"History will judge me" - Bush.....Looks like it already has!

[Vintij]

Read this study, a vote of over 400 historians, and several dozen quotes of their opinion of his presidency. These are historians, you know...the ones who judge history. Possibly one of the most thorough studys on a president and how he used patriotism to get re-elected. He is the only one, who benefited from 9-11.


http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

 

[Annie]

Read this study, a vote of over 400 historians, and several dozen quotes of their opinion of his presidency. These are historians, you know...the ones who judge history. Possibly one of the most thorough studys on a president and how he used patriotism to get re-elected. He is the only one, who benefited from 9-11.


http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

Historians are rarely correct in the judgments of the times they are living in.

 

[red states rule]

Historians are rarely correct in the judgments of the times they are living in.

Truman had lower numbers in his final years then Pres Bush has right now

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

Truman also killed thousands of innocent people. A REAL role model for Bush.

 

[Annie]

Truman also killed thousands of innocent people. A REAL role model for Bush.

Right, we should have retaken the islands without the bomb, whatever the cost. Get a life.

 

[red states rule]

Truman also killed thousands of innocent people. A REAL role model for Bush.

Blame America first, rught?

Don't end a war - keep it going for another 6 months and maybe Japan would have surrenered anyway

So what if another 500,000 US troops would ahve died - better then using the bomb on the enemy

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

So far the 'Surge" has created a new record month for U.S casualties. What a genius....

 

[Truthmatters]

Im sure the ranking is even lower now in 2007 than it was in 2004.

We will see if anything Bush did ended well.

It is very unlikely.

International athorities on world policy have not rated his policies very high for their results.

What in the world do you people see as their long term gain?

Do you have anything real to state or is it just blather about him being Good for the international scene?

 

[CSM]

Im sure the ranking is even lower now in 2007 than it was in 2004.

We will see if anything Bush did ended well.

It is very unlikely.

International athorities on world policy have not rated his policies very high for their results.

What in the world do you people see as their long term gain?

Do you have anything real to state or is it just blather about him being Good for the international scene?

You are of course correct...we need to remove Bush. In fact we need to disband our government and let International Authorities on world policy determine the course for the United States of America, at least as far as foreign policy goes. ....

 

[Shogun]

Right, we should have retaken the islands without the bomb, whatever the cost. Get a life.

it's funny how dead civilians are only worth bemaoning to the world if they are American...


im sure the rest of the world makes the same distinction.

 

[Annie]

it's funny how dead civilians are only worth bemaoning to the world if they are American...


im sure the rest of the world makes the same distinction.

Right, you cared so very much about those in Darfur and Iraq. Yes, the international bleeding heart is quite parched.

 

[Shogun]

Right, you cared so very much about those in Darfur and Iraq. Yes, the international bleeding heart is quite parched.

did we drop a nuke on Darfur or Iraq?

no?


silly girl.. how would you know enough about my motivation to make such a transparent ASSumption about me anyway? Did your official Ann Coulter Crystal Ball and Adams apple set come in the mail today?



Go see how your throat anomaly and crystal ball helps you rationalize knowing that you are from the only nation to ever use a nuke on someone while crying about weapons of mass destruction and poor civilians (on your side only) who die because of partisan political agendas...

I mean.. it's not as if your opinion is ironic or anything...

 

[T-Bor]

Wow good for TRuman. Does that make Bush's inadequicies ok then?

Truman had lower numbers in his final years then Pres Bush has right now

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

because Truman killed more innocent people than Bush. But RSR seems to think that's OK, because to him the end always justifies the means.

 

[Annie]

did we drop a nuke on Darfur or Iraq?

no?


silly girl.. how would you know enough about my motivation to make such a transparent ASSumption about me anyway? Did your official Ann Coulter Crystal Ball and Adams apple set come in the mail today?



Go see how your throat anomaly and crystal ball helps you rationalize knowing that you are from the only nation to ever use a nuke on someone while crying about weapons of mass destruction and poor civilians (on your side only) who die because of partisan political agendas...

I mean.. it's not as if your opinion is ironic or anything...

Well, speaking of ASSumptions, you leave no room to talk. As for the nukes on Japan in WII, right call at the right time.

 

[Shogun]

Well, speaking of ASSumptions, you leave no room to talk. As for the nukes on Japan in WII, right call at the right time.

im sure there are people you call muslim extremists out in the world thinking the same thing about 9/11...

what does that make you?

 

[Vintij]

Well, speaking of ASSumptions, you leave no room to talk. As for the nukes on Japan in WII, right call at the right time.

Im going to dissagree with you right there. Maybe if the nukes were dropped before we engulfed all major japanese cities with fire bombs, it would be ok. THe thing is though, we literally slaughterd half a million japanese civilians in one night. If there is any rule of war, that should be at the top of the great U.S rules of war......

Rule # 1. Dont slaughter half a million japanese civilians in one night, after you already burned down every major city in Japan. They were ready to surrender, and the A-bomb was not needed.

Dont ever justify half a million people of ANY nation dying in one night. You cant, even if you are from the god-loving U.S of A.

And also, dont blame Truman, he was conviced by his top general that they should drop the bomb. He was following orders like Presidents do.

 

[Superlative]

As for the nukes on Japan in WII, right call at the right time.

Sorry to back track here.

As far as I understand, Japan was surrendering, before the bomb was dropped.

"But beginning in the 1960’s – and not coincidentally with the rise of antiwar protests over Vietnam – a different perspective was put forward by so-called “revisionist” historians. In their view, the use of the atomic bomb was not necessary to obtain a Japanese surrender. They unearthed documents that seem to show that the majority of the Japanese leadership, led by the Emperor, was ready to surrender within a matter of weeks at most, impeded only by a small clique of extremists within the military, and that American and British intelligence intercepts made this clear. The real motive for the use of the bomb was quite different: it was, in the first instance, an attempt to cow Stalin and his triumphant generals from further territorial ambitions in Europe, and beyond that a weapon that would ensure victory in what some believed to be an inevitable war with the Soviet Union."

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_decision-to-drop-bomb.htm


In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

"The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a NEW YORK TIMES reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:

The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air. [THE DECISION, p. 334.]"

In his 1949 memoirs Arnold observed that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." [THE DECISION, p. 334.]

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Even after Hirohito decided to surrender, AGAINST the wishes of the Military ( which actually ran the country) those same Generals tried to prevent the Emperor from announcing his intention.

Prior to the nukes the Japanese Military not only did not intend to surrender, they ordered those peaceful civilians to arm themselves with bamboo stakes and spears and to charge any enemy troops that landed anywhere in Japan.

Revisionist history would try and convince you otherwise but they haven't a leg to stand on.

As for the targets BOTH were legit MILITARY targets, both were command and control centers with ARMY headquarters and martialing facilities, both were being used to create armies to resist any invasion and the command staff were there as well as large troops concentrations. Not to mention production facilities for war materials and ports.

 

[T-Bor]

Kathianne is pure scum for saying that right call at the right time BS.. Gee, Kath, guess you didnt have family there did ya. What about 9/11 for the people that did that too us. Right call at the right time right? So easy to say since it wasnt your country that got a nuclear bomb dropped on them. The US Govt even apologized for doing it years later I thought.

People like you dont give a damn about other people. You only care about your country and that is it. Everyone else can die a slow miserable death as far as you are concerened. And you are a teacher aren't you? What a shame someone like YOU can be allowed in the public school system. Thank god you are not teaching my kid. YOU SUCK !!!!!