Americans are cowards

EXACTLY!

An "act of war" is is a deliberate attack on military facilities and/or military officials.

Just because the attacks on Hiroshima/Nagasaki ended the awar does not mean they were acts of war. They were deliberate attacks on civilian targets. That is terrorism and, under current international law, illegal. We scared them into submitting.

Let me learn from you. How has the US built itself on terror.

Ace

It was built on murder, thievery, and slavery.

So it\'s fair to say that you are ashamed to be an American.

Ace

I don\'t understand why everyone always has to bring up the U.S. was built on all these blah blah blah... It really doesn\'t matter now at all.

Originally posted by Ace
So it\'s fair to say that you are ashamed to be an American.

Ace

At some times, yes. Most others, Im quite proud.

It was built on murder, thievery, and slavery.

show me a country that wasnt
and slavery?  do you know who started and maintained the slave trade?

They were deliberate attacks on civilian targets. We scared them into submitting.

do you find this shit on google and copy and paste it here?

btw,  when i said i copied and pasted what Eisenhower said I didnt actually find it on the Internet and copy and paste it I had read it some years ago..

Originally posted by mm


show me a country that wasnt
and slavery?  do you know who started and maintained the slave trade?


 

I never said it was or wasnt. I was replying to the *built on terrorism* comments.

And yea..the pale faces were the ring leaders with the darkies of africa assisting heavily.

assisting?

the "darkies" couldnt fill the boats with thier own children fast enough

I said assisting heavily..not just assisting. There is a difference.

Thats also not always how it was anyway.

What point are you trying to make?

[SirMystiq]

Who died during 9/11?
Innocent people, that were around at the wrong time.

Who died during the legal mass murder in japan?
Innocent people, that just happened to live there.

They\'re both acts of terror. They both scared the shit out of people. They both were done to show somebody else what they\'re capable off.

Whoa. The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is amazing. I don\'t feel like responding to every reply here since, I\'d be here all day.

First, let me just say that America wasn\'t perfect. I know America did a lot of wrong things (forcing Indians off their land, slavery, etc.). However, that was a long time ago. And CERTAINLY, nothing to do with what is happening now, or the people living today.

Not to mention, slavery was a worldwide practiced (America didn\'t "invade" a nation and enslaved the people, Americans [as well as the British, France, and other nations] bought their slaves from African), and in fact, is still going on today in certain parts of Africa. This isn\'t solely an "American" phenomina.

And again, NONE of this deals with the current people no matter what Al Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson says.

First, the definition of terrorism according to Merriam-Webster Online...
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist  /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic  /"ter-&r-\'is-tik/ adjective
Now, you can argue
I can see where you may have gotten this idea that bombing Japan was "terrorism". But if you are going to go that far, then wouldn\'t Pearl Harbor be terrorism as well (they tried to make sure that America won\'t get into war by bombing the US. The end result was the opposite. But wasn\'t that the point of Pearl Harbor)? Since you say that this isn\'t terrorism, then what makes what we did in Japan terrorism?

Also, we WERE in a state of war with Japan. Japan refused to surrender even AFTER the first bomb was dropped. It wasn\'t until the second bomb did Japan realize that it wasn\'t a one time thing and the threat of total annilation was real.

Also, there is an arguement number of people who died by bombing of conventional weapons, which the US would\'ve used if it didn\'t use nuclear weapons, would\'ve been WORSE for the Japanese then the two nukes used in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 100,000 people alone died in the Tokyo raid. If we had ground troops as well as firebombing, not only will it have put US troops at risk, but so are many more Japanese who, due to their pride and stubborn behavior, were unwilling to surrounder even though for all intent and purpose, the war was over. Now, whether or not the bombs were the best best is unknown since we don\'t know what would\'ve happen afterwards.

Its nice that we now can debate it now. But try to put yourself in President Truman shoes and see how easy that question is.

Also, we didn\'t stay in Japan did we? We left after we help rebuild the nation. Now, Japan is one of the greatest nations in the world. One less point for Imperialism.

Oh, and attacking civilians, you tell this to the French, the Germans, the British, the Russians, and any other nation involved during WWII about attacking civilians, and you will get your ass kicked. I don\'t see the Nazis caring about civilian targets. Heck, even the Japanese didn\'t care about civilian targets during WWII. People seem to forget, war is hell. People die. Yes, civilian deaths is horrible. But for evil dictators, they don\'t care.

And this is talking about a 50 year war. In fact, many of your precious laws came after WWII when it comes to warfare, in the attempt to fight a "civilized" war if there is such a thing. Since then, especially after that failure Vietnam, America has tried to limit civilian causilties in any war that we get involved. IF we go into Iraq, you actually think the US will carpet bomb villiages? :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, there are stories of Iraqis torturing POWs. Funny. Where was the outrage over their suffering (especially since, isn\'t Iraq violating the Geneva Convention here)? And Iraq using chemical weapons against its own people, isn\'t that illegal too? How come the World Court hasn\'t charged Saddam with crimes against humanity?

Originally posted by The Hurricane
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen because the Japanese wouldn\'t surrender... after that they did, they were big cities and they got the point across.

True, however that was not the only motivation. Yes Japan was still trying to hold out and deal as much pain as they could when the US invaded.(they also had secret weapons to use, like jet aircraft) Estimates of perhaps a million American casuaties was forecasted. The island was made into one large booby trap with millions of home guard ready to die and take Americans with them. They would have made Vietnam look like a picnic.

Secondly and little broadcasted was the main threat of the Soviet Union invading and taking control of the islands themselves still hurting over the loss of territory during thier earlier war with Japan. The Soviets could have thrown millions into harms way and not regret it at all(Stalin was a butcher). The US would have none of this.

The bombs were more than a tool to get Japan to surrender. They were also used to show the world in paticular Stalin our capabilties and to save American lives. Send a message. The B29 raids did more damage to Japanese cities than both bombs could have ever done.. We basicly bombed them into the stone age and set the largest fire storm ever.

We did not have to use the bombs because Japan had ceased to exist as a real threat. Thier ability to make war was no longer a factor. We could have sent Superfortresses over every day for years and not lost any troops but the Soviets were not going to wait that long. Like Hitler many Japanese would rather see Japan destroyed than givin up. Many did not.

It was either the bombs or massive American casuaties or a communist Japan. Stalin would have been in control of Japan and what would that have done to world peace?