Is there some question about these documents?

This is why there should have been a court proceeding. I am just mystified as to why none was ever conducted.

Http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/W...l/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html

I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs.


Apologists say it was necessary to use the bombs to get Japan to surrender unconditionally. That's bullshit because even after the bombs Japan did not give an unconditional surrender. After using the bombs it was not Japan that compromised on the conditions of surrender. It was the US. Think about it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is what I mean. Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't. We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened. I thought we KNEW what happened. I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical. Was it? Do we agree on that much?

He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.

The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.

We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.

Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.

You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we? Here are some links for you to ignore:

Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm

Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.

 

[Madeline]

The reasons the cliche "The bombs saved lives" are many of the same reasons Bush supporters were reduced to defending Bush by saying "History will prove him correct."

Well, it's been a year. What say you? He still seems like a lying fuckwhit to me.

And the sad thing is, while he lied about Iraq having the A-Bomb, it now appears he failed to stop IRAN from getting it. Oh joy.

Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?

RetiredGySgt, I watched Bush on television saying that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". I HOPED he meant the A-Bomb....chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction scared me stiff. HE LIED about that and sat around twiddling his thumbs whilst IRAN acquired nuclear technology.

I despise Bush. I think he and Cheney should be arrested as traitors. Some of my friends have kidlets in active duty over in Iraq and Afganistan...all because of GWB's lies and Cheney's greed to score big contracts from the Dept. of Defense.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY]YouTube - George: Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction[/ame]

How can any patriot defend GWB?

 

[Madeline]

He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.

The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.

We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.

Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.

You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we? Here are some links for you to ignore:

Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm

Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.

I still do not understand how such a HUGELY significant historical fact can be in doubt, this many years later.

CurveLight: what exactly about RetiredGySgt's documents makes them less than reliable in your view?

RetiredGySgt: why are CurveLight's documents unreliable?

Are you claiming they have been altered? They are not authentic? What?

You just CANNOT both be right on the FACTS. It's logically impossible.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, it's been a year. What say you? He still seems like a lying fuckwhit to me.

And the sad thing is, while he lied about Iraq having the A-Bomb, it now appears he failed to stop IRAN from getting it. Oh joy.

Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?

RetiredGySgt, I watched Bush on television saying that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". I HOPED he meant the A-Bomb....chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction scared me stiff. HE LIED about that and sat around twiddling his thumbs whilst IRAN acquired nuclear technology.

I despise Bush. I think he and Cheney should be arrested as traitors. Some of my friends have kidlets in active duty over in Iraq and Afganistan...all because of GWB's lies and Cheney's greed to score big contracts from the Dept. of Defense.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY]YouTube - George: Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction[/ame]

How can any patriot defend GWB?

Bush was right. According to everything we and the rest of the world knew Saddam Hussein HAD Biological and Chemical weapons. He never accounted for them and we knew he had them. Further his dual use facilities allowed him the ability to make more.

Provide a single clip ANYWHERE where Bush EVER made a claim Saddam Hussein had nukes. You won't find one. What we were worried about and rightfully so, was that once sanctions were lifted he would only be a couple years away from a bomb. Captured documents PROVE that is true.

Bush nor Cheney lied to anyone, that is left wing propaganda and outright lies. Read the Congressional consent to use force. Bush was very clear why we were going into Iraq.

We have had Democrats in control of both houses of Congress since Jan 2007, they PROMISED if we elected them they would provide proof Bush lied and that he broke laws. It is now 2010 and no such charges have ever been brought forward. In fact EVERY Commission Republican and Democrat that investigated the issue has ruled Bush did NOT LIE.

 

[namvet]

You are arguing the wrong point. There was no surrender on the table before the A Bombs were dropped. The ONLY thing the Japanese offered was a cease of hostilities and the return of captured territory. They would hand over what ever they still had from after Dec 7 and we would hand over what ever of theirs we had from before Dec 7.

It is a bald faced LIE that the same surrender existed before as after and that we ignored it to bomb them.

My link is to SOURCE documents. We have the actual conversations from the Japanese Government.

Call me selfish, but if it saved even just one American life, I'd have dropped the A-Bomb myself. I am not asking for a pie-in-the-sky ethical debate.

I merely want to know, was it necessary or not? Had Japan surrendered BEFORE we bombed there?

RetiredGySgt says he can prove they did NOT, that he has source documents to back up his position. Well, is there any doubt that he does? Is there some question about these documents?

This is why there should have been a court proceeding. I am just mystified as to why none was ever conducted.

Http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/W...l/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html

I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs.


Apologists say it was necessary to use the bombs to get Japan to surrender unconditionally. That's bullshit because even after the bombs Japan did not give an unconditional surrender. After using the bombs it was not Japan that compromised on the conditions of surrender. It was the US. Think about it.

FDR SCANDAL PAGE from your scandal link
FDR Scandal Page

more hysterical reading
PEARL HARBOR MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES
Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies

Halarious JFK SCANDAL PAGE
JFK Scandal Page with Assassination Notes

where's the one on Bush kid???? seems you don't read what you post. its obvious you deal in fiction and theories. im finished with you

 

[CurveLight]

He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.

The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.

We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.

Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.

You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we? Here are some links for you to ignore:

Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm

Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.

The fact you are either ignorant or dishonest about such a well known fact shows your gross inability to debate the issue. Japan did not offer an unconditional surrender after the bombs:

"On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we? Here are some links for you to ignore:

Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm

Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.

I still do not understand how such a HUGELY significant historical fact can be in doubt, this many years later.

CurveLight: what exactly about RetiredGySgt's documents makes them less than reliable in your view?

RetiredGySgt: why are CurveLight's documents unreliable?

Are you claiming they have been altered? They are not authentic? What?

You just CANNOT both be right on the FACTS. It's logically impossible.

He is playing with words. The Japanese made the following offer through the Soviet Union... They would cease hostilities and we would cease hostilities. They would evacuate all territory captured since Dec 7 1941 and we would evacuate all territory that was Japanese before Dec 7 1941. Further no other action would occur to Japan. No foreign presence in Japan, no reorganization of their Government, no dismantling of their military. We refused.

After the First Atomic Bomb they floated a similar plan and we again refused.

After the second Bomb the Emperor intervened in the Governments deliberations. The Army which controlled the Government absolutely REFUSED to surrender. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs. The Emperor over ruled them and ordered an immediate UNCONDITIONAL Surrender.

Curvelight is pretending that the offer to a cease of hostilities was a offer to surrender. He is further claiming that because we eventually allowed the Emperor to remain as a figure head in Japan we should not have dropped the bombs.

He is using the same intercepts as my source documents and claiming they do not clearly say what they say. Further I have in my source documents the actual meetings of the Japanese Government and what was and was not agreed to. Who wanted and did not want Peace. The Army ran the Government and was not going to surrender. Even after the Emperor agreed to surrender the Army staged a coup and tried to seize the voice recording where the Emperor ordered the surrender and prevent the Emperor from further addressing the Nation.

 

[namvet]

Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?

RetiredGySgt, I watched Bush on television saying that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". I HOPED he meant the A-Bomb....chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction scared me stiff. HE LIED about that and sat around twiddling his thumbs whilst IRAN acquired nuclear technology.

I despise Bush. I think he and Cheney should be arrested as traitors. Some of my friends have kidlets in active duty over in Iraq and Afganistan...all because of GWB's lies and Cheney's greed to score big contracts from the Dept. of Defense.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY]YouTube - George: Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction[/ame]

How can any patriot defend GWB?

Bush was right. According to everything we and the rest of the world knew Saddam Hussein HAD Biological and Chemical weapons. He never accounted for them and we knew he had them. Further his dual use facilities allowed him the ability to make more.

Provide a single clip ANYWHERE where Bush EVER made a claim Saddam Hussein had nukes. You won't find one. What we were worried about and rightfully so, was that once sanctions were lifted he would only be a couple years away from a bomb. Captured documents PROVE that is true.

Bush nor Cheney lied to anyone, that is left wing propaganda and outright lies. Read the Congressional consent to use force. Bush was very clear why we were going into Iraq.

We have had Democrats in control of both houses of Congress since Jan 2007, they PROMISED if we elected them they would provide proof Bush lied and that he broke laws. It is now 2010 and no such charges have ever been brought forward. In fact EVERY Commission Republican and Democrat that investigated the issue has ruled Bush did NOT LIE.

BUT he did drop the Abombs !!!!!!!!

 

[Madeline]

Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?

RetiredGySgt, I watched Bush on television saying that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". I HOPED he meant the A-Bomb....chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction scared me stiff. HE LIED about that and sat around twiddling his thumbs whilst IRAN acquired nuclear technology.

I despise Bush. I think he and Cheney should be arrested as traitors. Some of my friends have kidlets in active duty over in Iraq and Afganistan...all because of GWB's lies and Cheney's greed to score big contracts from the Dept. of Defense.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY]YouTube - George: Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction[/ame]

How can any patriot defend GWB?

Bush was right. According to everything we and the rest of the world knew Saddam Hussein HAD Biological and Chemical weapons. He never accounted for them and we knew he had them. Further his dual use facilities allowed him the ability to make more.

Provide a single clip ANYWHERE where Bush EVER made a claim Saddam Hussein had nukes. You won't find one. What we were worried about and rightfully so, was that once sanctions were lifted he would only be a couple years away from a bomb. Captured documents PROVE that is true.

Bush nor Cheney lied to anyone, that is left wing propaganda and outright lies. Read the Congressional consent to use force. Bush was very clear why we were going into Iraq.

We have had Democrats in control of both houses of Congress since Jan 2007, they PROMISED if we elected them they would provide proof Bush lied and that he broke laws. It is now 2010 and no such charges have ever been brought forward. In fact EVERY Commission Republican and Democrat that investigated the issue has ruled Bush did NOT LIE.

A quality debate on GWB would take some digging on my part -- flinging POVs won't do any good without facts. If you'd like to, we can start a new thread on him. I didn't mean to hijack this one..I was enjoying the tutoring by you guys on WW II and VJ Day.

My apologies.