Bombshell Obama Pastor Video

[FayeW]

By that measure, so were Canadian troops that fought in WWII since IIRC, no country attacked Canada.

You should feel just as proud or ashamed. You're choice.

We were fighting in service of our King. We are a Commonwealth nation. The names of our naval ships all start with "HMCS"...Her Majesty's Canadian Ship.

Good try, though.

 

[Charade]

We were fighting in service of our King. We are a Commonwealth nation. The names of our naval ships all start with "HMCS"...Her Majesty's Canadian Ship.

Good try, though.

Same rules apply since the King's armed forces were "terrorizing" innocents in Germany.

Nice try indeed.

 

[FayeW]

Good freaking lord.

OMG!!! IM GOING TO POKE MY EYEBALLS OUT WITH HOT PRODS!!!

To the Japanese Gov't they should have been ashamed of their goverment who started the whole mess.

Terrorists.

I'm sure they were horrified and ashamed. Just like many Amercians were when you invaded Iraq.

How exactly do you think the surviving Japanese perceived America?

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

You seem to forget who exactly was on Juno beach.

We always thank the British. The Canadians were only there on orders from the King. Can't take credit at one time and then dismiss responsiblilty later on. It's kind of a breakdown in logic.

 

[FayeW]

Same rules apply since the King's armed forces were "terrorizing" innocents in Germany.

Nice try indeed.

I am certain that the citizens of any country invaded by another would consider the invaders to be terrorists, but that wasn't your question. You asked specifically about our role in WWII since Canadian soil wasn't attacked. I provided an explaination.

However, if we are going to paint with that brush, you were terrorists there, too, since your forces also fought in WWII (and some of your countrymen would like to believe you won it all by yourselves). I am also certain that His Majesty, his subjects (including the government and citizens of Canada) were grateful for your help.

 

[FayeW]

We always thank the British. The Canadians were only there on orders from the King. Can't take credit at one time and then dismiss responsiblilty later on. It's kind of a breakdown in logic.

Nobody dismissed responsibility. John asked why were there when we (Canadian soil) hadn't been attacked. I explained. I never said we were "ordered", either. I said we were serving our King. Just like your forces "serve their country".

 

[chris1gill]

No response from the Obama camp about "typical white person?"

Chuck I think you already answered your own question, as did I on this page in a different thread, and the page following it.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1718915&page=125

 

[Charade]

I am certain that the citizens of any country invaded by another would consider the invaders to be terrorists, but that wasn't your question. You asked specifically about our role in WWII since Canadian soil wasn't attacked. I provided an explaination.

However, if we are going to paint with that brush, you were terrorists there, too, since your forces also fought in WWII (and some of your countrymen would like to believe you won it all by yourselves). I am also certain that His Majesty, his subjects (including the government and citizens of Canada) were grateful for your help.

Huh? You started this part of the discussion by calling the US terrorists for dropping the A bomb on Japan.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

By that measure, so were Canadian troops that fought in WWII since IIRC, no country attacked Canada.

You should feel just as proud or ashamed. You're choice.

We were fighting in service of our King. We are a Commonwealth nation. The names of our naval ships all start with "HMCS"...Her Majesty's Canadian Ship.

Good try, though.

Nobody dismissed responsibility. John asked why were there when we (Canadian soil) hadn't been attacked. I explained. I never said we were "ordered", either. I said we were serving our King. Just like your forces "serve their country".

Okie Dokie.

So then since you weren't dismissing responsiblity and your troops weren't ordered there but doing exactly what our troops were doing (even though our country was attacked), your troops which weren't attacked in WWII could be considered terrorists?

Just as a side note, I'm sure Obama will be able to sleep better tonight knowing he seems to be polling well in Canada since his speech.

 

[chris1gill]

Well, this is the pastor thread.... seems Bill Clinton met with Reverend Wright the same day he met with Ken Starr regarding his transgressions... It's on the front page of tomorrow's NY Times apparently...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/photograph-of-bill-clinton-and-rev-wright-surfaces/

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Well, this is the pastor thread.... seems Bill Clinton met with Reverend Wright the same day he met with Ken Starr regarding his transgressions... It's on the front page of tomorrow's NY Times apparently...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/photograph-of-bill-clinton-and-rev-wright-surfaces/

Interesting. So, what shall the response be??

Oh, nicely played, Obama.

or

Such ashame. We thought he was above such pettiness.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Well, this is the pastor thread.... seems Bill Clinton met with Reverend Wright the same day he met with Ken Starr regarding his transgressions... It's on the front page of tomorrow's NY Times apparently...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/photograph-of-bill-clinton-and-rev-wright-surfaces/

I like this part:
In providing the photograph to The New York Times, the Obama campaign appeared to be trying to divert some attention to the Clintons

Just tonight on Larry King
http://forumpolitics.com/index/2008/03/20/video-barack-obama-on-larry-king-live/

When your down in the polls you throw a lot of negative stuff at your opponant. That's the kinda stuff Obama is trying to change.

 

[JARNJ3]

Well, this is the pastor thread.... seems Bill Clinton met with Reverend Wright the same day he met with Ken Starr regarding his transgressions... It's on the front page of tomorrow's NY Times apparently...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/photograph-of-bill-clinton-and-rev-wright-surfaces/

And what does this mean exactly? The Clinton campaign has said virtually nothing on this ........

It just proves Rev Wright was a bigwig in clergy......

 

[JARNJ3]

I like this part:
In providing the photograph to The New York Times, the Obama campaign appeared to be trying to divert some attention to the Clintons

Just tonight on Larry King
http://forumpolitics.com/index/2008/03/20/video-barack-obama-on-larry-king-live/

When your down in the polls you throw a lot of negative stuff at your opponant. That's the kinda stuff Obama is trying to change.

Yeah - Obama is falling back on going negative. They are pouring over all those documents recently released - looking for something to take out of context.....

 

[Chuck S]

Chuck I think you already answered your own question, as did I on this page in a different thread, and the page following it.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1718915&page=125

But what a shame that he didn't "get it right" the first time. How many times as President will he get several do-overs dealing with sensitive foreign diplomats.

 

[chris1gill]

But what a shame that he didn't "get it right" the first time. How many times as President will he get several do-overs dealing with sensitive foreign diplomats.

Personally, for thinking adults, he got it right the first time... for this morning, it only took him once, so I can honestly say, not as many times as our current President

And at least he isn't throwing the kitchen sink...

 

[chris1gill]

And what does this mean exactly? The Clinton campaign has said virtually nothing on this ........

It just proves Rev Wright was a bigwig in clergy......

That's exactly what it means, that the Rev. Wright was invited to this event, shows that he has been a well-respected, nationally recognized spiritual leader for many years, contrary to the caricatures that have been depicted in the media. Yes, his incendiary statements were controversial, over the top, and should be condemned, as Sen Obama has done. But to reduce a 40-year career of spiritual leadership to a few out-of-true-character sound-bites, is deplorable. He is a nationally-known figure in the African American community who gave thousands of speeches and sermons. And his sound-bite comments taken out of context are no less incendiary than what we hear from many fundamentalists and evangelical ministers, (such as Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, Rev. Hagee, and others). And yet notice how our white Republican candidates are not held to the same standard in terms of having to denounce these characters? How many Presidents have called how many Evangelical type Pastor's when faced with adversity? And did the President at the time agree with everything the pastor ever said? I think the answer is no...

In fact the church in question also has white members, so it's not an all black church that excludes whites. When every other church moved out of that area, Trinity stayed, and continued to offer programs that helped people that needed it....

It's most unfortunate so much time has been focused on this one issue.

 

[EMom]

Do you think the citizens of Hiroshima thought you were heros?

To the Japanese people, you were terrorists.

To be blunt, the Japanese would have fought until there was only one Japanese left. That is not our cultural mindset. We wanted to minimize casualties and continuation of fighting in the Pacific arena meant devastating losses for BOTH sides. We'd had it. We were not willing to sacrifice that many more American lives. (Considering that WWII ending when it did is all that stopped my father from being shipped out, I'm grateful for the decision.)

War is an ugly thing. The Japanese attacked us and had to be ready for whatever followed. Obviously, they thought we couldn't carry on a fight on both oceans and would be spread too thin, but we did. The Japanese government was warned that unless it surrendered, it would soon face "complete and utter destruction." After the Hiroshima bomb, they clearly knew the destructive capability of the bomb, yet chose to continue fighting. Therefore, they CHOSE to sacrifice their own people.....Which just backs up what some of have said about their willingness to die for their emperor/country. If anyone was a terrorist, it was the Japanese government for willingly sacrificing their people even though they knew what was coming.

It is a terrible thing that so many Japanese people had to die. But the cold hard truth is that many, many times over would have died had the fighting continued. The lowest estimates, which are the early ones and are now considered unrealistically low, were in the few hundred thousands per side. The more realistic ones, based on previous loss ratios and more accurate data on how many Japanese troops were indeed on the islands, placed combined Allied (mostly American) and Japanese military losses perhaps as high as 5 million, but probably more along the lines of 3 million. And that does not include civilian losses.

If we hadn't dropped those bombs, many of us wouldn't be here because our fathers and grandfathers would have died in the next year or two of battle. No thanks. Dropping those bombs actually saved lives, numerically speaking. A good many of the lives saved were Japanese who would have died in battle or more traditional bombing. Dropping the bomb ended the war sooner. Dropping the bomb made certain we won, and not the Japanese.

So by dropping those bombs, we saved millions of lives, ended the war quickly and made certain we prevailed over the Japanese. We even gave them a chance to avoid the bombs by surrendering and made it clear they were not ordinary weapons.....and there is no doubt they knew of the destructive capability after the first one was dropped. So they had every chance to avoid it and chose not to.

I admire President Truman for making the difficult decision he did. As horrific as using the atom bomb was, the alternative was, IMHO, even worse. It would have just been a slower, more drawn out loss of millions more lives on both sides. Of course, he was primarily looking out for America's best interest, as he should have since he was our president. But his decision wound up saving Japanese lives as well. Truman looked at the scenarios, and chose the lesser of evils. And sometimes, "evils" are all you have to pick from. You don't have any "good" choices," just some that are less bad than others.

 

[NewJersey]

Yeah - Obama is falling back on going negative. They are pouring over all those documents recently released - looking for something to take out of context.....

No need to go negative when Clinton was holding secret meetings pushing NAFTA.

 

[chris1gill]

No need to go negative when Clinton was holding secret meetings pushing NAFTA.

OUCH... let's step to our collective corner.... ending a war that should have never been waged and should be ended...