Because we're mostly in the US, where we've been forced to spend our childhood years learning the writewashed details of every past war and conflict, but very little other history, and therefore demand that every competition have exactly one clear victor because that's what we're used to?
>br/>Last time a war involving the US had a clear victor was World War 2. So if that is what you get out of your history books, you have bigger issues to deal with.
Which part of it? The one where Kurdistan is all but separated
That is a win, for people who have been opressed for centuries by the Arabs and Turkish.
Bush did the right thing by giving the Kurds a bit of space to be comfortable in without the centuries of prosecution following them.
No they didn't. There is no evidence Stalin was ever in any way, shape, or form serious about invading japan.
Stalin agreed to help the Americans defeat the Japanese within 3 months of Germany's surrender/occupation at the Yalta Conference.
No instead, Russia had started to amass a large force of over 1.5 million men, over 5,500 tanks, and over 5,000 aircraft at it's borders, and in seven days, managed to push well into the Northern part of the Korean Peninsula, taking most of Japanese controlled Manchuria in the process before the surrender of Japan just a short week later.
No, the delay between the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th, and the Emperor's surrender on August 15th, had little to do with the bombs, and more to do with the fact that other then the Mainland, they had nothing left to fight over.
A little knowledge of history would help before you keep posting useless information.
Or was the Boston Tea Party a little fraternity roughhousing?
The Boston Tea Party was about taxes, but it was about the Crown lowering taxes on commercial tea so much that it became cheaper then the tax free black market tea.
The Boston Tea Party was only about keeping the profit margins of the smugglers, who perpetrated it. The fact that Americans still think it's about the Crown's taxes onto the colonies being too much to bare, shows how much Americans don't even know their own history.
Not exactly. An apology from a prime minister (and there are quite a few on the linked Wikipedia page) is like an apology from the President of the US. Prime Minister=head of the government. If you want one from the head of state, however, the emperor, then how about this one on the same page?
Prime Ministers are not the head of state in any country. Hence why they are still in a "ministerial role".
No, ShanghaiBill was correct that the current US Speaker would be equivalent to a apology from a Prime Minister. As that is the role most Prime Ministers have. The head of State being the King/Queen/Emperor or in some cases a separate President for countries that abolished their Monarchies.
Has China gotten to that level? I doubt it..
"It ain't over until it's over." -- Casey Stengel