Hiroshima

[Seinfeld]

Everyone has an opinion on this. Everyone knows what happened.

Please, share.

I personally believe it was absolutely stupid to use something, when you don't know the repercussions. As far as I know, america used the bombs for two purposes:

1.: Destroy

2.: Experiment

I've discussed this many times with my father and it makes me so angry to hear him say:

"We had every right to do what we did. Look what they did to Pearl Harbor."

I mean...sure, attacking pearl harbor wasn't right but What America did to Japan had effects that SILL haven't worn off completely.

I just watched a documentary on it, and get angrier everytime I hear the sentence:

"Our actions were justified"

How is ruining the lives of not only people but also generations justified?

Well, I could say a lot more, but I'd just be going on in circles.

[El Muerto]

I don't think there's going to be more than one opinion on this subject. Or at least i hope.

[Seinfeld]

I don't think there's going to be more than one opinion on this subject. Or at least i hope.

This is why I started a thread on it. I want to see how many people think it was justified and how many people believe it wasn't...

[Messy Marj]

You can not justify this in any way.

[Timothy]

We've got the advantage of hindsight, so it's impossible for us to say what they were thinking and whether they really were just defending themselves, or trying to cause destruction on such a massive scale.

With that said, it was a VERY excessive retribution that could have been
avoided. Then again, this was WWII, so there's a lot of people with blood on
their hands.

[Will]

I think at the time it was only meant to send a message to the Japanese Empire, which it clearly did. However, I also think the United States had no idea it was going to destroy an entire city, otherwise they wouldn't have used it. Had they known it was going to destroy an entire city, I think they would've merely used that threat rather than actually carrying out the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since they didn't know, the threat and the message were a little clearer than had they not bombed those two cities.

Nonetheless, I don't think it was justified, seeing as how millions of people were killed, and I'm more than sure people still can't inhabit those areas today. Also, from what I understand, the Japanese Empire was on the decline before the bombs were dropped, so the United States could've merely prolonged the war a little longer by allowing the Japanese Empire to fizzle out.

[Seinfeld]

I think at the time it was only meant to send a message to the Japanese Empire, which it clearly did. However, I also think the United States had no idea it was going to destroy an entire city, otherwise they wouldn't have used it. Had they known it was going to destroy an entire city, I think they would've merely used that threat rather than actually carrying out the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since they didn't know, the threat and the message were a little clearer than had they not bombed those two cities.



Like I said, America used the bombs to see what would happen...Hiroshima was basically an experiment on some level.

[Dean]

I think it's hard to deny, whatever your opinion, that the purpose was to test the bomb in a pupulated area.

Oh yeah, and to scare the Soviets.

[User Name]

Pearl Harbor was a military base and should have been at least somewhat prepared in the '"unlikely case of an attack". How anyone can justify an attack on a city is beyond me.

[Todd]

What we did to Hiroshima (and Nagasaki for that matter) is just disgusting. I'm not saying that what Japan did was right, but calling using a nuclear weapon overreacting is an understatement. It should be an eye for an eye, not an eye for an entire body.

[Rachel]

What we did to Hiroshima (and Nagasaki for that matter) is just disgusting. I'm not saying that what Japan did was right, but calling using a nuclear weapon overreacting is an understatement. It should be an eye for an eye, not an eye for an entire body.

Quoted for great justice, and because I cannot word it any better than you did.

It seems to me that every military action done throughout the world is to either test what they have, or to one up the other.

It's just moronic.

[Timothy]

Well, at least we've found an issue we can all agree on (for the most part). That's fucking rare! :lol:

[Dean]

;722760']Well, at least we've found an issue we can all agree on (for the most part). That's fucking rare! :lol:
I'll play devil's advocate, if anyone wants.

[Timothy]

I'll play devil's advocate, if anyone wants.

If you think this thread needs another page or two, be my guest. :P

[Seinfeld]

I'll play devil's advocate, if anyone wants.

:lol:

I'd be glad if you didn't

[Christopher]

I think we need to make another 10 threads where we discuss historical facts and blame the US for them.

[Seinfeld]

I think we need to make another 10 threads where we discuss historical facts and blame the US for them.

I wasn't blaming the US for anything but the bombing of those two cities and you can't say that wasn't americas fault (When I say america, I don't mean 100% of the nation but the people who could actually influence what happened). I was just stating the obvious when I said it happened and sharing my opinion when I said how I felt about it.

I'm sorry if I've upset you with this thread.

[Christopher]

I wasn't blaming the US for anything. I was just stating the obvious when I said it happened and sharing my opinion when I said how I felt about it.

I'm sorry if I've upset you with this thread.

People kill people. There's a lot of stuff that happened and is happening and probably will keep happening in the future that you can not possibly justify, I include the atombomb in that.

But endless discussions about what is right and wrong are useless when you don't remember what you concluded out of those discussions.

And that's exactly what's happening now and that's also what happened with Hiroshima.

If there's a perfect solution, I assure you it would have been found already, but at least some people are still trying to find it.

When there's war there are inventions and when there are inventions there's a possibility to evolve. So when they discovered the power of the atombomb they also put that to good use.

[Seinfeld]

So when they discovered the power of the atombomb they also put that to good use.

good use?...

care to elaborate? :mellow:

[Nick]

I dont think it was right to use such a massive bomb twice but i consider it "Part of War" its not like the US would test it on a country at peace with the US

[Daniel]

In hindsight, it was disgusting yes. But I think of it in the way that, if the bombs hadn't been used, wouldn't the invasion of Japan been necessary? And imagine the deaths and how much longer that would have prolonged the war.

BUT, then again, the invasion would have caused many more, but MILITARY deaths, the bombs killed civilians. So it was still unjustified, in my opinion.

[Harlz]

Attacks on civilians are never justifued. I don't care what scale it's on, it's never right.

Makes me sick to think that we Australians let the Americans test these bombs in our deserts even now, after we've seen how evil they are.

[Chris.]

Well the only good thing that came out of it is that we showed the world we don't fuck around when we get bombed. Then again, the Al Queda (sp?) saw fit to hijack our planes, knowing what could've/did happen afterwards.

That's the way America works.

Step 1: Respond to attack by doubling what damage they did, destroying most of their land
Step 2: Repair their country from the damage we've done
Step 3: Occupy country for years so we don't get attacked again.

[El Muerto]

Well the only good thing that came out of it is that we showed the world we don't fuck around when we get bombed. Then again, the Al Queda (sp?) saw fit to hijack our planes, knowing what could've/did happen afterwards.

Amerca is just like a ten year old kid that has an older brother who's the strongest in school. Someone beats the kid and then he asks his brother to beat the whole class to show them who's the boss.




That's the way America works.

Step 1: Respond to attack by doubling what damage they did, destroying most of their land
Step 2: Repair their country from the damage we've done
Step 3: Occupy country for years so we don't get attacked again.

Are you criticizing this way of doing things or atually saying it's right?

Roman Empire was far more stronger than America and Alexander The Great's Empire was far more stronger than America and they both got destoryed. If USA countunues following their footsteps in trying to rule the world, everyone's gonna come down on them the moment they weaken and USA will be destroyed as well. That's just the way history works.

[Timothy]

The Roman Empire was far more stronger than America and Alexander The Great's Empire was far more stronger than America and they both got destoryed. If USA countunues following their footsteps in trying to rule the world, everyone's gonna come down on them the moment they weaken and USA will be destroyed as well. That's just the way history works.

Are you seriously comparing what America is like today to the Roman Empire?
I'm sorry but the comparison isn't even valid. Comparing an empire that lasted
for thousands of years (and has the body count to show for it) to a country that isn't even 300 years old, and, for all intents and purposes, is still young and changing, is ridiculous.

The Romans conquered most of the known world, whereas the U.S. only makes up a fraction of that. Hell, it would be far-fetched to even compare America to the British empire in its heyday. When it comes to imperialistic tendencies, the U.S. ranks pretty low on the totem poll.

[El Muerto]

;723018']Are you seriously comparing what America is like today to the Roman Empire?
I'm sorry but the comparison isn't even valid. Comparing an empire that lasted
for thousands of years (and has the body count to show for it) to a country that isn't even 300 years old, and, for all intents and purposes, is still young and changing, is ridiculous.

The Romans conquered most of the known world, whereas the U.S. only makes up a fraction of that. Hell, it would be far-fetched to even compare America to the British empire in its heyday. When it comes to imperialistic tendencies, the U.S. ranks pretty low on the totem poll.

US may not have literaly conquered the whole world but it does rule the whole world today in one way or another whether you want to admit it or not. And of course they won't need 2000 years to reach their peak, with today's technology 500 the most.
That's just my opinion anyway :)

[Timothy]

US may not have literaly conquered the whole world but it does rule the whole world today in one way or another whether you want to admit it or not. And of course they won't need 2000 years to reach their peak, with today's technology 500 the most.
That's just my opinion anyway :)

While I agree that the U.S. exhibits a large amount of influence throughout the world, I think saying it "rules the world" may be a bit much. To me, that implies
a stranglehold, like the other countries have no control over themselves, which just isn't the case, imo. I guess we can just agree to disagree.

[Bleed-It-Out]

Agree to Disagree before this topic gets ugly.

[User Name]

No, keep going. There hasn't been a good debate on here since forever.

[Chris.]

Amerca is just like a ten year old kid that has an older brother who's the strongest in school. Someone beats the kid and then he asks his brother to beat the whole class to show them who's the boss.




Are you criticizing this way of doing things or atually saying it's right?

Roman Empire was far more stronger than America and Alexander The Great's Empire was far more stronger than America and they both got destoryed. If USA countunues following their footsteps in trying to rule the world, everyone's gonna come down on them the moment they weaken and USA will be destroyed as well. That's just the way history works.

Im not agreeing or disagreeing with it. That's just the way it's worked so far with America.

I do, however, highly disagree with your statement that we're trying to take over the world.

[esaul17]

As bad as Hiroshima was, the fact that they dropped a second bomb shortly after was far worse.

[Timothy]

Agree to Disagree before this topic gets ugly.

I don't think that's gonna happen. It's just a good level-headed discussion.
Plus we only really disagree on one point. It's all good. :)


No, keep going. There hasn't been a good debate on here since forever.

You've must've missed the taser debate then. :lol:


As bad as Hiroshima was, the fact that they dropped a second bomb shortly after was far worse.

QFT. A lot of people forget about Nagasaki.

[El Muerto]

As bad as Hiroshima was, the fact that they dropped a second bomb shortly after was far worse.

You thinks that's bad? Read this:

(After Nagasaki) The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October

[User Name]

;723356']You've must've missed the taser debate then. :lol:

Oh, right! I forgot about that. That was a good'r. :lol:

[Luke]

Although Pearl Harbour was terrible, Japan actually struck a military base whereas the atomic bombs were dropped on two cities killing an insane amount of innocent people. Those who survived suffered long term damages both physically and mentally and some are still suffering from the effects of the bombs today.

In my opinion, the demolishion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a message to the rest of the world claiming their dominance over it. America does practically rule the world and tends to bully other countries into adhearing to their commands. There is tension between America and the rest of the world as a result. Even America's closest allies don't feel great companionship with America. However at the end of the day, it's much better to have the USA on your side than against you.

[Dean]

However at the end of the day, it's much better to have the USA on your side than against you.
That isn't strictly true, because regardless of how powerful they are they still have some dangerous enemies who have shown what they can do given the opportunity, even after 9/11.

[El Muerto]

However at the end of the day, it's much better to have the USA on your side than against you.
That's basically choosing the lesser of two evils. If you're with them you give them everything they want and if you're against them they take everthing they want by themselves.

[Timothy]

What's most intriguing about this issue is that prior to WWII, the U.S. had a policy of not getting involved in foreign affairs. Pearl Harbor seemed to change
all of that. I think Americas problem lies in the way it deals with tragedy, which is not very well. It's like Eisenhower when he discussed the military-industrial complex, and how imperialism would be our downfall if we weren't careful.
Bush is leading the charge in that arena.

Hopefully, some of these things will change by '08, but I'm far from optimistic. Especially if someone like Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani gets elected. Then it's another 4-8 years of the rest of the world hating us (though Clinton would be the lesser of the two evils in that respect).

[Will]

As far as being the World's Police goes, I don't think the United States is trying to take over the world. They're like your little brother: They mean well, but they don't do anything the proper way, and they often get in trouble for it. Then they throw a huge tantrum, and all their friends end up hurt in some way or another.

I think someone needs to read the Declaration of Independence out loud to the President and his Cabinet.

[El Muerto]

As far as being the World's Police goes, I don't think the United States is trying to take over the world. They're like your little brother: They mean well, but they don't do anything the proper way, and they often get in trouble for it. Then they throw a huge tantrum, and all their friends end up hurt in some way or another.


Yeah I guess that's one legit point of view from someone who lives in USA, but then again it changes drastically when it all happens in your own backyard. You can't tell people who are exposed to air raids or invasion of their country that America means well.
God knows how many more people will die before they start solving problems peacefully with the power they have.

[Will]

My point was that, like your little brother, they think they mean well. I figured someone would've picked up on that. I never actually said that they mean well, because if they meant well, people wouldn't be dying every day.

[El Muerto]

Oh right, sorry. I get your point now.

[Will]

It's alright. I should've made myself way more clear seeing as how the metaphor I used could've been interpreted either way, which it was.

[Harlz]

That isn't strictly true, because regardless of how powerful they are they still have some dangerous enemies who have shown what they can do given the opportunity, even after 9/11.

Yea but the thing is, attacks like that aren't shit compared to the devestation that the USA (and Australia, Britian etc) are causing in Iraq and the rest of the middle east right now.

America wants the world to know who's boss. No they don't want complete control, just a huge influence over everyone. Pisses me off no end, the way our culture is becoming more like America every day.
No offence anyone, I just don't like hearing my little sister talk with an American accent.

[Bleed-It-Out]

;723595']Yea but the thing is, attacks like that aren't shit compared to the devestation that the USA (and Australia, Britian etc) are causing in Iraq and the rest of the middle east right now.

America wants the world to know who's boss. No they don't want complete control, just a huge influence over everyone. Pisses me off no end, the way our culture is becoming more like America every day.
No offence anyone, I just don't like hearing my little sister talk with an American accent.

My thoughts exactly HARLZ, In the last month we have had two soldiers dead and one wounded in the last couple of days PISSES ME OFF:angry:

[Dean]

;723595']Yea but the thing is, attacks like that aren't shit compared to the devestation that the USA (and Australia, Britian etc) are causing in Iraq and the rest of the middle east right now.
What I'm trying to say is that just because you're on the US' side it's not that much better. They're still attacks on civilians, and we still have people like Mahmoud and Kim as potential enemies thanks to the US.

[Harlz]

My thoughts exactly HARLZ, In the last month we have had two soldiers dead and one wounded in the last couple of days PISSES ME OFF:angry:

Theres one wounded now as well? Fuck that.

Labor has to win this election. Like, really has to.

[Timothy]

;723673']Theres one wounded now as well? Fuck that.

Labor has to win this election. Like, really has to.

Isn't it nice to have a decent alternative? In the U.S. it doesn't really matter
who wins. You've got the Republicans which is a party of bad ideas, and the Democratic party, which is a party of NO ideas. I find it amusing that Barrack Obama (who is supposed to be our knight in shining armor) has said that he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan if he was president. Yeah, great fucking idea Obama. That's what we need to do, invade another country.

[Messy Marj]

I suck at discussing things in english, mainly because I cannot find the right words so I'd like to say that I agree with some views of Dusan but also some views of Tim.
I feel that America is trying to rule everything aswell, they want to be the biggest in everything, always in war, too. Don't get me wrong but I always have the impression that most Americans are brainwashed by their government thus acting arrogant while in fact, they're just plain dumb.
So yeah, the government sucks imo.

[El Muerto]

I'm really glad that most people here from US are not brainwashed and that they do realize their current government is not acting right.

[Seinfeld]

;723789']Isn't it nice to have a decent alternative? In the U.S. it doesn't really matter
who wins. You've got the Republicans which is a party of bad ideas, and the Democratic party, which is a party of NO ideas. I find it amusing that Barrack Obama (who is supposed to be our knight in shining armor) has said that he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan if he was president. Yeah, great fucking idea Obama. That's what we need to do, invade another country.

...

The sad thing is...people like that even have a chance at winning too.

:mellow:

[Messy Marj]

I'm really glad that most people here from US are not brainwashed and that they do realize their current government is not acting right.
Oh! Yeah I see what you're pointing out. I don't want anyone to feel attacked or anything on here, basically what Dusan said. :)

[Will]

;723789']Isn't it nice to have a decent alternative? In the U.S. it doesn't really matter
who wins. You've got the Republicans which is a party of bad ideas, and the Democratic party, which is a party of NO ideas. I find it amusing that Barrack Obama (who is supposed to be our knight in shining armor) has said that he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan if he was president. Yeah, great fucking idea Obama. That's what we need to do, invade another country.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say he was just saying that to get the votes he needs to become president. Unfortunately, our leaders aren't that smart.

[Timothy]

If I didn't know any better, I'd say he was just saying that to get the votes he needs to become president. Unfortunately, our leaders aren't that smart.

That's the sentence of the year. :lol:

Though, I don't know if potentially dragging us into another war is gonna get
him a lot of votes. It's sad that the democrats have to shoot for the middle to
get elected. The only one out of all the candidates I would consider a true
liberal is Dennis Kucinich, and there's no way in hell he'd ever get elected
(much like Ralph Nader in 2000/2004). I hate having to vote for who I
dislike the least. :lol:

[Messy Marj]

Don't you have the choice to vote or not to vote in America?

[Timothy]

Don't you have the choice to vote or not to vote in America?

I just don't wanna end up with I president I really don't like, because I didn't
vote for someone who I kinda don't like. Does that make sense? :lol:

I just wish there was a candidate that really stood out in either party, but there isn't. Their just a bunch of faceless robots who spout off endless slogans and empty-promises so they can get in office. I wasn't old enough, but I know
of a lot of people who didn't vote in 2000/2004 because they didn't like either
of the candidates. In hindsight, as much as they disliked Gore and Kerry,
either one would have been better than George Bush (so would a dishwasher).

I don't want something like that to happen again, that's why I feel like I have
to vote.

[Messy Marj]

;723920']I just don't wanna end up with I president I really don't like, because I didn't
vote for someone who I kinda don't like. Does that make sense? :lol:

I just wish there was a candidate that really stood out in either party, but there isn't. Their just a bunch of faceless robots who spout off endless slogans and empty-promises so they can get in office. I wasn't old enough, but I know
of a lot of people who didn't vote in 2000/2004 because they didn't like either
of the candidates. In hindsight, as much as they disliked Gore and Kerry,
either one would have been better than George Bush (so would a dishwasher).
Well, you know what you've got to do then hm!

Move to France, cause our president kicks ass. :P

[Louis]

After reading through a lot of this thread, I'd like to respond to everything, but seeing as I don't really have the time to do so, I'm just going to say something brief.

The truth of it is, as much as it's not necessarily right to compare the United States to the Roman Empire or the Empire of Alexander, America is still a great super-power. The two can relate. America isn't necessarily an Empire, but the behavior, in some ways, is the same. It's only been around for roughly 300 years, yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to behave like the Roman Empire.

The way I see it, America is a very barbaric nation, but in a different sense than you might think. America wants to hold its power at all costs, but it wants to hold a decent reputation while doing so. America's not old enough to know how to manage such a task without fucking up one of those things. The United States doesn't have to invade a nation to show a message. If they didn't invade, that's upholding a good reputation, but that's, in a way, showing a vulnerability. If the United States invaded, that's upholding the power aspect, but it's showing a hole in the reputation.

Every great power falls. Whether or not America will be a power to fall in one hundred years, or one thousand years, it will eventually collapse. The truth of it is, democracy is designed to destroy itself. I'm optimistic that America will find a way to uphold both a reputation and its power for a long time, but we can't expect it to last forever. The Greeks were a democratic empire and they still fell. The Roman Empire was a great Republic that turned into a long-lasting Empire, but they fell too.

You can deny it all you want, but history repeats itself. We'd like to believe that we can hold our power and deny the fate that history has thrown upon us, but it's simply going to be the future. At this point, America is not yet mature enough to uphold power and reputation. Right now, America's primary focus is power. In the early 1900's, it was reputation. Things have changed. And things will continue changing. Be ready for it.

[Timothy]

Well, you know what you've got to do then hm!

Move to France, cause our president kicks ass. :P

Don't get me wrong... I love the U.S. I only criticize it because I think it could be better, that's all.

I'm gonna need a bit more motivation than that to move across the globe. :P

@Louis: Believe me, I have no delusions of America lasting forever (at
least as a superpower). I just thought the ancient Rome comparison was
pushing it. Then again standards have changed, so the point may be well
taken.

[Will]

Don't you have the choice to vote or not to vote in America?

You do have a choice whether to vote or not. But the argument is that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the leadership of the country, since you didn't do anything to try to change it yourself.

In a way, I agree with that. You can still have your opinions and whatnot, but if someone were to ask you if you voted or not and you said "no," then they'd just tell you to shut up and you wouldn't be taken seriously by them anymore.

The way everyone sees it is that if you have strong enough opinions, you should vote to have things changed in your favor.

[Louis]

;723924']@Louis: Believe me, I have no delusions of America lasting forever (at
least as a superpower). I just thought the ancient Rome comparison was
pushing it. Then again standards have changed, so the point may be well
taken.

I'm glad that you don't have that delusion. Any people who do are obviously not very realistic (at least, that's how I see it).

I can see why it's pushing it. Rome was a civilization that lasted for about 2000 years, and it was over 1000 years ago. Things were very different back then and in some ways, the two time periods might not be as easily compared. But the truth is, there are many similarities despite the difference in an Empire that has lasted for 2000 years than an international super power that hasn't been around for more than 300. There are differences, yes, but similarities exist. And these are similarities that play a huge role in history.

We are not that different from the Imperial powers that once existed, even if we are a democratic nation.

[Luke]

After reading through a lot of this thread, I'd like to respond to everything, but seeing as I don't really have the time to do so, I'm just going to say something brief.

The truth of it is, as much as it's not necessarily right to compare the United States to the Roman Empire or the Empire of Alexander, America is still a great super-power. The two can relate. America isn't necessarily an Empire, but the behavior, in some ways, is the same. It's only been around for roughly 300 years, yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to behave like the Roman Empire.

The way I see it, America is a very barbaric nation, but in a different sense than you might think. America wants to hold its power at all costs, but it wants to hold a decent reputation while doing so. America's not old enough to know how to manage such a task without fucking up one of those things. The United States doesn't have to invade a nation to show a message. If they didn't invade, that's upholding a good reputation, but that's, in a way, showing a vulnerability. If the United States invaded, that's upholding the power aspect, but it's showing a hole in the reputation.

Every great power falls. Whether or not America will be a power to fall in one hundred years, or one thousand years, it will eventually collapse. The truth of it is, democracy is designed to destroy itself. I'm optimistic that America will find a way to uphold both a reputation and its power for a long time, but we can't expect it to last forever. The Greeks were a democratic empire and they still fell. The Roman Empire was a great Republic that turned into a long-lasting Empire, but they fell too.

You can deny it all you want, but history repeats itself. We'd like to believe that we can hold our power and deny the fate that history has thrown upon us, but it's simply going to be the future. At this point, America is not yet mature enough to uphold power and reputation. Right now, America's primary focus is power. In the early 1900's, it was reputation. Things have changed. And things will continue changing. Be ready for it.

I agree with pretty much everything you've just said 100%

[Timothy]

You do have a choice whether to vote or not. But the argument is that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the leadership of the country, since you didn't do anything to try to change it yourself.

In a way, I agree with that. You can still have your opinions and whatnot, but if someone were to ask you if you voted or not and you said "no," then they'd just tell you to shut up and you wouldn't be taken seriously by them anymore.

The way everyone sees it is that if you have strong enough opinions, you should vote to have things changed in your favor.

Thank you for putting it much more eloquently than I did. :lol:


I'm glad that you don't have that delusion. Any people who do are obviously not very realistic (at least, that's how I see it).

I can see why it's pushing it. Rome was a civilization that lasted for about 2000 years, and it was over 1000 years ago. Things were very different back then and in some ways, the two time periods might not be as easily compared. But the truth is, there are many similarities despite the difference in an Empire that has lasted for 2000 years than an international super power that hasn't been around for more than 300. There are differences, yes, but similarities exist. And these are similarities that play a huge role in history.

We are not that different from the Imperial powers that once existed, even if we are a democratic nation.

That's true. I acknowledge the similarities, I just didn't agree with the way it was put within the context of Hiroshima. I do agree with you 100%, though. :)

[Todd]

What I'm trying to say is that just because you're on the US' side it's not that much better. They're still attacks on civilians, and we still have people like Mahmoud and Kim as potential enemies thanks to the US.

Iran and North Korea couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. That is, if they even attempted. They know what would happen if they even tried something, they're not going to attack unless provoked. Which is why we don't need to fight any pre-emptive wars against Iran and NK. Because they won't attack, simple as that. They just want some nukes to defend themselves with, and with the hostility towards them from the US and the rest of the western world, can you blame them?


As far as the next election goes....I think the Democrats can still be trusted slightly more than the Republicans. Some things Hillary has said regarding Iran has worried me a bit, but I think she's saying what's necessary to get elected, I think she's a smart enough woman to look back at the past 5 years in Iraq and know that attacking Iran would be the dumbest thing she could do. Obama would consider going into Pakistan, again, I think he's saying what people want to hear (and anyone who wants to hear that is truly a moron). I don't trust any of the republicans when it comes to Iran, except for maybe Ron Paul, but he's still too much of a wacko libertarian statist for me to ever consider voting for him. Not that he has a chance anyways. I know, no matter who it is, I'll vote for the Democratic candidate. I won't waste my vote on a 3rd party (I know, I know, if fewer people said that, a 3rd party would have a chance, but right now, 'tis still a waste) but the election will be close, and the last thing this country needs is another day of a republican in the white house.

[Timothy]

For the record, if it came down to Clinton or Obama against any of the
Republican candidates, I would vote Democrat any day of the week and twice
on sunday. :lol:

-EDIT- I'm glad I finally get to post about politics on here. :)

[Louis]

;723938']That's true. I acknowledge the similarities, I just didn't agree with the way it was put within the context of Hiroshima. I do agree with you 100%, though. :)

*shrug*

Hiroshima was the turning point of America's primary focus. America didn't want to get into international affairs, therefore upholding it's reputation. Once it realized that upholding it's reputation showed a weakness in its power, America reacted. Hiroshima was a message that had disastrous effects upon the Japanese people. Not only was it a message, it was obviously revenge. Pearl Harbor was an important military base (from my understanding, my knowledge of American history isn't great) to America and the Japanese bombed it. We didn't like it. We wanted to get our revenge. We did while giving the message that was simply, "Don't fuck with us, we have atomic bombs." Or if you want to put it nicely, "We are not weak."

I don't know if I can call it unjustified or justified. That was something that, at the time, was felt to be a necessary action. It ended a war that could have gone on for so much longer. Yes, the seemingly ever-lasting effects that the bombs have had upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki are terrible and obviously uncalled for in many situations, but America felt this justified at the time. I don't see a lot of validity and calling it right or wrong now because it was needed (or at least, it was felt that it was needed) at the time.

(I also forgot to mention that experiment was a part of it. That's self-explanatory, I won't elaborate.)

[El Muerto]

I agree with pretty much everything Louis said.

And about this:

Some things Hillary has said regarding Iran has worried me a bit, but I think she's saying what's necessary to get elected, I think she's a smart enough woman to look back at the past 5 years in Iraq and know that attacking Iran would be the dumbest thing she could do. Obama would consider going into Pakistan, again, I think he's saying what people want to hear (and anyone who wants to hear that is truly a moron).
Are there really people in the US who want to hear from their candidates that they're gonna attack someone as soon as they get elected? I mean, does anyone here know someone who thinks that way? It's seems so unreal to me when I'm reading such things.

[Mark]

;723789']Isn't it nice to have a decent alternative? In the U.S. it doesn't really matter
who wins. You've got the Republicans which is a party of bad ideas, and the Democratic party, which is a party of NO ideas. I find it amusing that Barrack Obama (who is supposed to be our knight in shining armor) has said that he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan if he was president. Yeah, great fucking idea Obama. That's what we need to do, invade another country.

Questions like that are fucking stupid because these decisions to attack another country aren't made by one singular person, in this case the President. Committees are created comprised of experts from the national security, military, and other departments to do projections and evaluations of certain courses of action.

I can ask you a hypothetical question: Do you think it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq, or rather the suggestion of other people within his administration?

Questions about "what would you do if.." are stupid because (1) the situation hasn't arisen, (2) there isn't pertinent information at hand, and (3) the candidate doesn't have an advisory council telling him the courses of action that can be taken, like there would be in the actual situation.

[Timothy]

Questions like that are fucking stupid because these decisions to attack another country aren't made by one singular person, in this case the President. Committees are created comprised of experts from the national security, military, and other departments to do projections and evaluations of certain courses of action.

I can ask you a hypothetical question: Do you think it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq, or rather the suggestion of other people within his administration?

Questions about "what would you do if.." are stupid because (1) the situation hasn't arisen, (2) there isn't pertinent information at hand, and (3) the candidate doesn't have an advisory council telling him the courses of action that can be taken, like there would be in the actual situation.

While the chances of the U.S. invading Pakistan under Obama might
never come to fruition, that's not what angers me. What angers me is that
he even entertains the notion of it being a good idea. I'm not immune to the
fact that politicians spew off bullshit ideas during their campaign that'll never happen, in order to get elected. The idea of choosing the lesser of two evils is about as undemocratic and disenfranchising as things can get.

You make think questions of "what would you do if..." are stupid, but when
the candidate in question has minimal experience in the political arena
(aside from his work in the senate), excuse me if his word is the only thing
I have to go by. My post was meant to express my distaste for the current
crop of candidates. I only singled out the Pakistan bit to show how low
things have gone.

[Todd]

Questions like that are fucking stupid because these decisions to attack another country aren't made by one singular person, in this case the President. Committees are created comprised of experts from the national security, military, and other departments to do projections and evaluations of certain courses of action.

I can ask you a hypothetical question: Do you think it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq, or rather the suggestion of other people within his administration?

Questions about "what would you do if.." are stupid because (1) the situation hasn't arisen, (2) there isn't pertinent information at hand, and (3) the candidate doesn't have an advisory council telling him the courses of action that can be taken, like there would be in the actual situation.


The president has a lot of influence though, and can persuade others to agree to attack. It's a well known fact that Bush wanted to go into Iraq to finish off daddy's dirty work, and he was able to convince enough people that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat, and that's how we got to where we are today.

[Mark]

;723977']While the chances of the U.S. invading Pakistan under Obama might
never come to fruition, that's not what angers me. What angers me is that
he even entertains the notion of it being a good idea. I'm not immune to the
fact that politicians spew off bullshit ideas during their campaign that'll never happen, in order to get elected. The idea of choosing the lesser of two evils is about as undemocratic and disenfranchising as things can get.

You make think questions of "what would you do if..." are stupid, but when
the candidate in question has minimal experience in the political arena
(aside from his work in the senate), excuse me if his word is the only thing
I have to go by. My post was meant to express my distaste for the current
crop of candidates. I only singled out the Pakistan bit to show how low
things have gone.


The president has a lot of influence though, and can persuade others to agree to attack. It's a well known fact that Bush wanted to go into Iraq to finish off daddy's dirty work, and he was able to convince enough people that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat, and that's how we got to where we are today.

While I know the President has the final say on many things, for the most part it's a decision between courses of action that are given to him by advisors, not thought up by him.

It's not really a well known "fact", but rather a popular, and possibly well-merited "conclusion" that he wanted to go into Iraq to finish Bush Sr's work. I'm of the ilk that believe Cheney was really more of a mastermind of this entire thing (Halliburton, etc) and it was convenient for both him and Bush to invade. That's not a fact either, I know. We all have our own conclusions.

The most important things to judge a politician are experience and character.

Tim, I don't believe you should be basing how you view Obama on what he says he would do in a hypothetical situation, considering he probably doesn't have nearly enough information about the situation to make a concrete statement on it.

[Will]

While I know the President has the final say on many things, for the most part it's a decision between courses of action that are given to him by advisors, not thought up by him.

Technically, as the Commander-in-Chief if the military, the President of the United States can go to war with any country without asking Congress first. "Declarations of War" are the proper way to do it, but no U.S. President has to ask Congress (or "advisors") first. The thing is that no U.S. President has exercised that ability yet, to my knowledge.

That doesn't really have much to do with the topic, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

[Mark]

I just realized how horribly off-topic this thing has gone. I'll accept the responsibility for that. Heh.

But then again, it was a very one-sided conversation, so if this promotes better discussion, let's continue it.

[Will]

I think it would've ended up here no matter what. :lol:

[El Muerto]

I just realized how horribly off-topic this thing has gone. I'll accept the responsibility for that. Heh.

But then again, it was a very one-sided conversation, so if this promotes better discussion, let's continue it.

Maybe you can change the topic title to cover it up :P

[Timothy]

Tim, I don't believe you should be basing how you view Obama on what he says he would do in a hypothetical situation, considering he probably doesn't have nearly enough information about the situation to make a concrete statement on it.

That's the problem. Obama wasn't asked what he would do in that situation, he stated his intentions to do so in his address on national security. He
didn't word it as to what he would do in a hypothetical situation, he made
the statement in a prepared speech. If someone asked him a hypothetical question, then it wouldn't bother me. The fact that it was in a prepared
speech means he had time to think it over and gather all the details. If he's making such erroneous claims just to get votes, who says I'm not within perfect capacity to judge him for it? This is all just my feelings on the
matter, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

I also want to make it clear that I don't dislike Obama, I just think all of the
hype surrounding his campaign made me expect more out of him than just
an also-ran (which, imo, is all he's delivered).



PS. Don't worry, this thing went off topic long ago. :lol: