I feel that Iraq should be blamed for starting the gulf war. Saddam Hussein declared an economic war against Kuwait in May 1990 for slant drilling over the Rumalyah oil field and not paying their debts to Iraq. Hussein sent his forces over to Kuwait on August 2nd without having peaceful negotiations with Kuwait. This aggression forced Kuwait to retaliate in self defense leading to the Gulf war. However Kuwait was captured in a matter of days and was annexed. If Iraq had tried to resolve the conflict in a diplomatic and peaceful manner the war would not have happened. Iraq's aggression was to be blamed for starting the Gulf war

So are you saying by playing farmville and posting random pictures you can become more social? Facebook is definitely not helping you to be social

I disagree with you. When they are online and discussing some members find that uploading pictures of their food and themselves more important than the matter at hand. In today's society face to face conservation is the best where there are distractions.

True that Saishbane. Even for our regular performance tasks group members are unwilling to meet up at various locations. Instead they want to communicate through a computer screen. Today the definition of communication is totally different. For example these days instead of sharing a happy meal together with friends people are posting pictures on facebook and adding inappropriate captions for your friends to enjoy. The golden touch of communication is gone these days

Why were men and women created? Why not man mating with man and woman mating with woman.

No it looks like my turd sadasdsadsadsadsadasdkasdksdkaskdskfspdkfposdkfpods

Adding on Mr.Alvin/Ryan

furthermore, the Japanese have to recover and provide medical care for the injured and wounded. This is simply unacceptable to bombard us within 2 days of the destruction of Hiroshima. We have to tend the people and we need to recover from the disaster to rebuild to renew!

Mr. President, you were swamped with alternatives to a sneak atomic attack. Stimson, your chief of staff Admiral William Leahy, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy, former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew, Navy Under Secretary Ralph Bard, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they all urged you to demonstrate the bomb and/or give a specific warning and/or change the terms of surrender to allow Japan to keep the Emperor. Even Churchill pressed you at Potsdam to relent on Hirohito, which was the main sticking point for the Japanese, as the MAGIC intercepts revealed. But you refused every entreaty, every appeal. You and Byrnes were hell-bent on dropping the bomb on two defenseless cities as soon as possible. What was the hurry? The invasion was three months off.

In Years of Decision, you said that Ambassador Grew's proposal to permit Hirohito to remain head of state was"a sound idea." This was in May. But the Potsdam Declaration did not move an inch from unconditional surrender. To no one's surprise, Japan rejected your ultimatum. Even after both bombs, the enemy held out for one condition--"that the said Declaration does not comprise any demand that prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as Sovereign Ruler." Now the ball was in your court. Either you surrendered on unconditional surrender, that is, let Hirohito stay on the throne, or the war would continue. We know what happened next. So the question is, Mr. President, what took you so long? Was Grew's"idea" any sounder after August 9 than before? Did two cities have to be destroyed because ...

Why need to be a coward Mr.President? Do you not have any troops? Must you necessarily use an atomic bomb to ahhnilate us? We have willpower and confidence in our people and you are a coward hiding behind pillars. If you were confident enough why did you not attack us with military strength? Why Mr.President drop an atomic bomb then face us one to one and also why kill innocent people when we could have settled this with military strength. Are you also suggesting to the Japanese that you are weak?