Is the United States a terrorist organization?

[GottaBigOne]

I want to make a comment on how a lot of people have been saying that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified becasue they saved the lives of many other people. I understand that in order to save a life you might have to kill someone else. If someone were to try to kill me or someone I loved I would not hesitate a bit to end their life. if someone had killed somoen I loved I would kill them for it without regret. But I'm not sure if thats necessarily the "right" thing to do. It wierd to me how we value life only when i suits our needs. We value our own life, or the lives on those on our side, but not the lives of others. I understand that the atomic bombs were needed to end the war and save lives, but I still can't get over the double standard of military murder. This is how i see it: If you think that someone might kill someone else and you value life, so you are apposed to death you want to stop them, your beef is with killing, you think killing is wrong. But if you use killing is order to stop that person aren't you legitimizing the thing in which you were originally opposed to?

I see how the world is complicated and that this is a complicated issue, and that my point is very idealistic, but I'm not posing this as an argument, just a topic for discussion. I want to understand. help me understand.

 

[madame_zora]

GBO, I grapple with that very thing myself. I dislike the concept of "killing for peace" and find it very unpalatable. I could kiil for personal anger, like you said- if someone I knew was threatened, but probably not as an act of war against people I don't know.

BlueSpeedos, I wish I was able to swallow that this war is about peace at all, that is the problem I am having. If I thought that, I could sleep better at night instead of posting on here four hours a day! I feel strongly that this war has been a sham from the beginning and the whole idea of "peace and democracy" was only arrived at as an afterthought when the wmds didn't surface. Oh wait, that's not just my opinion, it's a historical fact. You can proved it by reading anyone's dated newspaper articles!! How is it that we Americans are so easily led into believing whatever we are tole to believe, even when we have documentable proof to the contrary? WE DID NOT GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ TO BRING PEACE!!! The fact that bush is claiming that now, and that people are going along with it is alarming to me, it is just not reality. You can't change the past just because you don't like it.

I do realise that we are there and must deal with it from this day forward. I have no faith at all in our current administration to handle it in any way that I would find desireable, so I feel completely defeated. I don't trust the compulsive liar in the whitehouse to treat with care and concern the peoples of Iraq, the brave men and women he sent there, or the ones left in their wake. He is not doing that for anyone other than the 2% top income bracket here at home, so I feel my suspicions are well justified.

 

[jonb]

I was right! Terrorism in 1795 referred to the Reign of Terror. In the modern sense it dates to 1947, in reference to Zionist tactics in Palestine.

 

[jay_too]

GBO..

At the same time, I support and decry the use of the nuclear bombs on civilian targets in Japan. I think this is a common delimma for a majority of Americans and the reason that decade after decade the issue is re-examined in documentaries, commentaries, books, articles, etc.

Was there another way to end the war without the enormous loss of American lives? After the test at Alamagordo, scientists at Los Alamos and Argonne petitioned the military to demonstrate the power of the bomb to Japanese leaders and scientists on a remote atoll. The suggestion was rejected as impractical: what if the demonstration bomb failed to detonate? That would not be impressive.

A few decades later, we learned that in August 1945 there were only two nuclear weapons in the arsenal. An additional one would be available in 3 to 6 months. It was believed that Japanese capitulation would require more than one bomb. Therefore, it was important to give the appearance that delay in surrender would result in the continuing destruction of Japanese cities.

Based on experience on Okinawa, military planners estimated that the invasion of the main islands would result in the loss of 200,000 American soldiers and 500,000 Japanese. From the Japanese media, the U.S. military knew that Japanese civilians were being trained to resist the agressors to the death with sharpened bamboo stakes. The Japanese would be fighting for their Emperor/God. In 1945 no doubt these seemed reasonable estimates of the carnage required to subdue Japan.

It is the military's mission to subdue the enemy and to minimize the loss of American lives. So I find it hard to criticize the decision but hard to live with the consequences.

jay

 

[GottaBigOne]

I guess it just all goes back to my hatred of War in the first place.

 

[madame_zora]

I think any sane person hates war. I want to tjink that, I hope it's true. We live in a world where any war can bacome a very serious thing and I'd like to have less opportunity for major destruction and loss of life if possible. I think the war we are in was ill founded and based on stupidity, as are so many. I know, I know, the Republicans will claim that they're saving lives in the long run and that we're there to liberate the poor oppressed Iraqis, but I'm afraid it's really about oil rights and control, and loss of Iraqi lives of the lives of poorer Americans is of little consequence to bushies.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.

General William Tecumseh Sherman

 

[13788]

doubtless_mouse: Wow – I just finished reading this thread. Many people have provided insightful and thoughtful comments to Big Ones original questions. I am compelled to try and add to what has already been said, so please bear with me in this.

The long and short of this thread was “should the US be considered a terrorist because of the use of the Atom Bomb in WWII? I think the simple (and justifiable answer) is no.

Anyone who is trying to come to grips with what the US did in WWII in regards to the use of the Atom Bomb should read the Essay, Thank God for the Atom Bomb, by Paul Fussell. In this essay, Fussell clearly explains the rationale for the use of the Atom Bombs.

The use of the Atom Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a terrorist attack. It was a pre-announced act of war, two days prior to dropping the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima, “720,000 leaflets were dropped on the city urging everyone to get out and indicating that the place was going to be (as the Potsdam Declaration had promised) obliterated. (Fussell, Thank God for the Atom Bomb, The New Republic, 1981)

Another piece of knowledge that helps to explain the rationale used in making the decision to use the atom bombs was that the expectation of lives lost if the Allies had invaded the Japanese Mainland was unbelievable. I think Jay mentioned the numbers 200,000 US and 500,000 Japanese, the estimations were actually higher; “Planners of the invasion assumed that it would require a full year, to Nov 1946, for the Japanese to be sufficiently worn down by land-combat attrition to surrender. By that time, one million [1,000,000] American casualties was the expected price.” (Same source mentioned earlier)

Pecker – in response to your analogy about the Japanese Emperor ordering his subjects to throw themselves from a cliff, I urge you to read about the battle for Okinawa. In the course of the battle, when the Japanese Imperial Army knew they could not win, it was decided that it would be better for the inhabitants of Okinawa to commit suicide. Once particularly tragic moment was when a group of high school girls jumped from a high cliff into the ocean to complete their duty to the Emperor. Likewise, anyone interested in WWII and the events leading to the use of the Atom Bomb might wish to take a look at the below web sites. The last one is from the Japanese perspective, and is not light reading.

I have lived in Okinawa, Japan for 13 years, and have heard many of the stories of the war, this last web site however, has many first hand accounts of what it was like for the inhabitents of Okinawa and they are moving, to say the least. I am not ashamed to say it brought tears to my eyes. The pain and suffering these people went through cannot be imagined, nor can it be understood.

What transpired on this beautiful peaceful island 60 years ago should never, never happens again anywhere in this world.

Mouse

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac...nawa-battle.htm
http://www.jahitchcock.com/okibattle.html
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/...wa/default.aspx
http://www3.la.psu.edu/textbooks/Ryukyu/Okinawa_Postwar.htm

 

[jonb]

Yeah, of all the U.S. incidents, Hiroshima is probably the least terrorist. I've always preferred to think of the goon squad. It was more recent and decidedly less justifiable.

 

[KinkGuy]

IMHO, comparisons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the US invasion of Iraq are impossible. The two "wars" (a term I use loosely since I consider one to have been a real war of survival and the other an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, albeit a hideous one) however horrific they are and were, hold NO similarities. The invasion of Iraq was pre-emptive based on lies, deceit, greed and deception. Would Iran OR North Korea be advancing Nuclear development had we not completely destroyed our image, totally erased US respect on the world stage and are now so weakened both politically and militarily that these despots and yes, terrorists now KNOW there is no one to stop them.

Just this week, the president of the US attends a summit meeting in a foreign country and tens of thousands of people riot in the streets and scheduled state dinners have to be cancelled, the presidents body guards are attacked and dignitaries must be kept hidden and under guard to protect their lives.

Maybe a FEW considerations regarding our actions and their impact on the rest of the world might be in order? But we certainly wouldn't want there to be any kind of "global test" in order to evaluate even the impact on America, much less the effects and outcome on countries who at one time were our allies....to say nothing of the power we have given our enemies.

 

[madame_zora]

Actually some Chilean nationals were so outraged that they filed a petition against bush as a war criminal. They don't expect it to go anywhere, but they were incensed that their president would be shaking the hand of a murderer, as they put it. The protest numbered around 40,000 chileans and others who travelled for the express purpose of protesting his arrival- yeah dubya's had his impact on our global perception all right.