Ebbie - you said "Citizens of other countries who are not happy with the McD's and the Walmarts and whatever else, when it comes down to it, have only themselves to blame. Money is the driving force - if a property owner in that country was not interested in money, he/she would not sell the land or take on the franchise that is offered. The same thing is true here: if the franchise offerers were not interested in making money they would not make the effort to expand into other countries."

Absolutely! Dead right! Right on! I agree with you entirely. It is the love of money for money's sake alone, rather than a more complete awareness of cause and effect that is misleading people everywhere in the world. Money was created to be a useful tool of exchange and nothing more than that. It has become a dominating obsession. I am well aware that ordinary Americans are just the same as people in Canada or anywhere else, and I certainly don't mean to attack ordinary Americans for what their government does.

Troll - Regarding the A-bombs... There was actually no necessity whatsoever to invade mainland Japan at all. Japan was already actively seeking a surrender arrangement, making clumsy and rather pathetic efforts to establish contact with the USA through Russian dimplomatic channels. The USA was also quite aware of that (through its secret service operatives), although the Russians had not endeavoured to pass the info on, because they were cynically planning to attack the Japanese anyway in the last weeks of the war, and did NOT want the fighting to stop until they had done so.

Japan had already been rendered impotent. Its navy was virtually entirely destroyed, its cities were mostly bombed out, its merchant marine had pretty well ceased to exist. Where the hell did "unconditional surrender" come from anyway? Ulysses S. Grant, that's who. Countries used to fight until one was clearly beaten, and then they would establish an armistace, which is a "conditional" surrender. That's what the Japanese were seeking, their only real condition being the safety of the Emperor, who was considered as virtually a god by his people. MacArthur, fortunately, appreciated that, and helped to make sure that the Emperor was not put on trial or, worse yet, executed! Fifty million Japanese civilians would probably have willingly died fighting in the streets with bamboo sticks rather than see that happen.

As for the rape of Nanking by the Japanese troops, it was worse than anything the USA did in that war. That, however, in no way justifies returning one atrocity for another, does it?

Wars should be fought in order to win, NOT to exact vengeance...and when they are over, then take some advice from Abe Lincoln, and show "malice toward none, charity to all".

MacArthur did just that, treating the Japanese public very well after the war, and they responded by being totally cooperative, and becoming highly valuable allies of postwar America.

Merry Christmas, and keep the peace.

- LH