Quantcast

It's Memorial Day: Will You Commemorate Fallen U.S. Soldiers Today?

The Big Question 2012/05/28 08:00:00
Related Topics: Memorial Day
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • woodstock 2012/05/28 15:02:15
    Yes
    woodstock
    +9
    Without a doubt. Red...White...Blue all the way. Without these brave men and woman are freedom would be in question. They are the gate keepers to this great country of ours. May God bless are men and woman in all branches of our military.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • TKramar Nanjing03 2012/05/30 08:44:00
    TKramar
    They were permitted to attack Pearl Harbor in order to rally Americans to the cause of war, when most Americans at the time were isolationist, and uninterested in engaging in the war. After we were attacked, the American people chose to respond.

    Let me give you another scenario. In Desert Storm, we were fighting Iraqi forces that had attacked Kuwait (because our leaders, for their own selfish reasons deemed it necessary)--yet, when Iraq pulled its troops OUT of Kuwait, we stood down. We did not go after them and continue the battle after the objective of getting them out of Kuwait was met. And we needn't have done so. George Bush Senior had the wisdom to get out and drop it. His son, not as intelligent.
  • Samantha Nanjing03 2012/05/29 13:46:07
    Samantha
    You're wrong; the Japanese had been approaching the Russians to intercede for peace.
  • Samantha Mack 2012/05/29 13:45:09
    Samantha
    The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey stated "Based on a detailed investigation of all 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 November 1, 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."
  • Mack Samantha 2012/05/29 21:35:31
    Mack
    +1
    "...it is the Survey's opinion that..."

    That's an opinion. Not fact. Nowhere close to fact. Did you know that the US Intelligence also had the opinion that Germany was practically defeated right before the Germans launched their Ardennes offensive?

    Do some research on Japanese military officials during World War II like Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, one of such Japanese military leaders who was referenced, and you will see that they completely disagree with that assumption. Stanley L. Falk, former chief historian of the US Air Force, wrote:

    "The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway has been so comprehensively discredited by modern research that it is astonishing some writers continue to give it credence."

    Even more so is the fact...FACT that Japan mobilized its citizenry in preparation for Operation Downfall. They built secret bunkers, suicide weapons, etc. The Japanese were ready to fight for the home island and they would have made us feel it...inch by inch. That's not an assumption. The evidence is there.


    Here are my sources:

    http://www.americanthinker.co...

    http://www.history.army.mil/b...

    http://www.ww2museums.com/art...
    "...it is the Survey's opinion that..."

    That's an opinion. Not fact. Nowhere close to fact. Did you know that the US Intelligence also had the opinion that Germany was practically defeated right before the Germans launched their Ardennes offensive?

    Do some research on Japanese military officials during World War II like Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, one of such Japanese military leaders who was referenced, and you will see that they completely disagree with that assumption. Stanley L. Falk, former chief historian of the US Air Force, wrote:

    "The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway has been so comprehensively discredited by modern research that it is astonishing some writers continue to give it credence."

    Even more so is the fact...FACT that Japan mobilized its citizenry in preparation for Operation Downfall. They built secret bunkers, suicide weapons, etc. The Japanese were ready to fight for the home island and they would have made us feel it...inch by inch. That's not an assumption. The evidence is there.


    Here are my sources:

    http://www.americanthinker.co...

    http://www.history.army.mil/b...

    http://www.ww2museums.com/art...
    (more)
  • Samantha Mack 2012/06/01 15:19:37
    Samantha
    No, the conclusion was based on fact and interviews with high-ranking military officials. The decision to immorally bomb the two cities was based on political rationale not military necessity.
  • Mack Samantha 2012/06/02 05:47:44
    Mack
    Which high ranking officials? What facts? I provided sources and names. You have not.
  • Samantha Mack 2012/06/15 22:38:22
    Samantha
    I've already told you the source. The decision was politically motivated and had nothing to do with military necessity. Besides that fact, the immorality of using an atomic weapon should have outweighed any other factor.
  • Mack Samantha 2012/06/15 23:34:40
    Mack
    I already disproved your source.
  • Samantha Mack 2012/06/15 23:42:35 (edited)
    Samantha
    No, you didn't.

    "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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

    - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

    In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

    "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

    - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

    "It is my opinion that the 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

    "The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling w...

























    No, you didn't.

    "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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

    - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

    In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

    "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

    - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

    "It is my opinion that the 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

    "The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

    Admiral William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

    MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

    William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

    Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

    Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

    "I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

    McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.

    The Franck Committee, which could not know that the Japanese government would approach Russia in July to try to end the war, compared the short-term possible saving of lives by using the bomb on Japan with the long-term possible massive loss of lives in a nuclear war:

    "We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.".

    BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE

    (The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

    "...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

    Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
    (more)
  • Mack Samantha 2012/06/16 17:18:19
    Mack
    From the first paragraph with Ike:

    "It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'."

    That's an opinion, not fact...so again, pointless.

    From the second paragraph with Admiral Leahy:

    "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

    Another opinion...not fact.

    From the third paragraph with William Manchester:

    "Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

    This is entirely hypothetical. Use of "had this happened then maybe" is never accepted by us historians as a form of fact. You can never EVER be sure of anything in a hypothetical situation concerning history.

    From the fourth paragraph with Norman Cousins:

    "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said,"

    This is, again, entirely hypothetical. How did he know the Japanese would have surrendered anyway? Yes, he was a high ranking American officer but he wasn't a Japanese commander and wouldn't have known the plans of the Japanese.

    From the 5th paragraph with MCcloy:

    His entire argument is in retrospect and they are just opinions. He feels this and he feels that. Only opinions not backed by hard facts.

    From th...












    From the first paragraph with Ike:

    "It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'."

    That's an opinion, not fact...so again, pointless.

    From the second paragraph with Admiral Leahy:

    "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

    Another opinion...not fact.

    From the third paragraph with William Manchester:

    "Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

    This is entirely hypothetical. Use of "had this happened then maybe" is never accepted by us historians as a form of fact. You can never EVER be sure of anything in a hypothetical situation concerning history.

    From the fourth paragraph with Norman Cousins:

    "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said,"

    This is, again, entirely hypothetical. How did he know the Japanese would have surrendered anyway? Yes, he was a high ranking American officer but he wasn't a Japanese commander and wouldn't have known the plans of the Japanese.

    From the 5th paragraph with MCcloy:

    His entire argument is in retrospect and they are just opinions. He feels this and he feels that. Only opinions not backed by hard facts.

    From the 6th paragragh with General Clarke:

    Again, more opinions...he believes this, he believes that. No evidence or sources to support any of his beliefs.

    From the 7th paragraph with Gar:

    "we didn't need to do it..."

    Based on what? Why didn't we need to do it?

    You have a lot of information but it's all based on opinions and hypothetical situations. You need to give me proof that the Japanese were going to surrender, not a belief or an assumption.


    I gave you evidence that the Japanese were not going to surrender. I gave you proof that they were ready to make the war last as long as it needed to. I also gave you proof of how your argument has already been disproven by modern research.
    (more)
  • sundance Samantha 2012/05/29 00:31:12
    sundance
    Japan was ready, however, the military arm of the government was not. Now, as they were the ones with the guns(?), who were we fighting? When the bomb(s) were dropped, we were in the ready to invade. The justification ( an often overused word isn't it?) was the bomb was a better scenario than the lives lost in an all out invasion. Need I remind you of the catastrophic death toll we each payed for control of the smaller islands...Just a thought....
  • Nanjing03 sundance 2012/05/29 02:17:35
    Nanjing03
    The Japanese military and civilians were of one mindset. The entire country was a military industrial complex whose goal was to establish and maintain a so-called East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere through enslavement and exploitation throughout Korea, China, Southeast Asia, the East Indies and as far west as the Irrawaddy of India. It was nothing short of insanity on a national and cultural level. Only Nazi Germany may have topped the Empire of Japan in an insane lust for conquest and murder.
  • sundance Nanjing03 2012/05/29 04:31:50
    sundance
    My point, was that the Japanese military complex, though defeated, was still planning attacks, right to the very end. The imperial government had already expressed their desire to surrender (and dispached communications confirming that desire), and the military leaders made it very clear that they would fight to the very end. This, and many other curcumstances, such as the invasion of the main land, unfortunately, made the use of the bomb the more viable scenario.
    Thank you for the post... Just a thought....
  • Samantha sundance 2012/05/29 13:50:15
    Samantha
    That's not totally correct. There were elements in the Japanese military that wanted to end the war.
  • sundance Samantha 2012/05/29 15:06:15
    sundance
    Well, I would imagine that is true. There were many Japanese (including military), that were starving, while others tried to support a war they could no longer win...The Japanese are a fastidious people, and I am sure this didn't sit well with many....Just a thought
  • Samantha Nanjing03 2012/05/29 13:49:45
    Samantha
    No, they weren't of the same mindset. See my posts above.
  • Samantha sundance 2012/05/29 13:49:19 (edited)
    Samantha
    That's not correct. Even in 1944, there were elements in the Japanese government including military leaders who realized the war was lost and that peace should be sought.

    The bombs were dropped, not for military priorities, but for political priorities designed to instill fear in the Russians.
  • sundance Samantha 2012/05/29 15:15:33 (edited)
    sundance
    listen Samantha, I can ( as well as everyone else) see that your not happy about the bombing of Japan, and I would imagine the use of the A-bomb in particular. I get that, and I agree. My point, which we can argue till were blue in the face, is that we bombed Japan because we knew (from earlier campaign) that the effort of invasion would have devastating toll on both sides. By the way Samantha, we killed several magnitude more in Tokyo, with conventional weapons, than with both bombs. And your hypothesis about Russian influence? I would imagine it served well, to let the Russians (and others) see that we were not afraid to use the big stick. Now, as I stated earlier, justification is an often abused idea, and usually substituted for agenda, in many cases. We had ( I'm sure) many agenda, in the use of the bomb. I am also convinced that each and every one of them came to their dark fruition, on 6 August 1945....Just a thought....
  • Samantha sundance 2012/05/29 17:26:41
    Samantha
    There was no moral or military justification for using atomic weapons, and I'm aware of the horrific bombings prior to August 6, 1945. They killed thousands and thousands of innocent people.
  • sundance Samantha 2012/05/29 19:03:37
    sundance
    So we are judging war on morality. OK, so how would you handle the situation? Should we have ignored? Should we have stayed out of the war in the pacific? How about the campaign in Europe? I am curious about your position. I have no intention to judge, as that is not my part to do. I just wonder what your thoughts and possible ideas for a solution might have been....Just a thought....

    PS. As a note on history. The estimated death toll of a conventional invasion, would have been in the millions. Just a side note.....
  • Samantha sundance 2012/06/01 15:28:58 (edited)
    Samantha
    The Japanese were trying to use the Soviet Union as a channel for peace overtures. However, Truman was intent on teaching a political lesson. The bombing was morally wrong and, for that matter, so was the conventional firebombing of Japanese and German cities that resulted in the deaths of thousands. Wars have rarely solved anything. Examples:

    Some will claim war ended slavery: Yes, the constitution was amended but, after Reconstruction, southern white conservatives enacted Jim Crow laws that, essentially enslaved blacks in economic and social servitude and they used the power of the state and a terrorist organization to frighten any black who dared challenge a whites-only system.

    World War I led directly to World War II because the Allies enacted revenge against Germany that resulted in widespread poverty and economic devastation. You might say the Allies helped created the environment that led to Adolf Hitler.

    World War II led directly to the Cold War and the creation of the national security state wherein Americans lost freedoms and the U.S. has been in a state of perpetual war since often created by irrational fear of foreigners. It also led to the U.S. overthrowing democratically elected governments especially in Latin America but also in Europe and Iran.

    "The...



    The Japanese were trying to use the Soviet Union as a channel for peace overtures. However, Truman was intent on teaching a political lesson. The bombing was morally wrong and, for that matter, so was the conventional firebombing of Japanese and German cities that resulted in the deaths of thousands. Wars have rarely solved anything. Examples:

    Some will claim war ended slavery: Yes, the constitution was amended but, after Reconstruction, southern white conservatives enacted Jim Crow laws that, essentially enslaved blacks in economic and social servitude and they used the power of the state and a terrorist organization to frighten any black who dared challenge a whites-only system.

    World War I led directly to World War II because the Allies enacted revenge against Germany that resulted in widespread poverty and economic devastation. You might say the Allies helped created the environment that led to Adolf Hitler.

    World War II led directly to the Cold War and the creation of the national security state wherein Americans lost freedoms and the U.S. has been in a state of perpetual war since often created by irrational fear of foreigners. It also led to the U.S. overthrowing democratically elected governments especially in Latin America but also in Europe and Iran.

    "The estimated death toll of a conventional invasion, would have been in the millions."

    That's a myth according to the group's conclusions since, had we acted on Japanese peace overtures, an invasion would never have been necessary. By the way, one of the sticking points was the Japanese wanted to maintain their Emperor yet this is exactly what MacArthur permitted at the end of the war.

    Opposition to war is a noble effort, and we must end rampant militarism in the United States if we are to survive.
    (more)
  • sundance Samantha 2012/06/01 20:20:02
    sundance
    OK Samantha, lets deal with this without rhetoric. The real question here, (after hashing a dozen other points) is that the bombing of Japan could have went either way. We could have used the conventional approach, and the number of overall fatalities would have been in the order of a magnitude larger. This is simple math, and nothing more. As for the rest of the argument, I am going to leave that up to the historians and naysayers to argue out. Now, on to surrender. Yes, the Imperial Japanese government was ready to stop hostilities,even before they began. However, as anyone who actually pays attention to history will attest, the Japanese government was segregated into two schools of thought, one social, and one military. The military branch of government was not willing, even in the face of utter destruction, to cease hostilities.

    As a side note: Both Japan and Germany, were in the process (long before our involvement by the way) of exterminating, with extreme prejudice, any and all that posed even the slightest irritation. They were both building totalitarian empires in their prospective corners of the world, with the intent of total (hence totalitarian) and complete domination.

    Now, you and I could, till blue in the face, discuss the woes of war and conquest, and find that ...

    OK Samantha, lets deal with this without rhetoric. The real question here, (after hashing a dozen other points) is that the bombing of Japan could have went either way. We could have used the conventional approach, and the number of overall fatalities would have been in the order of a magnitude larger. This is simple math, and nothing more. As for the rest of the argument, I am going to leave that up to the historians and naysayers to argue out. Now, on to surrender. Yes, the Imperial Japanese government was ready to stop hostilities,even before they began. However, as anyone who actually pays attention to history will attest, the Japanese government was segregated into two schools of thought, one social, and one military. The military branch of government was not willing, even in the face of utter destruction, to cease hostilities.

    As a side note: Both Japan and Germany, were in the process (long before our involvement by the way) of exterminating, with extreme prejudice, any and all that posed even the slightest irritation. They were both building totalitarian empires in their prospective corners of the world, with the intent of total (hence totalitarian) and complete domination.

    Now, you and I could, till blue in the face, discuss the woes of war and conquest, and find that we agree on many, many points ( as most intelligent people would). Further, I would not at all mind doing so. However, lets "air" one subject at a time, shall we?

    I can see that you are a person of passions, and a desire for justice and equality. I might, however, caution you with this. One, the world rarely sees the right in a thing. Rather, they see what they can gain. Two, history is never written by who's right. Rather, history is written by who's left....Just a thought....
    (more)
  • Samantha sundance 2012/06/01 20:46:07 (edited)
    Samantha
    Had the U.S. acted on peace overtures, an invasion would have been unnecessary. I disagree the Japanese military was completely opposed to surrendering. The Supreme Council for the Direction of the War was privately making attempts, via the Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese. Having read so much about Truman's decision, it seems he was intent on sending some type of insane example to the Soviet Union. It was unnecessary to use atomic weapons when an effort to negotiate an end to the war would have saved those lives which, by the way, included U.S. prisoners of war.

    Is it not ironic that, after fighting fascism in two different parts of the world, the U.S. government, following the war embraced and armed several fascist governments?
  • sundance Samantha 2012/06/01 23:00:06
    sundance
    Yea, isn't duplicity a bitch. I have come to see government like fashion. What was unacceptable and "out" last week, is all the rage and definitely "in" this week. See, ever being the pragmatist, I simply see the what is, and follow the events, to glean the story. I don't debate the logic or lunacy in the mix, simply because doing so, causes the real point to be lost.

    My general point of dissension with nearly every country on the dust ball, is that they can do something amazing and grand, and then drop the ball entirely. Then, they can precipitate the same behavior that ignited the conflict to begin with.

    Anyhow, I applaud your passion, and sincere support of your position. I would argue that your not entirely prepared to understand or accept some of the very dynamic issues at play here. However, you post one convincing, well conceived argument. I would further that you might want to compare source material, as the generally available consensus on the war, and wars in general, can be vastly different in opinion and event. Either way, your a pleasure to debate with. I like your honest, passionate, zero tolerance approach. I hope to continue....Peace
  • Samantha sundance 2012/06/15 22:39:38
    Samantha
    Thank you for being civil.
  • sundance Samantha 2012/06/16 01:30:22
    sundance
    +1
    Nothing less than you deserve....Just a thought...
  • EmoMcPa... Samantha 2012/05/29 02:12:30
    EmoMcParland
    No Way; 01 April 1945; Battle of Okinawa was an indication of what we would have to do to invade Japan. 38,000 American wounded, over 12,000 killed including 5000 Navy & 8000 Marines. The U.S. Navy had 38,000 wounded. & another 26,000 non combat casulties. The Battle for Okinawa was 82 days. This is why we used the Atomic Bomb six weeks later.
  • Samantha EmoMcPa... 2012/05/29 13:50:33
    Samantha
    There was no moral reason to use an atomic weapon.
  • EmoMcPa... Samantha 2012/05/29 14:47:48
    EmoMcParland
    December 7 1941 is the reason, Japan brought World War II to US. They were slaughtering people all over the Pacific. They occupied; Okinawa, Guam, Phillipians, Guadal Canal ... They were slaughtering people all over the Pacific,Islands. The Moral Reason was The lives of American Soldiers. You can't make an argument with out facts; just cause you feel, it's not moral. Morals 27 years in the Military do you think we hold hands and skip into a combat zone.
  • Samantha EmoMcPa... 2012/05/29 17:27:01
    Samantha
    There was no moral or military justification for the bombings.
  • GLaDOS Samantha 2012/05/29 18:50:26 (edited)
    GLaDOS
    The death of one? Or the death of many? If you had to choose, which would it be?

    To say "neither" lets them all die.
  • Samantha GLaDOS 2012/06/01 15:31:00
    Samantha
    Your example is nothing more than revenge, but it does say so much about the depths of depravity to which militaristic Americans will sink.
  • EmoMcPa... Samantha 2012/05/30 00:37:33
    EmoMcParland
    W R O. N G
  • Samantha EmoMcPa... 2012/06/01 15:31:13
    Samantha
    +1
    I'm right about U.S. militarism.
  • EmoMcPa... Samantha 2012/06/01 18:57:54
    EmoMcParland
    w r o n g
  • Samantha EmoMcPa... 2012/06/01 20:46:44
    Samantha
    +1
    You haven't proven me wrong.
  • EmoMcPa... Samantha 2012/06/02 05:59:58
    EmoMcParland
    You have never given a single fact to support your theory : )
  • Samantha EmoMcPa... 2012/06/15 22:40:13
    Samantha
    The U.S. is one of the most militaristic societies on planet Earth.
  • sundance Samantha 2012/06/16 01:31:40
    sundance
    North Korea ring a bell?...
  • Samantha sundance 2012/06/16 03:11:26 (edited)
    Samantha
    Has North Korea used military power to destroy democratically elected governments in Iran, Central and South America and used its military to protect the greedy interests of U.S. corporations. On the militaristic front, your use of North Korea is laughable. Virtually every aspect of American society exhibits militaristic language.

    http://www.commondreams.org/v...

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/04/21 02:11:55

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals