Che Guevara Flags in Obama's Houston Office

[kaydee457 13]

my thoughts to you? Stay off those lefty looney sites! I cannot even put up a serious argument rebutting this jibberage. I'll let it stand for what it is!

I'm a republican, you twit.

Well....You're entitled to your own opinion, as left as it is, but you're not entitled to make your own facts!

The facts are as follows:

Bush went to war with the best intelligence available- the conclusions were the consensus of all the western powers- Iraq had DMD's, and that's what was believed.

The congress and Senate agreed and voted to go to war, including Hillary! LEGALLY!

We do not, as a sovereign nation, require the "permission" of the U.N.

These are the reasons we went to war-

If you want to argue the mismanagement then you're on as it was clearly a bumpy road....and mistakes were made. Please don't engage in this crazy nonsense about a U.S. President making war without authorization, and illegally as it's simply not true.

Further, the other left notions that defy common sense, is to put forth the argument that the administration intentionally lied to the populace, ala lefty loony conspiracy ####### that can't be verified by anyone in authority, to somehow seek vengeance for his Dad, or whatever the current crazy theory is…..

Why bring Truman into this other than to back up your lefty assertion that America’s always the problem? You weren’t alive at the time of that event so why, and how can you have a viable opinion?

[Sinergy 3]

How is this even a competition between Bushy and Che??

[Ban Hammer 12,884]

Che has become a pop icon more than anything with pseudo-liberals around the world. Most people aren't aware of the atrocities he committed and just know that he was a revolutionary. He did make a lot of positive changes in Latin America, but not enough to justify the means.

I really hope this isn't the kind of thing that Obama condones within his campaign, and I'm sure he's not stupid enough to do so. However, we saw how stupid even the most respected politicians can be when Bubba started opening his mouth.

Che is not a "pop icon" --- that would be for the idiots who just buy T-shirts with his face in them without having a clue what Che stood for.

But by all means, please enlighten us stupid Latin Americans, who did learn about Ernesto Che Guevara's struggle and work in school about this "atrocities" you are so keen to point out.

If some candidates actually look up to Reagan as a role model, I'd rather have Che Guevara as one. Every day and twice on Sundays.

Peace brother, L.

with all this bds going on, maybe some should realize that bush can be impeached and che never faced that prospect.....

but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the hate! carry on!

[pedroh 21]

don't worry hermanos, el che will always be a liberator... not a 'mass murderer' as they want to portray him

[GaryC 7]

No offense, but Bush has killed more people than Che.

I know what that smiley means...you disagree with me but you have no intelligent or substantial argument to make.

could be he's waiting for a intelligent or substantial statement for you

My substantial statement is that, as horrible as Che is, there are certain American politicians who have done FAR worse (Truman, anyone). However, people would not look at a house with a picture of Truman and try to use it as a means to discredit the homeowners father.

The difference here is that they did so lawfully to protect your liberties and your right to come into these forums and trash them.

You do understand that war is a necessary evil, don't you? I'll go out on a limb here and say that you'd be one of the first to cry foul when you can't fill up your flowered volkswagen bus, and the first to cry that it's your goverments fault that you can't.

Always blame the USA first......

Bush went to war lawfully. We were attacked by Islamist extremeist, get it? We went to war in IRAQ on the best available intellegence, period. You and I are not privvy to all info that a US President has so let's not go to the loopy liberal conspiracy #######, please!

Liberals, sheesh!

Bush did NOT go to war lawfully, for one. We were attacked by the men of Bin Laden, who is still free because we got distracted by Iraq. I actually agree with the decision to remove Saddam from power. However, it is our refusal to leave middle eastern countries that leads to terrorism against us. Just listen to what they I say.

The legality of Truman dropping two nuclear bombs which killed 220,000 people, most of them civilians. Quite frankly, he acted in haste and many lives were lost unnecessarily.

I love how I am seen as a liberal by the right wingers and a damned neo-con by the left wingers on this site. I'm an open-minded moderate who wades through the ####### begrudgingly.

Riiiiiiiight.

Number 1: They've made it quite clear that our military intrusion into their land, offensive or not, is the main reason for their atatcks.

Number 2: We would have won the war in the Pacific without Little Boy and Fat Man, but they were able to hasten the signing of the surrender papers by the Japanese. I can't believe people could ever justify that decision. Seriously, 220,000 people died. This doesn't include the ones who have been dying horrible deaths for the last 62 years.

You need to study your history a little more. It was estimated that we would lose more than a million troops invading Japan. They already showed that they were willing to fight to the last man woman and child. I know it sounds counter intuitive but dropping the bombs saved lives on both sides.

[Cassie 8]

so since the "Obama is a muslim" story didn't stick, let's try "obama is a commie!!!! oh noes!!!111!!!!!!!" and see if that works!

[Scott & Lai 12]

And since when is Che Guevara a "communist mass murderer" --- give me a freaking break people - educate yourselves in Che's struggle before ranting about it. Ignorance is bliss, other times....

So, he wasn't a communist, and wasn't a murderer....got it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You need to study your history a little more. It was estimated that we would lose more than a million troops invading Japan. They already showed that they were willing to fight to the last man woman and child. I know it sounds counter intuitive but dropping the bombs saved lives on both sides.

That's the sales patter we're accustomed to hearing. However, to say with absolute certainty that there was no doubt or controversy, would not be accurate.

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[34][35]

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[35] Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[36] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[37]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[38]

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[38]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[39][38]

What was originally the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall has now been turned into the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The atomic bomb exploded almost directly overhead.The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion...[40] due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.[41]

Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:

"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell[41]

General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. He suggested that the U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but they refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on Kyūshū, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. The Japanese Foreign Ministry dispatched a message to the United States on August 10th stating that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, "with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." This was not, as critics later asserted, merely a humble request that the emperor retain a modest figurehead role. As Japanese historians writing decades after the war emphasized, the demand that there be no compromise of the "prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler" as a precondition for the surrender was a demand that the United States grant the emperor veto power over occupation reforms and continue the rule of the old order in Japan.[42] Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945,[43]

though the War Council did not know the extent of the losses to the Soviets in China at that time.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush went to war lawfully.

In Afghanistan, yes. In Iraq, no.

[joelunchbox 0]

Back to Che. We have done more to disrupt true democracy in central and south america than we will ever know. Propping up a puppet does not count as "promoting" democracy. Hey! that is exactly how Saddam came into power. WE-the USA-put him in power. And that was why he thought he could invade Kuwait.

Iraq is a made up war. Deal with it. On second thought, we have to deal with it because it is now OUR war and not just Bush and his cronies' war. And we are now backsliding in Afghanistan also because of Iraq.

[almaty 19]

i admire che so much..i even smoke his cigs...

[Sinergy 3]

i admire che so much..i even smoke his cigs...

[kaydee457 13]

Bush went to war lawfully.

In Afghanistan, yes. In Iraq, no.

Not true.....Both houses voted on the authorization, including Hillary and all those that now say they were "mislead" as to the reason why an invasion was necessary........

[kaydee457 13]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.