Why did Americans (us to me) get it right the first time? We the people of the United States, in order to for ma more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, to our posterity and ourselves. That is the preamble to the constitution to the united states for those who do not know, I would like to know, if we just had the right people make it at the right item, or did we shut get it right by luck. What are the chances we could get other courtiers to adopt these principles in there government?

Woodlot it be nice, if every country in the world had something like this,
We the people of the world, in order to form a more perfect union, keep justice, ensure international peace, provide for poverty, promote health and welfare and secure the blessing of world peace, to ourselves and out posterity. Wouldn’t that be nice?

And then is started to wonder, why aren’t we at world peace, make Russia, china and the US make a pact of these idea's, and hope that one by one, other countries would lasso adopt them, no war, just people slowly realizing that its the best way to live. Life is never perfect and it never will be, but wouldn’t it be great for they’re to be a more perfect worldwide union?

We as a world, have weapons that could destroy the world, yet they haven to been used, could it possibly be that the world believes that we should adopt world wide peace, or perhaps at the very least world wide ties with each other, perhaps Pakistan and India (if imp correct they have troops n there borders to attack each other or perhaps that’s 2 other nations) to move there troops off and sign a non aggression pact, and all other nations make non aggression pacts with each other. Nothing sips erect, but it could be more perfect then it already is couldn’t it?

OR is this shut a though a child could think up and it is stupid and impossible?

Sorry if this was made half assed, the idea occurred to me whale I was eating pizza,


( i used spell cheak for this post)

"Ensure international peace"?

Given the current events I hope you are fucking joking.

"Promote health and welfare"? You don't even have a National Health Service.

"Secure the blessing of world peace" - this from the only nation ever to have used a nuclear weapon on human beings, and civilians at that!

"We as a world, have weapons that could destroy the world" - Most of them in your country's posession.

"yet they haven to been used" - Yes they have. By you.

"perhaps Pakistan and India (if imp correct they have troops n there borders to attack each other or perhaps that’s 2 other nations) to move there troops off and sign a non aggression pact" - A tad hypocritical considering your country just invaded 2 countries and now seem to be planning the invasion of a third.

Why did Americans (us to me) get it right the first time?
What, you've never heard of Rome?

"Secure the blessing of world peace" - this from the only nation ever to have used a nuclear weapon on human beings, and civilians at that!

"We as a world, have weapons that could destroy the world" - Most of them in your country's posession.

"yet they haven to been used" - Yes they have. By you.


I'm absolutely sick of all this crap about the U.S. being first in using nuclear weapons! I dare say that given the frenzy and urgency of the time - in the middle of a World War! - that England would have used nukes if they had developed them first.

Yes, we dropped bombs on Japan. And have not used them since!!! At that time no one really knew what the full result of using them would be. Several of the people (scientists) involved in the project led a campaign to prevent them from being used again. They, and many other people got the message through. And yes, we have a large arsenal of weapons but again - we've not used them since Japan.

So it's about time all you anti-Americans stop whining about it!!!! if they'd been used since that time perhaps you'd have something to complain about. But we learned a lesson from the terrible destruction that was unleashed.

Do the other countries that possess such devices dismantled theirs?????

It's about time you whimpering cry-babies realized the course America has followed since that time - and grow out of your diapers/nappies and face the REAL world today!

"Secure the blessing of world peace" - this from the only nation ever to have used a nuclear weapon on human beings, and civilians at that!

to anybody who knows their history you come off like a real fucking retarded dumbass

The American colonists did not get it right the first time. The Founding Fathers first attempt was the Articles of Confederation which were not working very well so a convention was called to try to fix the problems with the Articles. Chaired by the former commanding general of the Colonial forces George Washington and hosted by Benjamin Franklin as the leader of Pennsylvania where the convention was held the convention quickly concluded that a whole new framework of government was required rather than simple ammendments resulting in the Constitution which was a compromise between the 2 plans that had been introduced (one favoring the smaller states, the other favoring the larger states).

candy, ill accept that i relaized that after posting it tsalknig to a friend from goverment about it.
and i was jsut saying woudltn it be nice? the world odesent have ot be this way

us invading 2 countires, i belive the majority of the US did not want to invade.

Light, exactly we used it in a dire situacion and never used htem again

hapsburg, rome fell didint it?

I may not no history, but i know that the way the world works is wrong, we should be at peace. AMerica learned the hard way blacks are equal to any other group. so why doesent the world realize evvery country is as aqual as any other ocuntry, one may have a different religion, or may be smaller then another, but they are all equal in the fact that they all have humans in it, wars hsouldnt have to be fought, if all antions came otgether under one banner, we could deal with all issues at hand, not that we couldnt do it now, but it would be nice to all be peaceful. All nations wouldnt be peaceful i know htat, there wil lbe peopel who odnt agree with it, not that its gonna happen in my lifetime......., but it would be for the greater good.

Am i just a kid who thinks peace is possible when it isnt?

The unfortunate truth is that humanity is not ready for Utopia.
Hopefully we will do better in the future.

We got it "right" by not getting it wrong yet. History will tell. If the Second Amendment is the most controversial difference of opinion in the Constitution, we're doing alright.

The downfall of the American Constitution, though, is that it has resulted in the abuse of a "free" society akin to what I would say was wrong with history's dalliance with Communism. People think "free" means "no cost", whether in coin, sweat, or blood.

The problem with people, IMO, is that almost every govt. in the world seems to still think they have the right to kick the snot out of their neighbours. When we finally realise that there's only one boat and we're all on it together, maybe we'll come up with a solution. That's why I think we need more photos taken from space--just to remind us that we all live on the smae blue ball. I remember the first moon landing (all conspiracy theories aside :D ) and I remember the feeling of euphoria when it was broadcast. What we need is a Declaration of Peace rather than a Declaration of War--a statement of other peoples rghts in their own country, and our obligations not to F them up.

People think "free" means "no cost", whether in coin, sweat, or blood.

Wow! Can I get an "amen" on this? The one roadblock I see to a true world peace is that "You can't please all of the people all of the time." There are people who simply will not live in peace, not even if we do everything their particular way. How would a truly peaceful society deal with a person or group of people who cannot tolerate peace? If you give them their own little corner to occupy, there are people of the mindset that will seek to expand simply because they can't stand to see someone else enjoying a peaceful life. It doesn't matter if they are happy or not, they just don't want to see you happy.

I may not no history, but i know that the way the world works is wrong, we should be at peace. AMerica learned the hard way blacks are equal to any other group. so why doesent the world realize evvery country is as aqual as any other ocuntry, one may have a different religion, or may be smaller then another, but they are all equal in the fact that they all have humans in it, wars hsouldnt have to be fought, if all antions came otgether under one banner, we could deal with all issues at hand, not that we couldnt do it now, but it would be nice to all be peaceful. All nations wouldnt be peaceful i know htat, there wil lbe peopel who odnt agree with it, not that its gonna happen in my lifetime......., but it would be for the greater good.

Am i just a kid who thinks peace is possible when it isnt?

the thing is, we are not all equal and thats one of the biggest problems with american thinking. we are not all equal literally, but we can think of ourselves as being equal because we are all equally different. america doesn't have it right by far and the constitution those old white guys wrote up was a lot better than what was before it, but i guarentee that there will be much better forms of government after it (or humanity will fall into anarchy and we will all die). the american government will fail eventually, or it will be reformed into something different so that it will not fail.

you say that everything would be better if we all united and worked together and i agree, but where do you start? how do you tell a fundamental shi'ite that he should stop hating jews and work together with them and vice versa? their entire culture and heritage has conflicted directly with other religions, especially judaism. to get them to work peacefully you would have to prove to them that their religions are wrong, which is nigh on impossible. there is no other way around this kind of problem and it is the root of much conflict in the world, including in our own country.

i'm glad that you think peace is possible, but you should research the reasons why so many think it isn't possible. its an extremely daunting problem, but not impossible.

sci forums should y there own island, we could make peace there :)

We would be resorting to cannibalism within the first day. ;)

lkol it owuld be epaceful canabilism though! lol

really htough if we bought a sialnd i owuld move there is a heart beat hweneveri utrn 18. our currency iwll be scibucks. and the name will by sci sociaty

Roy The only thing I could think of when I read your post and wondered about an answer was a quote I read somewhere but can't remember who said it:

"To reform mankind you must begin with the children."

I remember being in preschool and having friend who looked different. She had yellowish skin, narrow eyes, and a flat nose. Today I know she was oriental. Back then she was a little girl with yellowish skin, narrow eyes and a flat nose. I never even realized that black people were different until they introduced us to "Black History Month". Prior to that our family friends who were black were just people with dark skin. It took the school curriculum to teach me that somehow black skin meant "inferior".

I sometimes wonder, if we stopped placing so much emphasis on ourselves as races in schools, do away with "Black History Month" and other things that smack of "separate but equal", just teach the material in the course of its normal spectrum, could we get future generations to stop regarding someone as worthy of special mention just because of their race?

Why did Americans (us to me) get it right the first time?
Before the articles of confederation and the constitution was the Mayflower Compact. We tried communism, figured out it sucked, and moved on. Still, it is certainly true that America has been blessed and led -so far- a charmed existance.

How many revolutions in world history ever ended well? The French revolution led to tyranny under the commitee for public safety and a new Emperor. The Russian revolution led to Stalin and millions murdered. The Cuban revolution, Castro. Nicaragua, the Sandinistas.

What about the civil war? One of our greatest tragedies could have been so much worse. Most civil wars end with a protracted insurgency and bloodshed that goes on for years. Not us. Sure the carpet baggers caused some problems, but we were soon one nation again.

Our nation has been blessed since its inception. Why? Luck? Divine intervention? What did our founding fathers think:

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention of 1787
While I believe the concepts the US was founded on are universal, there will always be war. That is, so long as there are humans. It's part of our nature. As Thomas Jefferson said:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
And regarding our continued good fortune, another quote from Mr. Jefferson:
Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.

Roy The only thing I could think of when I read your post and wondered about an answer was a quote I read somewhere but can't remember who said it:

"To reform mankind you must begin with the children."

I remember being in preschool and having friend who looked different. She had yellowish skin, narrow eyes, and a flat nose. Today I know she was oriental. Back then she was a little girl with yellowish skin, narrow eyes and a flat nose. I never even realized that black people were different until they introduced us to "Black History Month". Prior to that our family friends who were black were just people with dark skin. It took the school curriculum to teach me that somehow black skin meant "inferior".

I sometimes wonder, if we stopped placing so much emphasis on ourselves as races in schools, do away with "Black History Month" and other things that smack of "separate but equal", just teach the material in the course of its normal spectrum, could we get future generations to stop regarding someone as worthy of special mention just because of their race?
i completely agree with you. issues are only made more controversial when they are given more attention. we are all human, and we all have differences, just some of those differences have more physical presence instead of character presence. but its hard to get people to renounce their race because they feel like they belong there, like they are part of a special clique or community. if you attempt to equalize everyone, you take away the 'first black man in baseball' or the 'first woman in space' and instead try to center on communal firsts like 'the first human on mars'. huge events take the place of local hero's. but i guess its alright if we don't have a distinction between race, and know that we are all different. but that will take a lot of work to overcome. it is human nature to find the differences in other people.

so, your saying black history month hsould be takeen away?

I htink your 100% right, but i think that martin luther king should be includded i nthe ucrriculam. I think that peopple who werei mportant in history shoudl be taught, not jsut in a ceritan month becasue we was black, or did osemthnigi nthe civil right mocment i guess would be a more appropriate term?
the racism happned, it should be taught as a hcapter in a text book, more hten jsut a hcapter even, not jsut in a month.

Right?

Take away the special treatment and put them in with the rest of history where they belong. It's important we learn what happened and why, but I always wondered why we studied about African-Americans in February and ignored them the rest of the year. Black people didn't wait their turn to make history, neither did Latinos, Asians, Scots, Irish, or whatever. There's no reason to remove these cultures from the contexts in which they made history and give them their own separate place. Nobody in Boston cared what color Crispus Attucks was, why should we care what color Martin Luther King Jr was? Who cares what color Caesar Chavez was? Who cares what color Benjamin Franklin was? The fact is these people did a lot of good for a lot of people and none of them should be relegated to a particular corner of history whether in praise or otherwise.

3 cheers for oxygen!

*blushing*

I'm absolutely sick of all this crap about the U.S. being first in using nuclear weapons! I dare say that given the frenzy and urgency of the time - in the middle of a World War! - that England would have used nukes if they had developed them first.

Yes, we dropped bombs on Japan. And have not used them since!!! At that time no one really knew what the full result of using them would be. Several of the people (scientists) involved in the project led a campaign to prevent them from being used again. They, and many other people got the message through. And yes, we have a large arsenal of weapons but again - we've not used them since Japan.

So it's about time all you anti-Americans stop whining about it!!!! if they'd been used since that time perhaps you'd have something to complain about. But we learned a lesson from the terrible destruction that was unleashed.

Do the other countries that possess such devices dismantled theirs?????

It's about time you whimpering cry-babies realized the course America has followed since that time - and grow out of your diapers/nappies and face the REAL world today!

Sorry, I stopped reading at "England".

I think you meant "Great Britain", or the "United Kingdom".

It's not 1600 anymore.

to anybody who knows their history you come off like a real fucking retarded dumbass

OK.

Answer me this.

Did your country, or did it not, drop two nuclear weapons on two separate civilian cities, with the knowledge that a lot of women, children and babies would die?

....or did I miss something in one of my non-yank history books?

That was war and America was on the right and winning side. That was in the past and lesson was learned. Get over your anti-american bigotry.

I don't want to hear excuses. Answer the fucking questions.

Who is to say you were "right"? The Japanese murdered civilians....oh wait so did the US!

Do you think Bush is on the "right" side?

Nice to see your history books are so objective on the subject. That was sarcasm by the way.

Japan chose to bomb Pearl Harbor and Manilla.
The US chose to bomb Japan. When you choose to go war you must expect to be bombed back. The decision to use nuclear weapons rather than sustain heavy casualities in an invasion is obvious. I believe it was Patton that observed that the object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his country.

Yes but think about it before you just accept what you were told.

We are talking about killing civilians in order to prevent military losses.

The lives of women and schoolgirls and babies exchanged for those of men who were paid to fight.

Pearl Harbour was a military target. The objective was to neutralise the US navy. Due to good fortune their carriers were out at sea and didn't get sunk.

The objective of the A-bombings was to coerce Japan into surrendering by targeting two civilian cities. This is a textbook definition of terrorism.

60 years later the US fights its "war on terror". What a fucking joke.

There were civilian casualties at Pearl. The treatment of civillian populations by Japanese occuppiers is not not noted for it's benevolence. The Japanese used terror bombing as a tool of war. The Japanese did not believe in "civilized" war as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
The current US war on terror has been in reaction to very real acts of terrorism. I may not be in total agreement with the current administrations policies but I do not appreciate anyone belittling the very real suffering that terrorists caused.

OK so basically you are saying:

"The enemy killed some civilians here and there so it was perfectly acceptable for the "good guys" to do the same thing"

Have I got that right?

In case you hadn't noticed, the allies used terror bombing as a tool of war too. Your argument seems to be "The enemy does something bad so that means it's OK for us to do it too!"

Pearl Harbour was not a civilian target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. Civilians were killed at Pearl Harbour in the same sense as civilians are being killed in Iraq and the current US government simply says "shit happens" with regards to that.

Don't start on the Geneva conventions. The USA has a pretty bad record with those.

Look up terrorism in the dictionary. The terrorism the US experienced that was grounds for the "war on terror" amounted to 3,000 casualties. Last I checked it was around 300,000 for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So basically you are telling me that the WTC attacks were "very real" and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not real? Did I just dream reading about them or something? I don't appreciate YOU belittling the hundreds of thousands of women, children and babies killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the suffering of the survivors and their mutated kids.

I did not use the term the "so called bombings" nor did I imply that they were not done. I simply accept that bombings were a natural product of war.
War is not some "tin soldier" game. War is a horrible and brutal event that should be avoided if at all possible; there is no such thing as "civilized" war. Planners always think about their stratedgy for winning "the tin soldier game" and rarely consider the consequences of losing the war. Various attempts at setting up "rules of warfare" have been tried but it requries both sides to follow the "rules" for them to work. Sooner or later one side has their backs to the wall and does what ever they deem necessary for their survival. Civilian populations have never been protected from the consequences of war. There is very little morality in war. The USA's track record for unacceptable behavior while imperfect is not as bad as some others. War is a very imperfect thing.
When some one attacks you then you fight back with the weapons that work to produce the lowest casualties for you. Given the choice of 100,000 US casualities or bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki so the enemy sustains the pain I pick taking the war to the enemy. Brutal, yes but that is what war is and why you should try to avoid it.
Bottom line attack the USA and you have signed you own death warrant.

Yes but think about it before you just accept what you were told.

We are talking about killing civilians in order to prevent military losses.

The lives of women and schoolgirls and babies exchanged for those of men who were paid to fight.

Pearl Harbour was a military target. The objective was to neutralise the US navy. Due to good fortune their carriers were out at sea and didn't get sunk.

The objective of the A-bombings was to coerce Japan into surrendering by targeting two civilian cities. This is a textbook definition of terrorism.

60 years later the US fights its "war on terror". What a fucking joke.
The Japanese did not believe in surrender. They would have fought to the last man, women and child. Those two atomic bombs not only saved American lives, they saved Japanese lives. By attacking them with a weapon of such unimaginable force, Japan was able to surrender without losing face.

But putting that aside, it was TOTAL WAR. Both sides had bombed city after city throughout the conflict. Firebombing killed more people than the two nukes.

Finally, they attacked us. Yamamoto knew what the outcome would be, but he followed orders and attacked anyway.

Why did Americans (us to me) get it right the first time? [...] I would like to know, if we just had the right people make it at the right item, or did we shut get it right by luck. What are the chances we could get other courtiers to adopt these principles in there government?
We didn't get it right the first time. The writers of the Constitution knew they wouldn't, so they made it amendable. But it was surely a step in the correct general direction.

And, I don't see most other countries adapting it anytime soon.

Woodlot it be nice, if every country in the world had something like this, [snip] Wouldn’t that be nice?
Yes it would.

And then is started to wonder, why aren’t we at world peace, make Russia, china and the US make a pact of these idea's, and hope that one by one, other countries would lasso adopt them, no war, just people slowly realizing that its the best way to live.
It's an extremely hard task to accomplish.

We as a world, have weapons that could destroy the world, yet they haven to been used, could it possibly be that the world believes that we should adopt world wide peace, or perhaps at the very least world wide ties with each other, [...]
No. We just haven't gotten mad enough at each other to use them. ;)

OR is this shut a though a child could think up and it is stupid and impossible?
It's not stupid. That is how the world really should be, and it's a noble concept. And it's not quite impossible. Highly improbably and highly difficult to acheive, but not impossible.

Sorry if this was made half assed, the idea occurred to me whale I was eating pizza,

It's alright. I got the idea you were trying to communicate.

( i used spell cheak for this post)
Dew knot trussed yore spell Czech two fix awl yore miss takes.

OK so basically you are saying:

"The enemy killed some civilians here and there so it was perfectly acceptable for the "good guys" to do the same thing"

Have I got that right?

In case you hadn't noticed, the allies used terror bombing as a tool of war too. Your argument seems to be "The enemy does something bad so that means it's OK for us to do it too!"

Pearl Harbour was not a civilian target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. Civilians were killed at Pearl Harbour in the same sense as civilians are being killed in Iraq and the current US government simply says "shit happens" with regards to that.

Don't start on the Geneva conventions. The USA has a pretty bad record with those.

Look up terrorism in the dictionary. The terrorism the US experienced that was grounds for the "war on terror" amounted to 3,000 casualties. Last I checked it was around 300,000 for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So basically you are telling me that the WTC attacks were "very real" and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not real? Did I just dream reading about them or something? I don't appreciate YOU belittling the hundreds of thousands of women, children and babies killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the suffering of the survivors and their mutated kids.

the leaders of japan were batshit crazy with duty and honor at the time. they wanted to drain every last resource they had before even thinking of surrendering. there was a mindset that they (the general populous of japan) would rather die than surrender to us. if we had not had the bomb, then we would have had to send thousands upon thousands of troops to invade japan, causing just as many, if not more, civilian deaths and an overwhelmingly larger amount of american deaths. they did not even surrender after we dropped the first bomb, it took a second for them to finally cease war with us. all in all, many more lives were saved because we dropped those bombs, even as horrible as it was that we did.

The Japanese did not believe in surrender. They would have fought to the last man, women and child. Those two atomic bombs not only saved American lives, they saved Japanese lives. By attacking them with a weapon of such unimaginable force, Japan was able to surrender without losing face.

But putting that aside, it was TOTAL WAR. Both sides had bombed city after city throughout the conflict. Firebombing killed more people than the two nukes.

Finally, they attacked us. Yamamoto knew what the outcome would be, but he followed orders and attacked anyway.

Does that make it anything other than terrorism? Don't think so.

I understand your argument but acts such as the terror bombing of WWI and WWII and the A-bombings have reduced something that was once honourable into the who-can-be-more-of-a-chickenshit thing it is today.

the leaders of japan were batshit crazy with duty and honor at the time.

You say that as if it was bad.


they wanted to drain every last resource they had before even thinking of surrendering. there was a mindset that they (the general populous of japan) would rather die than surrender to us.

So the US meets honour with terrorism. Nice to know.

if we had not had the bomb, then we would have had to send thousands upon thousands of troops to invade japan, causing just as many, if not more, civilian deaths and an overwhelmingly larger amount of american deaths.

Excuses. For terrorism.

they did not even surrender after we dropped the first bomb

"They won't surrender! Kill more of their women and children!"

The critical mistake is in thinking there is anything honorable about war.
War may sometimes be necessary but it is never honorable.
People may act with great valor and honor during war but that does not make war itself honorable.

You say that as if it was bad.
i did not say duty and honor were bad, i implied that the japanese took duty and honor over the line such that they either wanted to rule the world, or wipe out their entire country--women and children and all--trying.

So the US meets honour with terrorism. Nice to know.
if you knew anything about history, you would know we attacked out of defense. now go read some history books.

Excuses. For terrorism.
absolutely not. now quit being a stubborn, naive sass and learn something.

"They won't surrender! Kill more of their women and children!"
they attempted to forcefully take over china, the phillipenes, oceania, and hawaii. they continued to attack us and the chinese even after we dropped the first atomic bomb. their island is such that there are no strategic military buildings that can be destroyed without collateral damage. our only choices were to either:
1: do nothing and let the japanese take over china or let russia lose thousands to millions of troops defending them.
2: send hundreds of thousands of our own troops to invade mainland japan, with statistics showing that more japanese would have died from this than if we--
3: dropped an atomic bomb on a major japanese city, with no allied deaths.

in one way, you could say that dropping the bomb was a terrorist act. it was intended to frighten the japanese such that they would forget their patriotic cultural instinct to fight till the death. we didn't want to have to wipe out every japanese person to end the war, but many of the japanese--certainly at least the ones in command--would rather have things turn out that way. by dropping the atomic bomb we essentially scared enough to stop them from fighting. we dropped the first one, they tried to call our bluff, thinking we wouldn't drop another one; so they kept fighting. we dropped the second and they realized that we knew they were in a fight to the death. they also realized that their death was now imminent and the fight was futile. so honor gave way to survival and the japanese surrendered.

they tried to call our bluff, thinking we wouldn't drop another one

LOL....Just imagine them in their military HQ...."Those americans will never dare to kill even more babies and schoolchildren, not after they did it the first time!" Well, you proved them wrong. Congratulations.

Listen to yourself.

The same old "collateral damage" "shit happens" that Bush comes out with.

we attacked out of defense

I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's exactly the kind of crap your current administration comes out with to justify its invasions.

The day you dropped those bombs you became the "bad guy".

LOL....Just imagine them in their military HQ...."Those americans will never dare to kill even more babies and schoolchildren, not after they did it the first time!" Well, you proved them wrong. Congratulations.

Listen to yourself.

The same old "collateral damage" "shit happens" that Bush comes out with.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's exactly the kind of crap your current administration comes out with to justify its invasions.

The day you dropped those bombs you became the "bad guy".
then what would your solution have been?

I am not the President of the USA.

Don't deploy your child logic on me.

I am not the President of the USA.

Don't deploy your child logic on me.
so you have no better idea, why are you complaining? if you think the war could have been solved by some less violent means, then i am all ears. you have no room to complain if you can't offer up a better solution.

Like I said.

Child logic.

Example 1:

"That man is fat"

"Well you're not an olympic athlete so you can't say anything"

Example 2:

"Your country nuked babies"

"Well your country firebombed Germany so you can't talk"



Replace "less violent" with "more honourable" and you might be on to something though. If you want "unconditional" surrender rather than making terms, then you've gotta lose some soldiers doing it I'm afraid.

Nuking children is not right however you look at it, and whatever excuses you make for it. Go look up terrorism in the dictionary! Specifically targetting civilians in order to coerce a government into meeting your demands.

The USA hold the world record for terrorism, and you really cannot debate that.

Like I said.

Child logic.

Example 1:

"That man is fat"

"Well you're not an olympic athlete so you can't say anything"

Example 2:

"Your country nuked babies"

"Well your country firebombed Germany so you can't talk"



Replace "less violent" with "more honourable" and you might be on to something though. If you want "unconditional" surrender rather than making terms, then you've gotta lose some soldiers doing it I'm afraid.

Nuking children is not right however you look at it, and whatever excuses you make for it. Go look up terrorism in the dictionary! Specifically targetting civilians in order to coerce a government into meeting your demands.

The USA hold the world record for terrorism, and you really cannot debate that.
you can call it whatever you want, but you're still critisizing without any better solution. a simple end to this argument could be achieved if you just told me how you would have made history so much better if you had been in control of the US back then. obviously you have a much greater insight into the problem with all the flak you've been throwing at the decisions of the US government.

also, can you call it terrorism when the entire allied world is behind our decision? everyone knew that the japanese would stop only at death, so we had to do something drastic. the fact that we had to use two bombs should be evidence enough for that.

but don't get me wrong, i'm critical of america's usage of force and coersion to get it's way, but more particularly in the cold war years and onward. at least back in the days of ww2 we knew what our reasons for doing things were. now it seems that our presence (and sometimes pseudopresence) in nations is often controversial and unsupported.

i think we really did have a hand in fucking up the country of japan, but they pushed themsevles into a corner they could not retreat from, so it is not solely our fault.

you can call it whatever you want, but you're still critisizing without any better solution. a simple end to this argument could be achieved if you just told me how you would have made history so much better if you had been in control of the US back then.
I have an idea. How about diplomacy? Or better yet, leaving them alone? I like those ideas.

also, can you call it terrorism when the entire allied world is behind our decision?
Yes.

but don't get me wrong, i'm critical of america's usage of force and coersion to get it's way, but more particularly in the cold war years and onward. at least back in the days of ww2 we knew what our reasons for doing things were. now it seems that our presence (and sometimes pseudopresence) in nations is often controversial and unsupported.
Thank you for having some sense.

the fact that we had to use two bombs should be evidence enough for that.


Oh you HAD to use two bombs huh? You had no choice other than to nuke two cities full of women and children? Oh, well that clears it up. You simply had no other choice right? Don't give me that shit.

I'm not sure it can be terrorism if the countries are officially at war, actually...

I have an idea. How about diplomacy? Or better yet, leaving
them alone? I like those ideas.
There was diplomacy of a sort*. I'm also curious as to how you leave people alone when they're at war with you. Move to another planet? :p

*World War II article in World Book:

"At the Potsdam Conference, Truman learned of the successful test explosion of the atomic bomb and informed the other leaders of it. The United States, Britain, and China issued a statement threatening to destroy Japan unless it surrendered unconditionally. In spite of the warning, Japan went on fighting."

I'm not sure it can be terrorism if the countries are officially at war, actually...

There was diplomacy of a sort*. I'm also curious as to how you leave people alone when they're at war with you. Move to another planet? :p

*World War II article in World Book:

"At the Potsdam Conference, Truman learned of the successful test explosion of the atomic bomb and informed the other leaders of it. The United States, Britain, and China issued a statement threatening to destroy Japan unless it surrendered unconditionally. In spite of the warning, Japan went on fighting."
Good points. Another issue. If not for the example of the horrible destruction wrought by the atomic bombs, it would have been much more likely that they would have been used later. Imagine the Cuban missle crisis. Only this time the military on both sides is itching to see what their new toys can do. Each side believes that by advising their children to duck under desks, they can survive nuclear anilation while destroying the enemy.

It's probably for the best that nukes where first used when only one side had them, and only two of them, at that. If the US and Soviets had unloaded their entire nuclear arsenals, we wouldn't be here today.

The nuking of Japan gave a quick end to a bloody war, and served as a warning against the future use of nuclear weapons.

Keep telling yourself that guys. Half of those examples might be true....it might be true that if it wasn't for nuclear weapons there would have been another world war, but you tell yourselves these things like they make it OK....just think about that.

Everyone had choices.
Japan could have chosen not invade China; not to declare war on the USA; to have surrendered sooner.
The USA chose the option that cost the least Allied losses; that is how you plan warfare tactics. War planning is not about protecting the enemy civilians.

Move to Canada.
Bring all yer fucking sick shit here.
Open arms...we luv ya all ya freaks

Then.
We'll show ya that you were, and still are a bunch'a sick freaks...
Canada is Therapy.