U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% want to get the hell outta there

[poedua]

Not that i'm endorsing Hiroshima but get your facts straight. Hiroshima was a manufacturing sector.

I did get my facts straight.

[65505201]

WTF, who would *WANT* to be at war?

According to Asim, the imperialistic US government and it's mindless cowardly soldiers.

[Txiasaeia]

Soldiers fighting overseas miss home.

In other news: Dogs still bark - story at eleven.

[FastFokker]

Not that i'm endorsing Hiroshima but get your facts straight. Hiroshima was a manufacturing sector.

I think at that point in time, most cities were manufacturing something for the war, be it Japan, USA or even Canada. It's still wrong (IMO) to knowingly bomb civilian targets.. be it by American atomic bombs, German bombings of London or British bombings of Berlin (or all the other random bomb droppings).

It's just still especially sad that the atomic bombs were dropped, due to the scale of destruction and especially when they truly needn't be. Apparently the Japanese had been trying to surrender for months, but Truman didn't want to accept their surrender. Truman wanted to drop the atomic bombs supposedly as a warning to Stalin that America holds the power and for Russia and any other nation not to dare come up against their might.

All those lives in Japan and the future generations were ruined, so unjustly. Of course, history is whatever is written by those who record it.. so obviously, this concept won't be popular by you kids fresh out of history class.. unless you had a good professor.

Anyway, to relate this to current events.. it's ironic that Pre-Emptive strikes are all the rage by American Leadership (today), and that any retribution is unacceptable.. when couldn't this be a considered a repeat of history? Japan pre-emptively struck America, only to fall victim to 2 atomic bombings.

Could it not be said that with this precedent, that it would be justifiable for a another nation to use WMD's against America as retribution for their current policy on pre-emptive attacking? America has taken up the position of "We must attack them now and destroy them before they get too powerful that they can hurt us." and people are swallowing that crap up like it's icecream.

Yummy.

[poedua]

I think at that point in time, most cities were manufacturing something for the war, be it Japan, USA or even Canada. It's still wrong (IMO) to knowingly bomb civilian targets.. be it by American atomic bombs, German bombings of London or British bombings of Berlin (or all the other random bomb droppings).

It's just still especially sad that the atomic bombs were dropped, due to the scale of destruction and especially when they truly needn't be. Apparently the Japanese had been trying to surrender for months, but Truman didn't want to accept their surrender. Truman wanted to drop the atomic bombs supposedly as a warning to Stalin that America holds the power and for Russia and any other nation not to dare come up against their might.

All those lives in Japan and the future generations were ruined, so unjustly. Of course, history is whatever is written by those who record it.. so obviously, this concept won't be popular by you kids fresh out of history class.. unless you had a good professor.

Anyway, to relate this to current events.. it's ironic that Pre-Emptive strikes are all the rage by American Leadership (today), and that any retribution is unacceptable.. when couldn't this be a considered a repeat of history? Japan pre-emptively struck America, only to fall victim to 2 atomic bombings.

Could it not be said that with this precedent, that it would be justifiable for a another nation to use WMD's against America as retribution for their current policy on pre-emptive attacking? America has taken up the position of "We must attack them now and destroy them before they get too powerful that they can hurt us." and people are swallowing that crap up like it's icecream.

Yummy.

The fact is, Hiroshima was nominal military target at best. They ( troops/ manufacturing ) could have easily been taken out with conventional weapons.

[Sgt_Strider]

I think at that point in time, most cities were manufacturing something for the war, be it Japan, USA or even Canada. It's still wrong (IMO) to knowingly bomb civilian targets.. be it by American atomic bombs, German bombings of London or British bombings of Berlin (or all the other random bomb droppings).

It's total war man. Countries have to mobilize their population and manufacturing capacities to improve their chances of winning.

It's just still especially sad that the atomic bombs were dropped, due to the scale of destruction and especially when they truly needn't be. Apparently the Japanese had been trying to surrender for months, but Truman didn't want to accept their surrender. Truman wanted to drop the atomic bombs supposedly as a warning to Stalin that America holds the power and for Russia and any other nation not to dare come up against their might.

I'm very skeptical of your claims. What I have learned from my history classes is that Truman wanted nothing but an unconditional surrender, something that the Japanese rejected prior to the use of the atomic bombs. Some government officials wanted Japan to surrender, but with certain restrictions. Obviously the more radical and nationalists like Tojo wanted Japan to fight to the last man. Eventually though, they did surrender w/o any conditions.

Yes, I've heard of claim about sending a message to the Soviets. However, last I heard it's not proven and it's just pure speculation.

All those lives in Japan and the future generations were ruined, so unjustly. Of course, history is whatever is written by those who record it.. so obviously, this concept won't be popular by you kids fresh out of history class.. unless you had a good professor.

Oh really? Hmm...Japan have the second largest economy in the world and their standards of living is quite high.

Anyway, to relate this to current events.. it's ironic that Pre-Emptive strikes are all the rage by American Leadership (today), and that any retribution is unacceptable.. when couldn't this be a considered a repeat of history? Japan pre-emptively struck America, only to fall victim to 2 atomic bombings.

There is a difference though. America was a "neutral" nation at the time. The United States made it clear that they were going to invade Iraq if Saddam Hussein didn't leave Iraq within 48 hours.

Could it not be said that with this precedent, that it would be justifiable for a another nation to use WMD's against America as retribution for their current policy on pre-emptive attacking? America has taken up the position of "We must attack them now and destroy them before they get too powerful that they can hurt us." and people are swallowing that crap up like it's icecream.

Yummy.

Using WMD's would violate the Geneva conventions though if they didn't sign it, they aren't obligated to abide by the protocols. However, they will face a massive retaliation from the United States. Whether it's nuclear or biological, I don't know. It's in the interest of any nations that wish to fight the United States not to use WMD's or else they will be destroyed.