Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...and meanwhile, his buddies (Hillary's reset button - Obama's assurance he would have more flexibility after the election) in Russia test new unstoppable "Satan" nuclear weapon:
For a progressive, Obama is always stuck looking backwards when he should be looking ahead.
Obama claims he likes to change things that haven't been working (e.g. policies toward Cuba). It seems having a robust nuclear deterrent has worked rather well.
I'm not am anti-Obama critic by any means, but there is no upside to Pres. Obama's visit.
Not when it could be interpreted, by some, as an apology.
Not when the U.S. is spending $1 trillion to upgrade nuclear weapons.
Honestly, I think it's probably his worst move, next to his comments about Trayvon Martin.
How is remembrance of thousands of people killed in a war an apology.
The right wing is going to complain that he is apologizing by visiting Hiroshima, there has been premtive whining about his visit to Japan for two months and he hasn't even set foot in the country. The white house has already stated is about honoring those killed and has no plans to apologize but the right wing is off and running.
Some could interpret this as an apology, that's just the way the defective mind works.
I actually agree with this...we're apologizing for what exactly? A land invasion wouldn't have not only killed more Americans, but more Japanese as well.
I actually agree with this...we're apologizing for what exactly?
Nobody is apologizing.
Quote:
A land invasion wouldn't have not only killed more Americans, but more Japanese as well.
Nuking cities and launching a massive invasion were just two of the possible courses of action that might have been taken in the summer of 1945. There were not the only possiblities.
I just see it as double-speak. I think it's well and good he is pushing for a reduction/elimination of nuclear weapons.
But there hasn't been any kind of move by the U.S. to decrease the number of missiles on active alert (in silos ready to launch).
If he proposed to deactivate missiles in the U.S., and challenged Russia to do the same, I would applaud it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
