Saddam's lawyer

[Fleet 500]

So by this -
What "bad" decisions? You fight the enemy in a war, period. And you fight to win.
you mean –

What "bad" decisions? The U.S. fights the enemy in a war, period. And the U.S. fights to win.

The comparison is made over the philosophy of fighting to win and the inference you make that there can be no wrong way of fighting or no act that is immoral. Your blind patriotism precludes you from arguing objectively..

No, it was the Allies fighting WWII, not just the U.S. The U.K. also participated in the firebombing of Dresden which I supported. I guess that make me a "blind U.K. patriot?" Do you realize your irrationality by using that phrase?

How does a population influence their government as to whether they go to war or no?.

In the case of Japan, by revolt or by removing officials who favored starting a war.

How do they know that the people they attack may resort to using weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations?
Answer both bits please

Again (and I was originally referring to Japan), they didn't, but it would be worth it rather than being in the middle of a world war.

And how fair would it be to them if Alqaeda punished a heap of innocent Americans for the actions of its government?

How does that relate to what I posted???

Which ones?

You really want me to go to each town, look up their historic record (if possible) and find the names of everyone who approved use of the A-bomb? You are really getting ridiculous. But, for a start, the mothers of U.S. soldiers stationed in the Pacific certainly approved of it because it meant that their sons would be coming home (those who made it out of the war alive, that is).

What was immoral is the U.S. president decided against military advice to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population twice. I would criticise any side, the good guys or the bad guys ( )for such an act. Just that the bad guys didn’t do it.

As I said, we can go on and on about this. A president makes the final decision; many people (including myself) believe it was the right decision. Calling it immoral is your opinion because the military advice could have been wrong and/or inaccurate.

The facts you refuse to furnish.

I did furnish facts, such as the actual names of the Japanese officials who voted against surrendering.

[Fleet 500]

Because they believed that a President woudl never lie to the house !!
MANY have come out since indicating they were "duped"

But he didn't lie. They were looking at the same information as the President was. They made the same claims, too. But, when problems started, they back away and said the President "lied" to them! G.W. Bush was told by George Tenet that WMD in Iraq was a "slum dunk" to quote him exactly.

The example fitted ... list the countries that have been attacked to "spread democracy"??

No, a bad example because it wasn't just Republicans supporting the war. Also, Clinton (a Democrat) send troops into Kosovo and Bosnia, countries which were not a threat to the U.S.

[Fleet 500]

How may extra troops is GWB wanting to send in ?

Last I heard, about 20,000. What's that go to do with anything? You can't win a war without sending troops in!

[Matra et Alpine]

You're a scream

But he didn't lie. They were looking at the same information as the President was.

Old ground, been over already, evidence given and there's even MORE now.
But you're blind if you don't open your eyes

No, a bad example because it wasn't just Republicans supporting the war. Also, Clinton (a Democrat) send troops into Kosovo and Bosnia, countries which were not a threat to the U.S.

we've already covered the "it wasn't just republicans" BS.
Clinton sent troops in to support a UN action at their request.
Your cronie sent them in withotu waiting for the UN as they requested.
You refuse to see the truth.
It's good for a laugh again

[Mr.Tiv]

Last I heard, about 20,000. What's that go to do with anything? You can't win a war without sending troops in!

Do you support every idiotic action America is responsible for?

[Matra et Alpine]

Last I heard, about 20,000. What's that go to do with anything? You can't win a war without sending troops in!

Please put in the effort to folow lines of thought in discussions rather than repeating the training material

[Matra et Alpine]

Do you support every idiotic action America is responsible for?

No only the ones by GWB seemingly oh and a few other war-mongering expansionists

[Mr.Tiv]

No only the ones by GWB seemingly oh and a few other war-mongering expansionists

I hope people don't generalize Americans based on people like Fleet500.

[crisis]

No, it was the Allies fighting WWII, not just the U.S. The U.K. also participated in the firebombing of Dresden which I supported. I guess that make me a "blind U.K. patriot?" Do you realize your irrationality by using that phrase?

Well it’s not the Allies who maintain the dropping of two atomic bombs on innocent civilians was necessary, moral or justified. As far as I can see so far it is really only you. And there are plenty of Allies who do not share your enthusiasm for the firebombing of Dresden etc although that has nothing to do with the context of this argument. That being your views are based on blind patriotism.

In the case of Japan, by revolt or by removing officials who favored starting a war.

Yes it would have all been so simple.
I would suggest given the secrecy surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbour and the beginning of hostilities with the U.S. and in turn the allied forces there would not have been enough of the general population aware of the imminent war to start a football team let alone a revolt.

Again (and I was originally referring to Japan), they didn't, but it would be worth it rather than being in the middle of a world war.

Worth it, yes. Possible or even remotely feasible given the actual events? Get real. Issues of this nature can not be dealt with such kindergarten logic.

How does that relate to what I posted???

You claimed in some odd response to my contention that emotion was not a logical justification for making decisions that -
“the Japanese did start it in the first place”.

To which I responded -

“I am sure the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima did not get to vote on that. Just like half of the people in the U.S. did not approve the invasion of Iraq. They should not be held responsible for that either.”

Your reply to this was-

“Too bad the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima couldn't control their own government. At the time of the Iraqi invasion, well over one-half of Americans approved.”

My response –

“That leaves a few million at least against (the U.S. invasion of Iraq). How fair would it be to them if Alqaeda punished a heap of innocent Americans for the actions of its government?”

The point is to draw a parallel between the punishment of the innocent civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima for the actions of their leaders and the punishment of American citizens should Alqaeda launch attacks on the U.S. population.


Do you think it would be fair if Alqaeda punished a heap of innocent Americans for the actions of its government?

You really want me to go to each town, look up their historic record (if possible) and find the names of everyone who approved use of the A-bomb? You are really getting ridiculous. But, for a start, the mothers of U.S. soldiers stationed in the Pacific certainly approved of it because it meant that their sons would be coming home (those who made it out of the war alive, that is).

No. If these are the people you claim make up the millions that supported it and for the reasons you gave then I am satisfied. Satisfied that you have no actual documented cases (although I agree the mothers would have been happy to have their sons home) of anyone in an official capacity who advised your president that it was a justifiable and neccesary course of action with no better alternative. These imagined people would have all been happy to varying extents that the war was over and fed the same crap you were that it was the only way to finish it without losing thousands more lives when we know now and your military leaders knew then that this was incorrect.

As I said, we can go on and on about this. A president makes the final decision; many people (including myself) believe it was the right decision.

Yes you do. Believe it without question because that version of history is palatable for those who are blindly patriotic.

Calling it immoral is your opinion because the military advice could have been wrong and/or inaccurate.

Calling it immoral is based on the fact that your president chose to unnecessarily slaughter thousands of innocent civilians for no legitimate, supported reason you have yet presented. If all of the military leaders were so wrong then the bombs were there and they could have been used on the defenceless population when diplomacy had been exhausted. There was no pressing urgency.

I did furnish facts, such as the actual names of the Japanese officials who voted against surrendering.

Those were irrelevant to the question of which AMERICAN officials considered it necessary to use nuclear bombs on innocent civilians. That was my question. And you have furnished not one example.

[Coventrysucks]

You can't win a war without sending troops in!

I thought your premise was that dropping A-bombs was a more than acceptable solution to "winning a war"?

No, it was the Allies fighting WWII, not just the U.S. The U.K. also participated in the firebombing of Dresden which I supported. I guess that make me a "blind U.K. patriot?" Do you realize your irrationality by using that phrase?

Yes, the saturation bombing of Germany; which many think of as war crimes.

These "means-to-an-end" morals just don't stand up.

Does the Japanese civilian being bombed in Tokyo say:

"Well, I find the enemy's strategy acceptable and justified, because this is "war" and the enemy is merely using the tactic as a means-to-an-end; specifically a rapid end to hostilities, with as few casualties to their armed forces as possible."

Whilst at the same time his counterpart in Washington says:

"Well, I find our strategy acceptable and justified, because this is "war" and we are merely using the tactic as a means-to-an-end; specifically a rapid end to hostilities, with as few casualties to our armed forces as possible."

Does the American civilian say the same as his Japanese counterpart when it is the Japanese bombs falling on his city?

If you agree that saturation bombing of Germany and Japan was "right" then you must also agree that Germany and Japan's own campaigns were "right", as all the campaigns were executed for the same reasons, and in the same manner.

If it is unacceptable for the Germans to Blitz Britain, it should be equally unacceptable for the Brits to have Blitzed Germany for the same reasons.

"He started it" isn't justification.

"He started it" should be confined to the school-playground, not the theatre of international politics.

[Fleet 500]

I hope people don't generalize Americans based on people like Fleet500.

Maybe they should, because many, many Americans agree with what I've posted here.

[Fleet 500]

Do you support every idiotic action America is responsible for?

No, do you?
I didn't support Clinton not accepting to take Bin Laden into custody when offered.
I didn't support Clinton's tax hike (the biggest in U.S. history).
I didn't support Clinton when he gave nuclear material to N. Korea.
I didn't support Clinton when he cut the FBI and CIA intelligence and changed the laws on how intelligence could be obtained.
I didn't suppport G.W. Bush's not doing anything about the border, giving tax money to people who didn't earn it and his overspending.
I didn't support G. Bush the elder's tax hikes.
I didn't support Ronald Reagan's amnesty for illegal aliens.
I won't even get into what I didn't support regarding Jimmy Carter- it would take about 10 pages.
I, of course, didn't support the Nixon Watergate scandal (even though other presidents before him did the same thing- they just weren't caught).
I didn't support Lyndon B. Johnson's sneaking U.S. troops to Vietnam during the night.
Etc, etc, etc.

I guess Crisis will be disappointed now that he realizes that I am not a "blind patriot."

[henk4]

I didn't support Lyndon B. Johnson's sneaking U.S. troops to Vietnam during the night.

already in the opposition when you were 4 years old....

[CdocZ]

Maybe they should, because many, many Americans agree with what I've posted here.

Oh dear. So now you are dragging all American's into the group with your political beliefs simply because they make up the majority? Sorry, I guess I am "not American" then. Please, for the sake of thousands of Americans, do not ask for all Americans to be generalized. For the love of society.......

EDIT: Also, "many" Americans is a relative thing. You can say 30million people support these beliefs. That is still only 10% of the American population, even if it is a whole lot of people. This is a country where more adults watch the superbowl than the number of adults who vote.

[Fleet 500]

Oh dear. So now you are dragging all American's into the group with your political beliefs simply because they make up the majority? Sorry, I guess I am "not American" then. Please, for the sake of thousands of Americans, do not ask for all Americans to be generalized. For the love of society........

No, not "all." But "many" as I already said.

EDIT: Also, "many" Americans is a relative thing. You can say 30million people support these beliefs. That is still only 10% of the American population, even if it is a whole lot of people. This is a country where more adults watch the superbowl than the number of adults who vote.

10% of 300 million Americans (30 million) is a lot of people and disproves the claim that people shouldn't generalize Americans by my beliefs because many do share them.