Yes, there is such a thing as 'a just war' - and we have had long threads here listing the conditions that have to be met to make it just - but I am not sure that the USA war against Japan in 1945 meets the requirements since the USA did so much to provoke it by squeezing Japan economically before the Pearl Harbor incident (and ignoring the subsequent warnings that Japan gave the US.)
USA brought 9/11 upon themselfs, I don't care about siding with anyone, I just stay as neutral observer.
They screwed Al Queda plenty times over, in the Afghan war back in the 80'ies, promising military support and never deliver.
If you note all them stinger missiles various terror oganisations uses, it's deliverd from CIA ..that means given freely, not stolen!
I don't think either one was necessary. Japan was asking for terms of surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped on them.
It was evidently thought by the U.S. government that better terms could be easily had by killing a bunch of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Of course, whether the bombing was necessary is something we'll never know. Opinion is mixed on that matter. We had an unconditional surrender policy. and it was this policy that proved the stumbling block.
I've enjoyed this debate tremendously so far, but here's a suggestion to steer conversation in another direction:
If it is agreed that America has engaged in activities in the past that can be deemed acts of terrorism, is it unethical for America to be fighting a war on terror when we ourselves have been terrorist?
Also, I do not think the personal justification behind the act should impact the discussion. As many people have stated before, personal justification is one sided. What may seem necessary to an American is most likely a great evil to whomever the act was enacted upon. I'm pretty sure the Japanese do not look at the bombing of their country with happiness and thank America for destroying their non-combat kin in an attempt to save the lives of Americans.
xris wrote:I dont think it was a terrorist act, it was an act of war. Why should I feel sorrow for a nation that committed thousands of war crimes. I feel sorrow for the individuals suffering but its the nation of Japan that should be held responsible.
Amazingly, this is a major portion of the logic behind Al Qaeda and 9/11.
They look at the United States uninvited involvement in the middle east and do not look at their act of terrorism as a terrorist attack but most likely an act of war as well.
Based on your logic, why should they feel sorry for us when we ourselves have created acts of terrorism in the past?
We are no better than they are yet everyday we try and prove we are far more righteous.
Terrorism is an empty term that has no meaning. There are only acts of aggression. The label terrorism is only applied by those acted upon. I have never heard of anyone that has been a part of an act of aggression (what is referred to as terrorism) that did so for no reason. No matter how skewed all so-called terrorists are justified in their own minds and for the most part they all have legitimate reasons for their beliefs, if not for their actions.
There has never been an unprovoked act of terrorism in known history.
Both 9/11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were justified attacks. One was done by us the other was done against us.
The reason we were attacked on 9/11 has nothing to do with the American People, it was an attack on American business that has been raping the natural resources of the arab world for the last 100 years.
kennethamy wrote:How unfortunate. The sentiment is nonsense. What provoked the attack was that America was interfering with Osama's attempt to establish a Caliphate. That cannot, and will not, be permitted.
I do not believe you could find evidence to support this claim.
kennethamy wrote:But we were taking care of our own problems. The control of the Middle East by hostile forces would be a disaster for the United States, and for the rest of the first world (and even the third world).
hostile forces we trained and supplied during the cold war era....
and hostilities we helped perpetuate by keeping (corrupt)people in power whom the nations clearly didn't want(see Shah of Iran circa 1979 or so heck see South Vietnam) and using a secret police to arrest those who opposed simply because of our fear of communism and desire to control oil producing nations.
The Twin towers held offices of many of the most pervasive of all American corporations.
I must agree with this statemen, the same goes for Africa, which the white people has been activly trying to destabilize.
The reasons for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not simply to cut short an expensive war, but also to test the effectiveness of the new technology.
The U.S. wanted "virgin" targets (i.e., previously unattacked cities) so that they could see exactly what damage was done by the new bombs.
And so they selected nonmilitary targets, because the military targets that were within range had already been attacked.
That is why the U.S. was able to send lone planes that did not meet with anti-aircraft fire, as they were not military targets and were therefore undefended.
I have heard they very much wanted to warn off Russia and prevent a Russian invasion of Japan. I don't know enough history to say whether Japan would be another North Korea right now if that had happened though.
If it were true that ending it as soon as possible were really what mattered, the U.S. would have negotiated Japan's surrender before that time, as they had asked for terms of surrender. Since the U.S. did not do that, obviously, ending the war as quickly as possible was not paramount.