Having read and contributed to a number of posts relating to the US war on terror and the implications - particularly in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian problem - the debate seems to be getting extremely polarised and exagerated. Now I am fairly clearly on one side of the debate - one that seems to mainly consist of non-Americans. From my perspective this is the side which beleives a debate needs to take place in the US about the country's actions. This does not necessarily mean that we (or at least I) support terrorism, despise the US or view it as some sort of evil. I think most of us simply want to see a world where the US isn't a target. That means (we believe) a few changes need to be made. The Bush 'with us or against us' line is not helping. When a question is raised about US conduct you may disargree, but then we are painted as anti-US fanatics and told of your country's greatness and supreme military capabilities and how you do what you want. This hardly helps, and it is part of the problem. Americans appear to have little ability to empathise or see the world from a wider perspective. Perhaps I am mistaken, but a little humanity and humility would not go amiss. This planet is shared and is not simply the US' plaything. Yes, the US has the most powerful military. Yes, the US (on the whole) supports freedom and democracy. Yes, there is a need to defeat terror and violence. How? That's what we're interested in. Most of us non-Americans can see the roots, and they lie in the very attitude you seem to portray in responding to criticism. Maybe we're no better or worse, but we want to at least discuss it. And after all is said and done, with the initial success of the Afghan war and US bombing, with the sense that victory is possible against terrorists, remember the depth of the problem we all face. Despite the most powerful military in the world, four fanatics armed with knives destroyed the tallest building in your country and attacked the heart of your military. It needs to be stopped, but this is far from a military or 'fanatic' problem. And it requires more than a military response. Engage in the wider debate rather than retreating into a defensive shell. How can it be stopped?
Captain Canada ... Re. "How can it be stopped?" Easy! Kill all the 'towel' heads! And while you're at it: Kill all the Palestinians and for good measure, the Israelies (look what they did to the British), and the Irish (both, one is no worse than the other), and the Germans (they spawned the Red Brigade) and the Basques, and the Kurds, and ... , and ... , and ... Kill, Kill, Kill* ... Oh, and for a finale, the Americans! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Take care. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *With due credit to 'Alice's Restaurant'
Actually, if you want to debate right & wrong, evil vs. good, this is 'us against them'. This falls in line with the Allies vs. the Axis during WWII, the Germans, Italians & Japanese felt aggrieved by the Western Powers, they had plans and felt that they needed to right wrongs with the rest of the world. Is Osama any different? Should you, Captain Canada, follow Osama or the USA? Should the USA have helped England & not cut oil to Japan; and stayed neutral throughout WWII? Obviously, you never heard of the Peace Corps, American Red Cross, American churches, business & fraternal organizations that donate money worldwide & through the UN organizations? Perhaps I am mistaken, but the only ones that act that way are the top politicos, and the people from multi-national corps.? The average Joe & Jane, are tied up with their lives to care; it takes the others (greens, liberals, churches, etc.), that put the time to try changing things. That would be like the common 'bloke' at the pub, are Europeans all caring, sharing, humble, greens???? Must be nice to have such clear vision!!! I suppose Europe & Canada are on their way to Utopia any day now? More problems than any one country can face, we need to look at each other as brothers & sisters on this little pale blue dot. I suppose we could turn fanatical & nuke everybody or send 500 ton mountain busters down on all who offend us, but should we be as savage as our enemies were? By the way, the tactic of box cutters will not work any more, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania proved that average Americans are willing to die to stop terrorists from now on. Debate? I wish that those that perpetrated 9/11 had been reasonable people, willing to debate the issues, listen to reason, agree to disagree! You know, like us here at Sciforums?
Captain Canada brings a voice that I hear. I read his posts, as they are relevant to the issues at hand. But personal attacks; name-calling and such ilk really turn me off. (I am not accusing Captain Canada of such tactics but of others) I seem to understand what the Israelis face with the day to day terrorist attacks and so sympathize with them more. It is not that they go over and attack the Palestinians but it seems that they respond to such after being attacked. In my mind this makes them more the victim than the aggressor. One of the earlier posts suggested that they put up a wall to separate the two. I am beginning to think that maybe Israel needs to re-evaluate whether they need the Palestinians working within their economy at all. This would certainly cut down on the amount of opportunity that a free country has to face in the line of these sorts of attacks. As to the point of with us or against us, we have an enemy. They have showed what they are willing to do. As the nature of the enemy remains one that is hidden for the most part, it gets support from those sympathetic to its goals. If it is shown that they are sympathetic to those who are our enemies why should they not receive such treatment and attitudes?
So, perhaps we can have a more constructive debate. I suppose we will end up going around in circles, but perhaps we can look for fresh perspectives. Randolfo: This is the type of thing I was referring to when I stated that Bush's statement was less than helpful. I am apparently either fully behind the US or in favour of OBL. Can I not support the aims of defeating terrorism, bringing OBL to justice and working towards peace in the region and also oppose the US methods? Do I have to buy the entire package? If the UK decided to nuke Dublin as part of its campaign against the IRA, would opposing such an action make me a terrorist sympathiser? I differ on method for the simple reason that I believe in the long-run US policy as it is is counter-productive. Is no criticism permitted? There are no doubt elements of truth here. The US is not a homogonised country - no country is. In broad terms I still argue that the US population is inward looking. These boards perhaps proving the exception to the rule. I have spent time in the US and know many Americans, of all shades of opinion. I have been struck by the lack of knowledge or interest in international issues which do not directly affect them. I make broad brush strokes, but am not distorting a general observation I feel. QED. Never said we were any better. Absolute agreement. Indeed. Perhaps some of the opportunities for this debate have been missed. President Khatemi of Iran has been calling for a 'conference of civilisations' to discuss the roots of the problems between many in the West and many in the Middle East for many years now. We don't want to talk. The Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis have been saying the Palestinian issue must be addressed if the region is to move forward. The US has taken note, but can we honestly say it has been an impartial mediator? There have been calls throughout the region to remove US troops. Why? Has it been discussed? You can't talk to OBL. Radicals and fanatics are difficult to reason with. What is important in the current context is starving radical groups of willing supporters. How desparate must some Palestinians be to strap a bomb to themselves and kill as many Israelis as they can? Many with no links or affiliations to terrorist groups or extreme religious beliefs. Why do Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians and others feel so desparate? Economic depravation? Innate fanaticism? Irrational hatred for the US? Jsutified, but exaggerated grievances against the West? I think essentially I am interested in knowing why Americans feel they were attacked. My sense is that the belief is one based on religious grounds and envy. The US is, in essence, a random, innocent victim to all this irrational hatred. My question to you - why did 9-11 happen? What is US policy in the region? Has it been right? Where do we go now? Wet1: I also hope we can at least keep this thread free of the 'why the US/UK is so much better - you owe us for WWII - we are the greatest - you are an idiot' rantings that tend to drag the debate down. I listen to your opinion. I don't agree though, as you would no doubt expect. My sense is that the US receives a very biased picture of the problem. Perhaps caught up in a strange collective guilt issue regarding Jews and WWII. Added to this is a very hard to justify campaign aimed at Israeli citizens. Who the target is is of huge significance to the West. If the Palestinians restricted their actions to peaceful protest and violence aimed at the Israeli occupation force (military) perhaps the PR would improve in the US. For me, and this applies to all terrorist actions, I try to disassociate the acts of some from the cause. Is the cause just, despite the actions? If we are to fight terrorism it must be ineffective, but it becomes difficult when those whose cause you support act in a manner difficult to defend. To abandon a just cause as retribution for the actions I believ is counter-productive, as the problem persists - and if the cause is just will always rally support. But is terrorism then seen to be 'effective'? Do we sacrifice a just cause? What is to be done to bring to a conclusion the cycles of killing? Not sure if that's clear. But perhaps we can have a debate.
Captain Canada, I have no problem with the idea that you do not agree with some if not all of my thoughts and statements. I am patriotic. That has nothing to do with WWI, WWII, or any other war or police action. It has to do with now. If everyone agreed then there would be no Sciforums. I happen to like this place. I understand that you feel the issues need to be addressed at the root where the causes for dissatisfaction lie. I have no difference in opinion there. I think my difference lies in that as long as these “actions” continue by terrorists that there can be no agreement till such actions cease. As long as people are dying on American soil that have no bearing to the issues at hand other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time there is no room for talk. There is only room for action. It is sad that it has come to this but it is here. We deal with it. You will notice that the Taliban and the shield they provided to OSB is nearly gone. OSB now has to hunt for a new hole from which to perform his dirty work. The shield he had is gone. This is the first time anyone has had any success in dealing with the situation. OSB is not interest in talking; he is interested in killing and causing mayhem. How do you reason with someone willing to die to make his point? You can not threaten them with something to cause them to stop long enough to think, talk, and maybe in the end reason. Your options are limited. Either react to minimize the danger or remain a target of opportunity. I have no wish to continue to be a target and as such I support the elimination of that threat.
WRONG!!! "Neutraility is a myth. Neutrality only helps the opressor, not the victim" -- Ellie Weisel accepting the Nobel Prise in Literature. If a country chooses to be completely neutral they are helping the terrorists. There is no reason that any nation should adopt a complete policy of neutrailty towards the problem of terrorism. What they are doing is a weak, pacifistic dance to the terrorists. Terrorism can be stopped by using a wide method of implements, such as the military, intelligence, economic, political, and religious communities. After the fighting is done we have to adress the problems, but not until the fighting is complete. We have no sesable alternative to terrorism than to fight it with the utmost resolve. Remember there is damn good proof that OBL possesses, at varying degrees, weapons of mass destruction. I will be damned if we start singing songs, and holding hands around a campfire, talking to all peoples, while an a-bomb goes off in Manhattan.
Curly1: I'm not saying that. I'm certainly not doing that! Just putting forward the idea that the way the US is going about fighting terrorism may, in the long run, prove to add fuel to the fire. That doesn't mean I say do nothing - or not use force. But in a situation where the US is looking to occupy the moral high ground it must be especially careful not to give its enemies cause to feel increasingly victimised. As each civilian death in the US builds resolve against terrorism, so it is true in the Middle East. I can support bringing terroists to justice without supporting, for example, a strike on Iraq. Why doeas being against terrorism necessitate the need to jump to the US tune on everything? Global problem, global response. Consultation? Cooperation? Wet1: Perhaps we are closer on the OBL issue - there is no argument I have seen to convince me he should not be pursued until caught and brought to justice. And truthfully the war in Afghanistan has gone far better than I ever expected (I think it has caught everyone by surprise). If, hopefully, OBL and other high-ranking al-Qaida members are found, that seems to me to be a success. I do feel that the deaths of innocent Afghans are terrible, but to be pragmatic, the situation is certianly no worse in Afghanistan as a result, if not necessarily any better. We can simply wait to see what happens to that tragically blighted land. Political fallout has also been minimal - the goodwill after WTC has gone a long way. But I am looking also at the bigger picture. The linking of all 'terrorists' (under an arbitrary US decision), and what this might mean for the future. I honestly don't believe terrorism can be defeated militarily. We haven't managed it in the UK and if anything Israel's policy of retaliation should underline the futility of fighting fire purley with fire (as Oslo held deaths reduced considerably as did terrorist incidents - a glimmer of peace was enough to reduce the waves of 'terrorist' recruits). What conerns me now is a different question. The one regarding the why of WTC? Not specifically in relation to al-Qaida, but the regional anti-American feeling (which can also be overstated). And will the US draw a line under al-Qaida and say yes, that required military action, but we must look at the entire picture now. Or does the success in Afghanistan mean that the US sees this as the solution? Al-Qaida is not in Syria, Iraq, Iran or Libya. Yet these are the apparent targets. Why? What actually has Iraq done to the US? I hear what you're saying about not dealing with terrorists. That has been the UK line for decades. John Major broke that golden rule in the early 1990s, spoke to the IRA and chose to ignore attacks. The result is as close as we've ever come to peace. The situation with the US is quite different. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Mujahideen e-Khalq - these groups do not target the US, yet they now face the US wrath? This looks rather one sided to many Arabs. The US is seen as far from fair. I offer this brief article for you to look at: (Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as a senior policy analyst and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project.) The United States has not been a fair mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For over two decades, the international consensus for peace in the Middle East has involved the withdrawal of Israeli forces to within internationally recognized boundaries in return for security guarantees from Israel's neighbors, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and some special status for a shared Jerusalem. Over the past 30 years, the Palestine Liberation Organization, under the leadership of Yasir Arafat, has evolved from frequent acts of terrorism and the open call for Israel's destruction to supporting the international consensus for a two-state solution. Most Arab states have made a similar evolution toward favoring just such a peace settlement. However, the U.S. has traditionally rejected the international consensus and currently takes a position more closely resembling that of Israel's right-wing government: supporting a Jerusalem under largely Israeli sovereignty, encouraging only partial withdrawal from the occupied territories, allowing for the confiscation of Palestinian land and the construction of Jewish-only settlements and rejecting an independent state Palestine outside of Israeli strictures. The interpretation of autonomy by Israel and the United States has thus far led to only limited Palestinian control of a bare one-fourth of the West Bank in a patchwork arrangement that more resembles American Indian reservations or the infamous Bantustans of apartheid-era South Africa than anything like statehood. The U.S. has repeatedly blamed the Palestinians for the violence of the past year, even though Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights group have noted that the bulk of the violence has come from Israeli occupation forces and settlers. Throughout the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the U.S. has insisted on the two parties working out a peace agreement among themselves, even though there has always been a gross asymmetry in power between the Palestinians and their Israeli occupiers. The U.S. has blamed the Palestinians for not compromising further, even though they already ceded 78 percent of historic Palestine to the Israelis in the Oslo Accords; the Palestinians now simply demand that the Israelis withdraw their troops and colonists only from lands seized in the 1967, which Israel is required to do under international law. The U.S.-backed peace proposal by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak at the 2000 talks at Camp David would have allowed Israel to annex large swaths of land in the West Bank, control of most of Arab East Jerusalem and its environs, maintain most of the illegal settlements in a pattern that would have divided the West Bank into non-contiguous cantons, and deny Palestinian refugees the right of return. With the U.S. playing the dual role of the chief mediator of the conflict as well as the chief diplomatic, financial and military backer of Israeli occupation forces, the U.S. goal seems to be more that of Pax Americana than that of a true peace.
An interesting statement from the professor, let me address several issues here. Many reports state that Yasir says one thing in English and an entirely different thing in Arabic. Since I don't know Arabic, I can not verify if that is true. What are his actions, what are the Israelis? Is it all talk? I'm unsure at this point. Unfortunately the International consensus is too fickle, the same consensus said that it was ok for a Jewish state to be dropped right smack-dab in the middle of millions of Arabs, who had been there since 636 AD, and never you mind what they thought about it. That puts the Israelis in a no-win situation, those borders are not defensible, unless Israel reminds a fortified, military state. We're not talking about Canada or the UK here, more like Scotland & England ( how long did they fight each other & what are their feelings now?). Maybe in a thousand years they'll be a united republic, but not for now.
I agree with Captain Canada. We should show some humility. In any human, humility can only express itself if there is no stress on the body. As long as we have those stressors (terrorists), we can not think straight. Let us get rid of them, then we talk humility, peace, love and all the higher functions of the brain. What a country or culture does, depends on the level of stress their people are on. Even the richest person in US - Bill Gates is under stress (for different reasons, could be Lindows).
The first war of the 21st century Let's take a look at this war in a socialist point of view... go to: http://www.socialist.net/95/21stwar.html Article by Alan Woods & Ted Grant
Captain C How desperate must some Palestinians be to strap a bomb to themselves and kill as many Israelis as they can? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You keep writing this & I think its bunk.Is this why the latest plane bomb attempt by a man who has nothing to do with Palestine,took explosive's from Hamas in Palestine & tried to kill himself & all on the plane. NO its because they are thick & believe the old Mullahs,that they will get big rewards in heaven. As I said elsewhere on this forum,if the USA & the west stopped buying their oil.What would they have JUST SAND. Also I keep seeing reference to Sadam.That the sanction's are affecting his people. when we all know that they allowed him to sell more oil to support the people out there but he spends it on weapons instead.
A Few More Thoughts Randolfo: True, it is fickle. The argument that due to this ficklenes nothing should be done (inferred, perhaps incorrectly, by me) could be applied to inaction everywhere. Not sure how fickle the opinion really is. There was no consensus (or even limited support) for a Jewish state in Palestine prior to WWII, and has been much consensus since that a Palestinian state must also exist (I can't help thinking that if Gen Marshall got his way in 1947 we wouldn't be having this debate - nor come to that if the British had offered the Arabs artillery in 1916 - or at least been less duplicitous over their intentions) I hear what you're saying but the issue is based on security guarantees in exchange. Israel also managed to defend those borders (just) in previous wars and is the only nuclear power in the region. Egypt is not going to attack and Israel's military edge is, if anything, greater now than ever before. Besides which, what is Israel now if not a fortified, military state? Israeli peace activists see the logic of a truly just settlement rather than a 'compromise' to deny the Palestinians a legitimate state. Peace requires a degree of fairness and sometimes a leap of faith. Odin: I simply don't follow this US account of why there is conflict between terrorists in the Middle East and the US. I do genuinely believe it to be a political conflict. Related to Israel, US policy in the region and, particularly, economic conditions. Whether that blame is justly laid entirely at the feet of the US is highly doubtful, but there are causes here that really ought to be addressed. By denying the issues at the root of the problem you can't destroy terrorism. You can clip a few branches, but the tree will grow more to replace them. I believe the US simply has to understand that it has played a part in creating this animosity. And if it wishes this animosity to end, it has to look at its rhetoric, policy and actions to see where changes can be made acceptible to US interests and those of others. The US is not Rome, and must act as part of a community of states if it is to restore its name as a country synonomuos with freedom, justice and anti-Imperialism.
The US Could "Step Up" As a few of you are aware I am, what many colorfully refer to as, a Peacenik. I am under no illusions that current conflicts around the globe can be solved by "singing songs, and holding hands around a campfire." Wars do not begin when the shells start to fall. At that point it is 10 to 20 years too late. What I DO believe, however, is that the US continues policies of reaction rather than action. Because it appears to have worked for us in the past, we continue to react. We continue to wrap our faulty policies in big fat lies. "The terrorists are evil because they intentionally target civilians. We only kill civilians as 'collateral damage.'" Really? Then why did we destroy entire cities in World War II? Why did we bomb dikes in North Vietnam that held back the flood waters? Why did we train and equip terrorist armies to attack civilians in Vietnam, Laos, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and a host of other countries? Let there be no mistake, the United States is willing to kill civilians when that seems like the best way to achieve our goals. We swagger around, threaten and cajole because we have the biggest club right now. If you believe the polls (and I find them somewhat suspect -- save that for another thread) the president has 90% of the country behind him. Terrific! He could ask greatness from a potentially great people. No, he wants us to go shopping. This is the the time we can initiate change. The momentum of war is huge, but so can be the will of our nation. Begin to reduce military spending and increase spending on social construction around the world. Disaffected and disenfranchised people are the ones that are most susceptible to the "preaching" of terrorist groups. Begin to reduce military spending and spend more on alternative energy sources so that our policies do not have to be so closely tied to our dependence on foreign oil. Lift those that have fallen so far behind. We are the greatest nation on earth? Then let us be bold and take the first step. _______________ No man stands so tall as when he stoops to help one who as fallen, no matter how low. Gishin Funagoshi 1868-1955
Captain Canada I simply don't follow this US account of why there is conflict between terrorists in the Middle East and the US. I do genuinely believe it to be a political conflict. Related to Israel, US policy in the region and, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am not arguing about the point above,but this one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How desperate must some Palestinians be to strap a bomb to themselves and kill as many Israelis as they can? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I still think it's bunk.Muslims all over the World seem to be looking for the chance to top themselves. There are too many instances to mention. Why? Because their old Mullahs tell them they will be rewarded in Heaven. They must be thick to believe that!
Goofyfish: The US remained commited throughout WWII not to intentionally bomb civilian targets if they could be avoided. Without the convience of smart bombs it was practically impossible to hit a target without leveling a city. Plus in a world war of such scope the bombing of cities was done not to tourture civilians but to convince the enemy governments that they were simply going to buckle and surrendure. Excuse me butthe US Army was a hell of a lot more conciderate to the citizens of Germany and Japan than they were to us, or the Soviets to the axis. Dykes hold back water. Water is an extreamly viable resource to the enemy. If we really wanted to kill mass numbers of civilians we would have bombed Hanoi into rubble. Have civilians been intentionally targeted by the US? Yes in a few cases, by certain officials. It has never been crucial military doctorine to kill civilians. Osama bin Laden on the other hand has expilicity said that civilians (who were trying to just make a living to support themselves and their families) was justified because we pay the taxes that finance the American war machine. The possession of weapons doesn't bread war, it's the idiots who possess weapons that initate conflict. I've never heard of aircraft, ships and guns getting up by themselves to suddenly decide to kill people. Humans have made and control weapons, they are the ones responsable for killing. Our policies, while maybe unfair, didn't cause this event. If anyone is willing to say that US policy did than you must say the same of OBL.
thecurly1 ... Re. "The US remained commited throughout WWII not to intentionally bomb civilian targets if they could be avoided." Dresden! Tokyo! Bats with incindiary devices attached! Interesting commitment.
Eisenhower understood why cities were the crucial targets in war. When his troops invaded Germany in World War II, they faced relatively little resistance because the German economy was already in shambles. Bomb the people, and they loose the will to wage war. Carl von Clausewitz, widely acknowledged as the most important of the major strategic theorists and whose theories are taught at US military academies stated, "the purpose of modern warfare is to break the enemy's will to fight. If attacking their soldiers won't do it, attack their civilians -- by any means necessary." I'm not exactly sure of the comparison as I cannot recollect the German or Japanese army being on US soil. The United States Army Air Force perfected firestorms over Germany. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were actually sucked into the fire. Considerate to the citizens? Japan - August 6, 1945; one bomb. 45,000 died the first day. The total number of people who have died is estimated to be 140,000. Japan - August 9, 1945; one bomb. 22,000 died the first day. The total number of people who have died is estimated to be 70,000. Actually, from December 18 through December 29, 1973, during operation Linebacker II, American B-52s flew 3000 sorties and dropped 40,000 tons of bombs in just 11 days. In both Hanoi and Haiphong, many nonmilitary targets, including the French embassy, hospitals and large residential areas, were hit. There is also quite a bit of interesting reading regarding the overall conduct of the United States in relation to civilians in the reports on the sessions of the International War Crimes Tribunal, founded by Bertrand Russell, held in Stockholm in 1967. Exactly. Mankind has demonstrated over and over that we are not morally capable of dealing with the existence of the weapons we create. By no means do I intend to give the impression that I feel Osama bin Laden doctrines or actions are valid or justified. Nor was my post intended to focus specifically on his actions. I apologize if responding within this forum narrows viewpoints too much for this particular discussion. Peace.
Unfortunately, that is so true for almost every human endeavor. Even penicillin & pesticides have helped create 'superbugs', that are resistant to these 'miracles' of modern science. And Oppenheimer said, after the first A-bomb was exploded, "we have become Death", quoting the Hindu Scriptures. I wish that scientists didn't start or do something before they knew the ramifications of their actions or experiments. But once Einstein did E=mc2, it was too late!!! Understood. I hope you're kidding? The Internet is supposed to be a forum or marketplace of ideas, debate, learning, etc... Narrow viewpoints, or open-minded ones, are up to that individual to believe or defend, who are we to tell someone what they must believe? Hmmm????????
Okay I had oversite on the Hanoi thing. In my haste I forgot that we did bomb Hanoi, but we never leveled it to the extent that we could have. The atmoic bombs saved lives in a strange way. An invasion of the Japaneese homeland would have cost well over a half million fatalities by the Americans, not to mention whatever allies would have invaded (British and Soviet). The Japaneese would have fought to the death probably killing two or three times as many. We must also remember that each side, US and Japaneese had massive stockpiles of poision gas and biological weapons. If these had been used (they were considered by some in the US military prior to Aug. '45) we would have faced more casulties than we had during the prior three and a half years of warefare. Sadly the Nazis and Imperalistic Japaneese were too bullheaded to give up when they had lost the war. To force their defeate extrem measures had to be taken, such as the fire bombings of Dresden, Tokyo and many other cities. If you gave the choice of precision bombing of military targets or carpet bombing civilians, the generals would have picked the first hands down. All I am saying is that the US is acting in its own intrests, and those of the free peoples. I avoided saying that we are doing a good thing, because I feel that war is never "good". It is sad when the whole human race has evil intentions, and when those intentions strive to come to fruition through violence. I think we can all agree on that.
