Israel has been under constant attack since the international community recognized them as a legitimate country, and the U.S. didn't start major funding until after the 1971 war.
Saddam a brutal dictator responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims did not follow the rules dictated to him and agreed by him after his humiliating defeat in 1991 hence the justification to use military force against him.
That said Bush's decision to use U.S. forces was not justified as it was only approved as a last resort.
In 1940, for instance, the Government of France with withdrew all defensive forces from Paris and declared it to be an Open City. This gave Paris immunity from attack and bombardment, and ensured that France’s historic monuments and buildings were not damaged or endangered in any way.
Any one who has read about the Japanese knows that they would always fight to the last man. Every half deserted pile of rock in the Pacific was defended with ferocity til not a single Japanese soldier was left. Surrender was tantamount to cowardice. Imagine how they would have fought on ther homeland! Imigine millions of innocents trapped in the crossfire of a war that could have extended two more years.
Yes the war was over to any impartial observer, but the Imperial Japanese were not rational. Even then, if Japan had surrendered shortly after any invasion, anything less than complete defeat would have left us with the specre of Japan rising again as the Germans did. The use of atomic weapons was so completely demoralizing that Japan abandoned all military adventurism. That was the best possible outcome in the Pacific.
27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
MADDY !
The hiroshima bombing violated this law to the full.
The result of bomb was not only immediate death of tens of thousands BUT ALSO IT LITERALLY DESTROYED EVERYTHING, there was no infrastructure left of the city whatsoever,all the transport system, hospitals even the birds died. There was no one to take care of those who were BURNED.
And the americans had done the experiment in some desert i donno which one and they knew the scale of destruction that would follow.
no, it simply was not possible to avoid casualties.
Arguably the bombing of Dresden was worse, as it was done with conventional bombs over weeks of time. Traditional bombing of Tokyo would have yielded far more casualties.
The real point of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is an attempt to rewrite history. The world is far better off with the Pacific free of Imperial Japan. To try to focus on two bombings takes them out of context, and forgets the other far more heinous aspects of the war.
And ultimately you could argue that we should all be using swords and rocks and that any advance in warfare is unfair. Get over it. A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. They all kill. For the most part the US has pioneered the use of "Smart" precision guided weapons. You may mock the term, but one bomb now does the job that 50 bombers did in World War II. Those advances save lives. But if we thought that dropping another atomic bomb would end another war as brutal and deadly as the war in the pacific, would we? Probably. What's more, if your country had the same decision to make, the loss of a million soldiers battling the Japanese on their home territory or ending the war immediately by dropping two bombs, your country would be making the same exact decision.
Dropping those bombs does not make us evil. It makes us smart and deadly. We win. It sure made the Russians think twice about attacking us over the next 40 years.
If a city has defences in place then it can be attacked. Having defences transforms it into a military target. In the case of Hiroshima, there were anti-aircraft guns in the town to defend it against bombers.
[QUOTE]
If they didn’t have anticrafts, The American would not have launched the attacks?
ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. “The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
^^ It's a fascinating quote but revisionist history. Do a little research on the fire bombing of Tokyo. Historians generally agree that the direct death toll from the fire bombing exceeded the number of direct deaths caused by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were many civilian deaths in Tokyo.
Somehow or other I don't put much stock in claims that death by fire bombing is any more humane and civilized than being incinerated in a nuclear blast. The fire bombing just took a little longer than the 5 seconds it took in Hiroshima.
Opinion, not fact. There were other American officers who believed that Japan was not ready to surrender unconditionally as Germany had done so.
Japan had been trying to make peace, but on Japan’s own terms. The Potsdam declaration between the Allies stated that only the unconditional surrender of Japan would be accepted.
On July 7th, Japan offered to surrender as long as only a small occupation force was sent.
Only July 8th, Japan offered to surrender as long as the Emperor was allowed to retain office.
These offers were short of the unconditional surrender required by the Allies.
Forcing Japan into such a surrender would have required the kind of urban fighting that would have killed many times more civilians than the nuclear bombing of two small cities.
The civilians casualties at Okinawa gives you a measure of how many civilians would have died. This was the smallest of the Japanese home islands, yet around 25% of the civilian population died as the battle raged back and forth over their homes. Out of a pre-war population of between 300,000 and 500,000, around 150,000 civilians died on the battlefield that engulfed their homes and whilst engaged in battle against US soldiers.
The most important thing for japanese was to retain the King.
And there were many people who thought it was not needed:
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “**When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” **Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71
"Whats the difference between people who carried out the attacks on Hiroshima(6 aug 1945) and Nagasaki and those who did on 7/7 and 9/11"
the only difference is christians accept terrorist attack of Hiroshima(6 aug 1945) and Nagasaki and for other terrorist attacks 9/11 7/7 and many more christans had pland these attacks and put blame on muslims.
CNN and BBC are the best source of "Muslim Terrorist" propaganda.