<p>I’m not pretending it’s not a problem. I just think you’re making gross cultural assumptions which are, if not outright wrong, then at least highly suspect. IMO.</p>
<p>In fact, this line of argument reminds me of one of my favorites:
<a href=“http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-majority-of-americans-not-informed-enough-to,32124/[/url]”>http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-majority-of-americans-not-informed-enough-to,32124/</a></p>
<p>US law enforcement has reportedly had an eye of first generation Somali-Americans for a few years, as rumors of radicalization activities among young men in Minnesota are not new. The Somali community in Seattle has also been scrutinized.</p>
<p>LOL, who doesn’t US law enforcement “reportedly” keep an eye on?</p>
<p>Approximately 40,000 people are dying or being killed each month in Congo-DRC. This is small change. (All the killers, by the way, would claim to be Christians.) </p>
<p>I have had a “survivor” with me for the past six days. (There are also approximately 150 rapes a day associated with the war.)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.theolympian.com/2013/09/24/2739866/rights-activist-in-war-torn-congo.html[/url]”>http://www.theolympian.com/2013/09/24/2739866/rights-activist-in-war-torn-congo.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do know that the Allies did this (intentionally bombing civilians) in WWII, right? As did the Germans. So did Lehi in Israel just not from airplanes. We intentionally killed civilians in SE Asia during Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia from the air and on the ground. “Pacification” it was called.</p>
<p>The espoused difference is that those were “wars” and now it is “just” terrorism. And, that it is now happening in our country and/or getting our citizens.</p>
<p>^^ Are you suggesting that there is justification and somehow innocent casualties are fair game because it of what Allies and Germans committed during times of war ?</p>
<p>The burr would be that there’s no national face to these atrocities, just a religious one. </p>
<p>Country of origin doesn’t mean a darn thing.</p>
<p>Of course he’s not, lje62. What he’s suggesting is that Americans also have a rich history of attacking civilians. Hiroshima anyone? Mai-Lai? Drone killings of civilians in Pakistan & elsewhere, the toll rising into hundreds?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>does make for quite the situation if someone else is at war with you, but you are not at war with them, no?</p>
<p>btw, the modern military goes through great pains not to hurt “innocent” civilians.</p>
<p>and Hiroshima saved lives. Both Japanese and more importantly, American.</p>
<p>If you just stick to the officially sanctioned attacks by the US and allies, hasn’t a justification been that they were contributing to the war effort?</p>
<p>“Hiroshima saved lives. Both Japanese and more importantly, American.”</p>
<p>That’s highly debatable. This line of reasoning was used to justify the bombing for years. Except that many historians say there’s plenty of evidence Eisenhower knew the Japanese were on the verge of surrender. In the eyes of many people then, and since, it looked like the US had a toy and wanted to try it out. The bombing appalled the Allies, and the fact that 60 years later we’re still trying to justify it remains appalling to many.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“That’s highly debatable.” OK, Katliamom: I am happy to engage in that debate. References please. If Japan was on the verge of surrender, why was the United States engaged in a massive buildup preparing for invasion of the island in Operation Downfall?</p>
<p>Here below is a brief snippet on Operation Downfall. I can’t give you the full text, as that would violate CC terms of service, but just look it up on Wikipedia. Note the specific reference to “millions” of casualties on both sides. By way of comparison, the death toll in Hiroshima was 135,000 and in Nagasaki, 50,000. Hmmmm – that’s a lot, lot, lot, lot less than “millions,” and I don’t even have to have the usual 700+ on my SAT math section to figure that out. Given the choice of millions versus about 200,000 – and that really was the choice – what would you have done differently? There is no door “C”: sorry, you choose between 200,000 and “millions.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please provide your references for the counter argument.</p>
<p>The major alternative was continued massive conventional fire bombing. Hardly a significant difference and most think it would have lasted months. 20 more Dresdens anyone?</p>
<p>[No</a> “Cake Walk” for Kenya in Somalia - FPIF](<a href=“No "Cake Walk" for Kenya in Somalia - FPIF”>No "Cake Walk" for Kenya in Somalia - FPIF)</p>
<p>By my friend Dave Zarembka, with 50 years of experience in East Africa.</p>
<p>Google is your friend makenna. The debate over the use of the atom bomb isn’t classified information. It should be taught in all high school history classes. </p>
<p>Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were “driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age.” Henry H. (“Hap”) Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: “It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.” This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: “Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.”
[Was</a> Hiroshima Necessary?](<a href=“http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html]Was”>Was Hiroshima Necessary?)</p>
<p>or
[The</a> New York Times Upfront | The news magazine for high school](<a href=“Scholastic Classroom & News Magazines | Subscribe Now!”>Scholastic Classroom & News Magazines | Subscribe Now!)</p>
<p>As to your comments about “millions” - I don’t believe I used that, so I don’t know what you’re arguing against.</p>
<p>I’m not going to debate the justification or lack thereof of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Yet, to date we are the only nation that has ever used an atomic or nuclear weapon in war. Of course, I’d wager that the victims of the Nazi Blitzkrieg in Britain or the German civilians in Dresden probably had no preference about which bomb would kill them. Just guessing.</p>
<p>We are the only nation ever to use an atomic or nuclear weapon in war. AND WE DID IT TWICE. Apparently, the annihilation of Hiroshima alone wasn’t enough.</p>
<p>And we dropped more tons of bombs on Cambodia than we dropped in WWII</p>
<p>[Bombs</a> Over Cambodia: New Light on US Air War :: JapanFocus](<a href=“http://japanfocus.org/-Ben-Kiernan/2420]Bombs”>Bombs Over Cambodia: New Light on US Air War | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)</p>
<p>And then, in the Christmas Bombing of 1998, dropped more on Iraq than on Cambodia.</p>
<p>The newest book, by a Japanese (?) historian, makes the point that Japan surrendered because Russian invaded Manchukuo (Manchuria). This has some truth. The A-bombs alone didn’t do it. Remember, the war cabinet meeting ended in a tie and Hirohito took it on himself to make the decision - intervening for the first time. The war cabinet was perfectly willing to sacrifice Japanese lives. Why? Two main reasons: they believed in a great final battle - like the “Divine Wind” that drove away the Chinese invasion fleet and inspired the Kamikaze - and they still held SE Asia, Taiwan, the huge area of China, Korea and Manchukuo. They held something like 400k prisoners. When the Russians invaded and the Manchukuo army absolutely folded, they realized they were going to lose on land outside of Japan. </p>
<p>The evidence for surrender has largely been discredited. For example, the Japanese did reach out … but they were trying to make an alliance with Russia, something people who point to the outreach either leave out or don’t understand. (We know this from “Magic” intercepts of Japanese cables, which weren’t declassified for decades.) And the idea that we could invade and only take tens of thousands in casualties was a paper prepared by one war planning group for one particular scenario. In later years, minutes of meetings have been uncovered in which the cabinet - meaning Stimson, Marshall, and sometimes the President - discussed how invasion would mean a fight to the death, etc. A single war planning document has been built into a huge edifice in which somehow we believed we could invade Japan at low cost. The actuality is the group was asked to apply to casualty statistics from prior invasions of islands. These varied from low on Saipan to high on Iwo so they took a number and stuck it in. The conclusions were only meant to be a statement of “maybe if this rate applies”. </p>
<p>My opinion is the A-bomb didn’t end the war but helped end it, along with Russia’s attack. Problem was the Japanese didn’t believe we had a lot of these weapons - which was true; we had a total of two at the time. The Japanese didn’t know we were planning on producing 1 a week. If we’d started to drop those, the war would then have ended. </p>
<p>BTW, a very little know fact - from General Leslie Groves himself - is why these cities were targeted. Much is made of Hiroshima not being bombed and that is used to say it was of little military value. There is another reason: General Groves and Secretary Stimson developed a list of targets. Hiroshima was #1 because it was the main port for supplying Kyushu and that was going to one of the two first assault areas, with the second being the Honshu plain. Nagasaki was the 3rd target, behind Kokura but the weather was bad over Kokura. Nagasaki was chosen because it was the main link to Japanese forces on the mainland. These cities were put on a piece of paper and General LeMay was told he couldn’t bomb them. The blunt truth is no one knew what the bomb would do so they wanted a clean target so they could see and evaluate the effects. That list is the only reason Hiroshima wasn’t fire bombed into oblivion before the bomb was dropped.</p>
<p>And very importantly, Stimson was a Japan lover. Groves said he talked at length about the history and culture - and I think he’d visited. He talked about the importance of the Emperor and how they needed to preserve Japanese culture for Japan’s future. They were very aware that General LeMay was going to blow the heck out of the cities not listed. Groves said he left Stimson’s office and realized Kyoto wasn’t on the list. It was near the top of LeMay’s destruction list because it had a large number of smaller arms workshops. So Groves went back into Stimson’s office - I think Stimson may have been in the bathroom - and they put Kyoto on the list to protect it from being fire bombed. It was on the A-bomb list but wasn’t intended to be an actual target.</p>