If preemptive strikes are justified....Follow

Dropping those nukes were not an act of terrorism, it was a show of strength.

If I get into a fight mano-et-mano, and then half way through the fight, I pick up a baseball bat, and tell you to surrender, if you don't and I hit you with the bat, it is only to convince you that I have superior offensive capabilities, not to terrorize you. A side effect of those bombs was terror, but in conception it was purely a show of power.

Futhermore...



...and a chronological impossibility.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Pearl Harbor was also a horrible and tragic event. The difference is that we were dumb enough to let our guard down and ignore intel. If you visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki it will make you cry. Pearl Harbor memorial made me sad, but more mad at the governments stupidity. What happened in Japan is (IMO) virtual genocide.

It's like talking sh|t and acting all tough then getting pissed because someone sucker punched you when you let your guard down so you retaliated by dropping a truck on the person and their family while they ate dinner. (I know abstract analogy, but thats what i'm good at)

Two points here really. The first, Japan used conventional war tactics and strategically acted in a move that crippled out military. Sure, some innocents were killed but the attack was on our military. We could have prevented the attack. We retaliated by dropping nukes over two cities that virtually wiped everyone and everything underneath it. It was a cowardice move and only showed we can't take it when we lose and WILL play dirty. Then we will enact policies afterwards that force others not to do what we just did...and if need be, mob other countries killing more innocents to ensure it won't happen to us...even if the threat turns out to be unjustified.

Two, I have to disagree with you Totem. Your justification (when comparing 9/11 attack to the nuke attack on Japan) seems to be centered around the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic targets. Weren't the towers and pentagon strategic targets for the attackers?

My intention was not what you came away with, Emp. I had only tried to point out that the war with Japan falls under the definition of lawful and our subsequent use of the atom bomb was not so much a decision based on hard evidence but was a strategic gamble that used a military operation and scientific experiment rolled into one to produce a desired effect.

As it is, it precisely met the goal of the planners. It ended the war with Japan, it gathered much data, and it completely stopped the loss of American soldier's lives via beach assault combat, ala Iwo Jima.

Totem

There's always going to be a debate about whether a war is lawful/legal or not. A word I'd use is 'legitimacy'

If you take a simple premise that once war has been declared between two states, and they have negaged their armed forces in the prosecution of that war, then let's call that 'war'.

Hmmkay

So we declared war on Germany in '39 and our soldiers killed theirs. Legal/illegal; forget that. That was legitimate war.
Ditto Okinawa, Port Stanley, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq (I personally don't believe civilians were targeted in Baghdad-just strategic sites, with some tragic co[i][/i]ck-ups)

Hitler bombed civilian targets in London, Birmingham, Liverpool etc. - Illegitimate
UK & USA bombed civilian targets in Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg etc. - Illegitimate

That's how I see it. Covers Tripoli (USA), Nagasaki & Hiroshima (Western Allies - the brits supported the Bombs), WTC, Madrid etc.

That also leads to a problem I have with The War Against Terror.

A war is between two distinct sovereign states. The fact that Al Q'aeda isn't a state doesn't stop the USA retaliating against Al-Q'aeda; they have every right. It's just that 9/11 and Iraq are separate issues.

While people may argue that my views on the Iraq war are contradicted by the above argument, I remind them that UK declared war on Germany in 1939 with no explicit threat to UK. It was because they ignored the international warning to stay out of Poland.

On that basis, there were real grounds for war against Iraq. Bush and Bliar's problem is that those weren't the reasons they gave for the war; WMD, Al-Q'aeda etc.

My main issue is that the post-victory plan was about as well-thought-through as Varus's posts.

PS Like My Avatar?

Love it!

Totem

WTF? They attacked us first...

I googled you decide: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

IMO however the bombing of the two cities ended the war a lot sooner than it would have ended had the bombs not been used. Even after the 2nd bombing the Japanese military was not willing to surrender. There was going to be attacks on the Japanese main land and the issues that faced the Americans at the time is that we would have been fighting the Japanese Women and Children as they where all committed to dying for Japanese Honor.

Do the Atomic Bombs being dropped on Japan equate to the same as 9/11? No. Get a grip and stop looking at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as singular events, but the culmination of years of war.

Iraq was justified and the reasons for going into Iraq where more than just WMD. Jeez how quickly people forget the arguements made about going in. The media picked up on the WMD as the most news worthy arguements to justify the war and the administration let the media take the beat and kept playing the WMD tune.

Do the Atomic Bombs being dropped on Japan equate to the same as 9/11? No. Get a grip and stop looking at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as singular events, but the culmination of years of war.


No, they're each much much worse than 9-11 by orders of magnitude.

I've already had this arguement a long time ago with Gbaji, he lost, let that be a warning. I have a link somewhere if I can just dig it up here.

WMD's was the #1 reason Bush, not the media gave for invading Iraq. Christ in those days, in all of those speaches WMD's was in every sentence, I can't think of one time I heard him mention the Iraqi people.



Those bombs saved American lives. 9-11 cost arab lives.

Don't apologize for handing Japan it's ***, you won the war.
Had you bombed them again after they surrendered, that would have been un-ethical.

I am not saying that the administration did not push WMD as the number reason. Perhaps I have not explained my perspective well enough.

WMD was the main reason to go to war. Hell the US government did a bang up job using the media to play the WMD tune. However there where other reasons that where justifiable to go to war over. Shoot, I think Smash even admits this.

My arguement is that just because WMD was not found does not mean that the war was a mistake, the other reasons used to justify the war have been substantiated. And I may be behind the general consensus on this, but it is my opinion that WMD or links to Iraq having WMD just before the invasion may still be found. This is not because of blind obedience to a party that I am not affiliated with, or to a desire to not admit that I'm wrong, but this is because Saddam Hussein and his group of thugs would have developed plans to remove or destroy the weapons or plans of weapons so that they could keep face in the Islamic world.