I would prefer to address this question in another thread, since I suspect that the answer will be lengthy and involve controversy and the topic here is the ISIS atrocities. Briefly, the argument would be that the a-bomb was not necessary and Japan was ready to surrender anyway, and further, for those who thought differently, it could have been tried to drop the a-bomb offshore as a demonstration before hitting the cities.How would you have ended the war in the Pacific if presented with the choices Truman had? Be specific so we can understand.
It took two, remember. No surrender after the first one, even though it did hit a city.I would prefer to address this question in another thread, since I suspect that the answer will be lengthy and involve controversy and the topic here is the ISIS atrocities. Briefly, the argument would be that the a-bomb was not necessary and Japan was ready to surrender anyway, and further, for those who thought differently, it could have been tried to drop the a-bomb offshore as a demonstration before hitting the cities.
We need another thread to examine this question in detail.It took two, remember. No surrender after the first one, even though it did hit a city.
But whatever.
Fine. Possibly then some will not feel compelled to depart from the topics at hand just to condemn the United States. It does get old.We need another thread to examine this question in detail.
Go here:We need another thread to examine this question in detail.
The problem is that the first part of the ISIS atrocity video does just that. It opens with scenes of ISIS partisans pulling the remains of dead civilians from rubble, while a narrator curses the US for its bombing and killing these civilians. The narrator also curses the spies who have helped the US in their mission.Fine. Possibly then some will not feel compelled to depart from the topics at hand just to condemn the United States. It does get old.
And some in the west share ISIS anti-American thought processes.The problem is that the first part of the ISIS atrocity video does just that. It opens with scenes of ISIS partisans pulling the remains of dead civilians from rubble, while a narrator curses the US for its bombing and killing these civilians. The narrator also curses the spies who have helped the US in their mission.
It looks to me like the mideast is in worse shape now after the US invasion. ISIS is getting recruits not just from the disaffected Sunnis in the area, but from all around the world, including Britain. Why would people from Britain want to join ISIS? I believe that Sarah Palin was right when she recommended that the US stay out of the mideast conflicts and let Allah decide.And some in the west share ISIS anti-American thought processes.
Does anyone actually think ISIS needed the U.S. or anything about the U.S. to be ISIS? I’m sure ISIS itself doesn’t think so. They just know how to manipulate people in the west; to counsel despair. “Oh, we can’t oppose ISIS. Doing so just makes it stronger.” ISIS leaders are a lot of things, but they’re not stupid. They know the western left better than the left knows itself, and they know how to speak its language.
You left out a necessary step; the retreat of the west from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was at least as bad a man as Ayatollah Khameni or Al Baghdadi, and more dangerous than either of them in his time. Iraq was at peace when Obama decided to leave the Middle East to be a battleground between Sunni radicals and Iranian radicals. Sunni tribal leaders, the Kurds and the Sistani Shiites (the majority of the latter) begged us to stay because they knew what the CIA, the DIA and the American military knew; that without the western armies being there for an extended time, there could be no peace.It looks to me like the mideast is in worse shape now after the US invasion. ISIS is getting recruits not just from the disaffected Sunnis in the area, but from all around the world, including Britain. Why would people from Britain want to join ISIS? I believe that Sarah Palin was right when she recommended that the US stay out of the mideast conflicts and let Allah decide.
But the “ill-considered” promise was one that the vast majority of the American people wanted. Thus, it cannot be ill-considered. And the American people know, despite the urging of powerful, supra-national elites, that America cannot be the world’s babysitter that goes around spanking naughty children at every opportunity. Sooner or later the people of the Middle East have to get their act together on their own. If they descend into savagery, at least for a while, that is God’s will.He simply believed keeping an ill-considered campaign promise was more important to him and his cause than peace and the lives of people in the Middle East. He knew it would come to this.
ISIS represents God’s will? One would not have thought God would be as savage as that.But the “ill-considered” promise was one that the vast majority of the American people wanted. Thus, it cannot be ill-considered. And the American people know, despite the urging of powerful, supra-national elites, that America cannot be the world’s babysitter that goes around spanking naughty children at every opportunity. Sooner or later the people of the Middle East have to get their act together on their own. If they descend into savagery, at least for a while, that is God’s will.
Then why did Reagan send Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad, to meet his good friend Saddam Hussein at the airport. “I’m really glad to be here in Baghdad with my good friend, Saddam Hussein.” Didn’t Rumsfeld carry messages back and forth for the Reagan administration of active military and economic support for Saddam Hussein?Saddam Hussein was at least as bad a man as Ayatollah Khameni or Al Baghdadi, and more dangerous than either of them in his time…