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.
Thank you for putting it much more eloquently than I did. 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.
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.
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. -EDIT- I'm glad I finally get to post about politics on here.
*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.)
I agree with pretty much everything Louis said. And about this: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.