The fact is you are for killing civilians as long as it approves YOUR agenda, but then you say others are not allowed to have the same agenda.
I keep consistent by saying the deliberate targeting of civilians is wrong. You, however, do not. The dropping of the two atomic bombs deliberately targeted civilians.
There is no getting away from the truth.
Last edited by TheNextEra; 03-12-09 at 11:57 PM.
Surrender was on the table; there was no need for either nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki or for any such invasion.How about if you considered fact that all projections regarding the invasion of the Japanese home islands was going to cost over five million casualties on both sides (i mean total)? Does your awestruck mind suddenly see the light and realize that the use of the bomb was the best option?
The Potsdam Declaration was initially rejected on the grounds that it was unconditional, but this did not mean that the Japanese were not willing to discuss the terms of surrender; it meant that the allies (particularly the US) were not interested in pursuing that as an option.
In fact, Japan was in discussions with the USSR about possible conditions of surrender, and Tōgō even openly expressed a willful desire to surrender by the emperor, but just that they could not accept surrender unconditionally. In the end, the only condition that they required in order to accept the Potsdam Declaration was retaining the emperor.
Even many Allied commanders recognized this.
The statement still definitely stands, as the means by which the President has "his people" declared is about as arbitrary as that of any non-state group, including al Qa'ida.Intersting.
Which nation is al Qaeda working for?
The main fault for the gap in intelligence is due to failures on the part of the NSA to pass information they had on to other groups (the CIA and FBI). This failure prevented them from being able to "connect the dots".As for the Bush knew thing, he knew that it was a possibilty of terrorists using planes, that should have at least warranted elevated levels at airports should it not?
As for "elevated levels of airport security," in case you haven't noticed airport security is pretty terrible and probably wouldn't have mattered.
Your contempt for innocent civilians is pretty disgusting.and we can bomb their nation to sometime before the stone age.
What? Were you hoping for me to say God or something? Sorry, but no objective authority exists. Only those which wield the power of our time does and luckily the ones who do have created a rational and logically consistent (for the most part) set of rules regarding warfare.
The rapid increase in destructiveness and miniaturization of devastating weaponry has only exacerbated this threat.
Because that's what we did against Milosevic. We bombed Serbia back to the stone age by destroying bridges, water, communications, electricity, power plants, transformers, many things a society views as necessary to living a civilized life.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
A coup against the emperor was attempted to ensure surrender was not an option. And remember it didn't take 1 bomb, it took two. REPEAT: not ONE bomb, TWO!!! Do I need to repeat it again. Perhaps the first bomb was a joke?
Surrender was considered by the Japanese but a fight to the bitter end was still a favored alternative by most of the military.
Who doesn't contemplate and lay out possible plans for surrender in such a scenario?
Last edited by scourge99; 03-13-09 at 01:45 AM.
Nobody has placed any importance on the origin of the agenda. The only relevant factor is the reasoning behind the agenda. If the agenda is rational and just then it is obviously more legitimate than an agenda which is crazy and evil.The fact is you are for killing civilians as long as it approves YOUR agenda, but then you say others are not allowed to have the same agenda.
You can make an appeal to moral relativism if you like, but I think Western civilization has a better grasp of right and wrong than does the rest of the world. In the grand scheme of things, I'm much more comfortable with Western society dictating the necessity and legitimacy of utilizing nukes. Not sure why that is such an objectionable thought to some.
We were at WAR with Japan. We were at war with an enemy who's first action was an underhanded cowardly sneak attack, and whose later actions at Bataan and other places showed the value they placed on the lives of those they capture, and whose resolve to die to last man at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and elsewhere convinced their enemy that the war could only be ended by the sternest means possible.
Now, you can't claim ignorance and say that the US should have fired bombed more cities like Kyoto, forever and ever, until they finally gave up at some untold cost to them and us. That wasn't practical.
But we toasted two their cities with two bombs, and poof! they surrendered like a shot.
But, you want to argue that killing five million or more people is somehow less horrible than frying 1/20th of that in a mircowave, that's your problem.
Sane people disagree with you.
As for al qeada, they're criminals, not a national military, and come under different rules.