Between 9/11 and Hiroshima

Well, recently we celebrated the collapse of the WTC towers occurrence, precisely on the 11th of september. Are there any anomalies or uncomfortable feeling in your heart? why I call it with the word "celebrate"?



9/11, Americans call it a crime against humanity. Calling al-Qaeda terrorists. Then "hunt down Bin Laden in" Afghanistan (read 'hunting Bin Laden in' = tear apart) immediately. Thousands of troops sent to Afghanistan equipped with arms, war vehicles, and other needs.

But why Afghanistan? If it turns out Bin Laden was in Pakistan (Abottabad)?

Did not the White House is a moron, sent troops to Afghanistan without finding out first, where actually Bin Laden is. We all know what kind of America. If the CIA can know the secrets of other countries, which are in fact the information is kept confidential by the state? Why Bin Laden just have to wait for 10 years (Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011)?



And for 10 years it would have been costly. They sent are not robots, but human. They need food, they need water, the salaries of the soldiers, and others. And, is it possible these soldiers do not need a vehicle to carry out their duties?

Have you ever imagined, how much the cost of war?

Or maybe there was a purpose of the American government towards Afghanistan? after you see this one. But I will not discuss it here. But, well, if you want to find out.

And they call 9/11 were a crime against humanity? LOL

But how about Hiroshima?

Okay, let's see these quotes from Wikipedia

9/11

Hiroshima

Surprised?

AND YOU DIDNT CALL IT CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY ?
And......

That number isnt with Nagasaki

If it's about HUMANITY, then remember the day BETTER than you remember 9/11

 

War and warlike acts will inevitably lead to destruction and death.

9/11 and Hiroshima... the loss of human life should always be regrettable. But I don't necessarily agree that the lessons to learn or the comparisons suggested by yourself are the only ones to be regarded.

 

If there was no Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima. It's a wash as far as I am concerned.

 

okay, Japan attacked a military base, America attacked civillian, fair enough.

 

Pearl Harbor was a military attack on a military base, that killed soldiers.......Hiroshima was an attack on civilian cities with no other purpose than to kill civilians.......They wanted to scare, or "terrorize" the Japanese people into doing what they wanted. That is the definition of terrorism. So the use of the Atom bombs was an act of terrorism.

 

Yes- it is equal to me. Go ask a WW II veteran.

 

Both events proved one thing.

If you mess with America, we will kill millions of your people.

Cry and whine about what Americans do to their enemies and people, but get real.

There's not (*)(*)(*)(*) you can do about it.

Powers that be....

 

If you ever studied WWII history you would know that there were two and only two viable options to end the war with Japan.
1. Invade Japan which would have caused massive loss of lives on both sides. It was estimated that there would be 1.2 million American casualties, with over 267,000 Americans killed
2. The use of 2 atomic weapons which directly caused the immediate death of approximately 245,000 people.

Therefor the US took option 2. Now the figures for option 1 may or may not have been correct; but with the information given to President Truman what other option was open to him that would cost the least number of lives. You must also remember that Japan basically started the war.

 

True!

Especially since the Japanese would not accept unconditional surrender.

BUT!

Look what happened to Japan after WW2? Superpower. Greater than it was pre-Imperialism

 

well then america should have gone after the REAL terrorists of 9/11 then and that was the mossad.Israelis were arrested for dancing on the streets in celebration after 9/11 and were released and let go.

 

OH geezz.

They will, soon, I'm sure. From Iran.

 

since this was posted before i got to post it.Here is the proof of the dancing Israelis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_vwzjdTi4

they of course wont keep them in jail like they should have or go after the mossad since the CIA and the mossad sleep in bed together.they are the REAL terrorists.

 

The OP's English is a bit off....

 

Bush and his administration should be behind bars for illegally invading Iraq like they did.Iraq had nothing to do with it and yet we invaded them.That was the same thing as if the united states had invaded Mexico for what the japenese did at pearl harbour.

 

Aha, but where is America if we talk about Iran ? Afghan and Iraq, America immediately sent their troops. But about this one (Iran)? Only sanction, sanction, and sanctions that just tickled iran and make them too for more advanced innovation :3

 

grossly evil.

 

That's complete BS. There were many other options.

Japan was actually willing to surrender if they could keep their Emporer. America refused.

America could have blockaded Japan and starved them out.

America could have bombed them conventionally into submission.

While I don't disagree with using atomic weapons it is not true to say we only had those two options.

If you ever studied WWII history you would know that.

 

The reason we went to Afghanistan is because that is where Al-qaeda was reported to be and sponsored by the Taliban. It was also our best guess of where Bin Laden was. We do not have very much intelligence about that region other than what we can gather from satellites, basically no people on the ground feeding us information.

Its why Iraq turned out to be very incorrect. There are a couple really good books that explain how our intelligence assets work and why we have trouble getting operations set up in the middle east so I'll post em when I can remember their titles.

 

I am a student of the Pacific War. Lets examine each of your other options. You must also consider you are using the age old tacit of "hindsight". You must remember that many factors came into the decisions.

The majority of the information provided here is from the "Air Force Association"

In your opinion.

Not necessarily. Yes the Emperor was willing to surrender, but the military was not. General Anami (War Minister) and others (including the Emperor) hoped that Russia would intercede in a surrender that would allow the Japanese to keep their military leaders. However, Germany surrendered unconditional. The United States was not inclined to make deals with the Japanese regime responsible for Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death march, the forced labor camps, habitual mistreatment of prisoners of war, and a fifteen-year chain of atrocities stretching from Manchuria to the East Indies.

Note: I am combining your two options into one because they were never consider as separate actions.
After the war it was concluded that the continued firebombing and blockade would have probably caused Japan to surrender unconditional by Nov of 1945 or by the end of 1945. However, how many civilians would have been killed. In one raid approximately 100,000 people were killed, and this was just one raid. Note: General Purpose bombs were considered to be ineffective, thus the incendiary bombs. Also the AAF was unable to convince General Marshall that this plan would work.

.
The reason I said only two, is that the United States would never have settled for the conditional surrender of Japan. Do you realize how much ire had been generated against the Japanese. Look what happened to Japanese Americans at the start of the war. The American Public would have had President Truman's and the Congress head for allowing any other than an unconditional surrender of Japan.

As I said I am a student of the Pacific War. What is being put forth today is by academics that have excellent hindsight and zero understanding of the American public's hate of Japan. Yes there was options, but President Truman had to make a decision from the information that was available to him at the time and what he thought the American people would accept.

 

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. They contained factories producing military goods. They contained military bases and military HQs. They were by all definitions legit targets.

 

Other options weren't considered because using atomic weapons had nothing to do with ending the war. They were dropped to show Russia that we had them. The fact remains however that there were other options which could have been used.

 

9/11 seemed to be an over reaction, Hiroshima was a strategic military attack by a nation state.

What could be learned from both, is not to jump the gun on these things, the JFK created the Navy Seals to go after perpetrators to events like 9/11, there was no need for all out war.

Unless we are desperately in need for oil, then both wars are justified, because we need bases in the mid east in case we have to steal oil for our own survival as a nation. That's just the way it is, don't be a pacifist.

 

America has learned to take war too lightly and it will be the end of us.

Romney openly voices we need to be at war with Iran now just like Bush openly talked about needing to be at more war but Americans hate politics and only read titles.

I"m scared for America.

Keep Romney out. Keep Obama from being aggressive and keep an open mind people.

 

I will say, we didn't "immediately" react to 9-11. Bush did nothing.

It was only after Bush found out there were no WMD's and he was a fool for listening to a birdie he said, "We will move to afghanistan because of the terrorist attacks" which happened 2 years ago.

 

Dang it. One more thing. Bush cut anti-terrorism funding right before 9-11