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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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. You've must've missed the taser debate then. QFT. A lot of people forget about Nagasaki.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.