Atomic Bomb-Worst Event Ever?

I was looking through some threads on some of my favorite links, and the torture debate continues to be debated with an iron fist. I'm a little mute on the issue because to be quite honest, I see the pros and cons on both sides of the issue. I have a hard time with issues that involve torture methods. Whenever it comes to the issue of morals vs law, I am usually feel morals is the smartest bet. Unfortunately, this subject isn't so easy. When it comes to terrorism, I expect to fight fire with fire. I believe when it comes to terrorists, the softer you go, the greater the edge to the other side. With that battle in my mind, it is hard for me to feel strongly one way or the other.

Now here is something I will argue about. While sketching through some threads, a person said that dropping the atomic bomb was more just than the torture tactics used by the Bush Administration. I strongly disagree. Over 200,000 people died in the bombings of the two Japanese cities. Millions were subject to radiation that cause defects in births that still occur to this day. To my knowledge, no person was murdered while being tortured, and Obama even admits that the torture likely made us safer.

Bush could have dropped atomic bombs on terrorist nations. The 9/11 Attacks certainly was just as big of an event as Pearl Harbor. Yet, instead of blowing them off the face of the Earth, he used a much 'morally' correct way. Not a single solider could have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we did in an ethical way (at least in terms of this).

My point is, the Atomic Bomb was wrong. It should have never been built. Yes, the Japanese may never have given up, but 200,000 civilians didn't deserve to die either. THAT is morally and ethically wrong. It is dreadful to grow up in a world where every single person on Earth can die in the blink of eye. That is why in my opinion, it is the worst thing that has ever happened in human history. I do not want to grow up in a world where the world could explode, and I would never want my children and the future generations of the United States to be forced to make that type of decision. That is why I take torture over the Atomic Bomb. Taking the atomic bomb over torture methods is a pretty disgusting point in my opinion. Clearly his argument is based on the pathetic loyality to a political party. I so badly wish people would dissassociate with parties so that they can make logical points. The Father of Our Country, George Washington, saw this coming. Maybe one day we will start taking his advice.

Obama Shakes With Chavez, bows to a Foreign King

Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking that this isn't something that benefits the United States of America. The job of the President isn't to make us appear powerless. Tackle that with his socialism ideas (that is convincing liberals that it is the best way to go), and we have a great speaker that has proved that his objective is not the American people, but his Socialistic Liberal Polices.

Where was Hollywood's Unity 8 Years Ago?

I'm sure most of you have seen the "I Pledge" video of dozens of celebrities saying that they pledge to do all they can for America. They pledge to give more of their time to help charities, smile more, and of course unify to help America and the world.

That is wonderful, but where was all of your time four and eight years ago? Why all the sudden do you want to supply more of your time? Why couldn't you supply more of your limitless amounts of money then? Where was your devotion to the common man?

Ah yes, we all know where it was. It was spent bashing the Bush administration. All of your time was spent bringing down his administration, leaving the country, and punishing the "common" man for electing someone other than who they want.

Just think if they could have cared about all of us then. No. They had to spend all of their money calling Bush a criminal and for years trying to influence others to hate George Bush.

And so here is a question for all of Hollywood and those who "NOW" pledge to help America. If Bush was such an evil guy that was destroying the world, why exactly were you not helping us then? Now that your "God" is in office, why are you stepping up your game, when we so clearly needed you before?

I can't believe these people. "NOW" they pledge to be good parents. Will Smith "NOW" feels proud to be an American. Hollywood can "NOW" care about us. It is the purest form of hypocrisy. This type of attitude is exactly what brings down societies.

Hollywood is full of the people who demand 40 million dollars for movies, yet they say that George Bush is the one that doesn't care about you. The man that based his entire presidency on keeping us safe after 9/11. Meanwhile, celebrities begged for more money.

So what is my point? My point isn't for anyone to boycott any movies or get rid of Hollywood. My point is for you to tell celebrities that you don't need their help being an American. You don't need their help on who to vote for. You don't need their help on being a good person.

Sit back and make your own decisions on where you want for America and what you believe in. Because from what I've seen from Hollywood, their only influence on me is how not to live my life.

Pardon Me!

Excuse the mess I have thrown on the page. As you may have noticed, I switched back to my old setup yesterday and I paid the consequences to say the least. I have been working today to fix the issues, and I will work to fix all the problems I've created.

President Obama to Shut Down Guantanamo

President Obama has wasted no time shuting down Guantanamo Bay and other secret camps as he begins his historic presidency. Obama was intent on balancing a tough attitude with a sympathetic one. Although shutting down Gauntanamo, he has made clear that "We intend to win this fight, we will win on our terms."

I think this is a brilliant move on the part of Obama. One could never doubt how well he carries his words, and his inauguaration speech certainly got the point across early that he intends to fight terrorism near as strong as now former President Bush.

He moves on to mention that we win fights, with the respect and dignity that our founding fathers intended from the beginning. Another fine showing of his respect for the ideals and values that were held true by the great leaders of our country. I just hope and pray that it last and that he doesn't start to take shots at conservatives as things move forward. It just isn't nessecary.

Why Bush Should Be Commended on Foreign Policy

If I have to be the only one to thank George W Bush for his time in office, then I will do so. I have been harder on him than most conservatives, and I think I have more than enough reasons. First, he seems clueless on the economy. Not that he was a complete disaster all eight years, but when something this 'big' is coming, as our current recession, the president and his advisers should know it. Not to mention, the American people should know it. I highly disapprove of his handling of the economy lately, and it hurts the GOP to have a person with such poor creditability as the past election proved. However, I do acknowledge that we did have many times of strong economic strength despite a recession heading into his presidency, 9/11, and two wars, so I do credit him keeping the economy from a complete disaster. I do feel like he has laid some level of ground work to help the economy in the future.

What George Bush should be most proud of is his powerful leadership skills when it comes to foreign policy.

I'll start with the September 11th Attacks. This was the biggest disaster in American history, yet I don't know if there was a stronger leader in the time of American crisis. Instead of allowing the country to fall into chaos, he united not only Americans, but the world abroad in the fight against Islamic terrorist, and sent an early message that this would not happen again. George Bush held true to his word, and we remain safe due to his actions.

Now look at the War on Terrorism (we will leave Iraq out of this equation). Instead of sitting back and letting terrorist succeed in destroying American civilization, he sent a clear message in the Afghan War, where American troops broke the Taliban's control over Afghanistan and set up a constitution and democratic society. This type of action (and certainly it's success) is unheard of when you look back at world history, yet he was able to do it.

The Iraq War was nothing short of a disappointment. After just weeks of fighting, there was a general consensus that it was they had won more handily than in Afghanistan, and Bush made his mistake of believing that it was 'Mission Accomplished', while the years that followed included dreadful rebel uprising, suicide bombers, and a civil war between factions of the Shite and Sunni Muslims. Where Bush should be commended is when many people said we had failed and should abandon Iraq, he held true. He picked up a brilliant General David Peterus, and came up with the plan of a troop surge. This surge saved Iraq and has led us to victory that many thought was impossible. It may be years before we realize just how significant this surge was. We lost 2/3 less troops this year alone.

You can argue on the validity of the Iraq War all day long, however, having two democratic societies and allies, where there were enemies filled with ruthless dictators and Terrorist organizations is something that no man many achieve again. Bush's actions also convinced Libya to give up their nuclear capabilities, and he has continued to keep Iran, North Korea, and others at bay. So when it comes to foreign policy, I give props to our out-going president, and wish him nothing but the best in the future.

Obama's Mistake

Barack Obama took a lot of heat for his selection of Rev. Rick Warren to say the invocation at his inauguration. Warren is of couse loathed (yes, maybe even Hated) by Gay Rights groups for his strong support of the gay marriage ban in California.

So what is his response? He tags a gay bishop by the name of Gene Robinson to say prayer on this special day. It is no secret that I am opposed to gay marriage and fine with any person that decides that they WANT to be gay (and yes, I mean WANT to be GAY), however this decision is poor and may be a prelude to his actions in the future.

So you want to piss the religious right off huh? Your starting to do a good job. Aside from a strong rise in Democratic voters this turn around, you can attribute a large part of your success to a lack Christian enthusiasm, not to mention Republican voters in general. I realize that in four years people will seldom remember this event, but continue this and you are setting yourself up for a backlash.

Gene Robinson has more problems than just being gay. In fact, he has the pleasure of splitting an entire fact of the Episcopal Church. He also was married, had two kids, and later divorced because of his homosexuality. He would later be accused of impropriety. These allegations would later prove to have little merit if any at all, however in 2006 he entered rehab for alcohol. abuse.

I believe that you should never judge a man's character. I have had my struggles in life, mistakes, and regrets. I will never suggest that a man be judged for the mistakes he has made, as long as he professes them to be wrong the God Almighty. He is the judge. However, a person's actions show actions show the person you are. I will not judge Robinson for his actions to which I am strongly opposed, however I have the right a Christian and American to believe that someone else should be doing it.

Here is my biggest problem with him. He has decided that he will not read from the Bible because "not everyone believes that way." Interesting, because not everyone believe you should be gay, you do it anyway because that is what you believe in. As a bishop, it seems to me that he abandons his "sacred" beliefs in the Bible for the same reason he has fought to be gay. It looks as if he has a double-standard on his own beliefs.

I mean when it comes to the Bible, it is objective of all Christians to spread the belief of Jesus Christ. I will ignore the passages against homosexuality, but as bishop he is not only obligated to spread the message of Christ, it was the reason he was created. The disciples spread the news of Jesus Christ to people who did not believe what did (that is the way people learn of Jesus right?). They along with Paul risked death to spread the word of God, yet a bishop will not because of political reasons?

From my standpoint, that is why I do not like the idea of him being the representation of the Christian faith. Its bad judgement.

For Obama, who took this guy for political reasons, you are setting yourself up to appease people. That should not be your objective. It appears you are trying to save Hollywood status and wonderful articles from People Magazine, but hey, I would much rather you be a good president than popular, world united, celebrity.