America’s Barbaric Logic of Hiroshima 70 Years On

[VCheng]

Hi,

Nope, again you are just justifying the illegal actions of US in the name of pursuit of so called interest which is at the expense of another country's stability and society, While fighting the terrorist for the very same reason.

Than one wonder how different if any are terrorist from the pursuit of their collective or so called national interest ?

Your analogy is very flawed and biased when it comes to defend US.

I am not defending any particular country. I am merely describing how international geopolitics works, with every country having a sovereign right to pursue its national interest, equally.

Terrorists do not have the sovereign rights of a country.

 

[salarsikander]

I am not defending any particular country. I am merely describing how international geopolitics works, with every country having a sovereign right to pursue its national interest, equally.

Terrorists do not have the sovereign rights of a country.

Hi,

Again, You're defending it. The actions of any terrorist or any other invader country in the name of national interest is not so different. The former shows its face without any mask, while latter is cloaked with mask of NAtional interest and justifies the illegal actions of destroying a proper functioning society .

Wonder if you would say the same, when US is attacked for instance for another country's national objective and you have to see your grown up children dying along with your grand children. Would you still say that is was their right to pursue national interest, while your children and Grandchildren didn't even why or what they died for

 

[VCheng]

Hi,

Again, You're defending it. The actions of any terrorist or any other invader country in the name of national interest is not so different. The former shows its face without any mask, while latter is cloaked with mask of NAtional interest and justifies the illegal actions of destroying a proper functioning society .

Wonder if you would say the same, when US is attacked for instance for another country's national objective and you have to see your grown up children dying along with your grand children. Would you still say that is was their right to pursue national interest, while your children and Grandchildren didn't even why or what they died for

The Pearl Harbor attack is a great example of USA being attacked by Imperial Japan in the pursuit of its national interests, as was its sovereign right. Of course, USA responded to protect its own national interests. See how that works?

Again, terrorist groups do not have the sovereign rights of a country.

 

[salarsikander]

The Pearl Harbor attack is a great example of USA being attacked by Imperial Japan in the pursuit of its national interests, as was its sovereign right. Of course, USA responded to protect its own national interests. See how that works?

Again, terrorist groups do not have the sovereign rights of a country.

HI,

Righty justified by an American apologist.

Can you say the same for Iraq or Libya?

Sovereign or not, Doesn't matter. Just because you are cloaked up in sovereignty, doesn't mean you have the right to kill or destroy an entire nation.

What Japanese did, doesn't justify it actions, does it? in the end it paid terrible price.

But what wrong did Iraq do or its children?

 

[VCheng]

HI,

Righty justified by an American apologist.

Can you say the same for Iraq or Libya?

Sovereign or not, Doesn't matter. Just because you are cloaked up in sovereignty, doesn't mean you have the right to kill or destroy an entire nation.

What Japanese did, doesn't justify it actions, does it? in the end it paid terrible price.

But what wrong did Iraq do or its children?

So what about Iraq invading Kuwait? Or Pakistan sending its troops in 1948 and in Kargil? Or UK invading Egypt? Or India sending in its troops in 1971? Or Saudi Arabia attacking Yemen? See, every country pursues its national interests as best as it can. Some do it better than others, that is all. Japan did so too, and met a better adversary than it expected.

 

[salarsikander]

So what about Iraq invading Kuwait? Or Pakistan sending its troops in 1948 and in Kargil? Or UK invading Egypt? Or India sending in its troops in 1971? Or Saudi Arabia attacking Yemen? See, every country pursues its national interests as best as it can. Some do it better than others, that is all. Japan did so too, and met a better adversary than it expected.

Hi,

Two wrongs never make right.

This is what I was reminded when i was teaching my little one.

Saudi Attacking Yemen is not justified.

Or Uk invading Egypt,
India sending its troop to help bangladesh . Pakistan sending those tribesman to protect Kashmir, at least that's the theory

But What USA did was totally unjustified. Because the reason it gave was totally a false accusation.

US was never threatened by Iraq, and when now it is legitimately requesting support against ISIS, US has cowardly declined it

Except for UK and US none of the countries are so called champion of freedom whatsoever.

 

[VCheng]

Hi,

Two wrongs never make right.

This is what I was reminded when i was teaching my little one.

Saudi Attacking Yemen is not justified.

Or Uk invading Egypt,
India sending its troop to help bangladesh . Pakistan sending those tribesman to protect Kashmir, at least that's the theory

But What USA did was totally unjustified. Because the reason it gave was totally a false accusation.

US was never threatened by Iraq, and when now it is legitimately requesting support against ISIS, US has cowardly declined it

Except for UK and US none of the countries are so called champion of freedom whatsoever.

There is no right or wrong in international geopolitics, only the pursuit of national interests. Like it or not, that's just the way it is, for every country, equally.

 

[salarsikander]

There is no right or wrong in international geopolitics, only the pursuit of national interests. Like it or not, that's just the way it is, for every country, equally.

Hi,

Forgive me for not being so ignorant, but i cannot say that to a mother if her child dies because of another country's national pursuit of objective.

IT is not ! two wrongs will never make right even after hundred years, Nor the justification that's how it work is.

I wonder why do you talk about respect of rule of law when it comes to Pakistan rule of martial law, Just because the way it is doesn't mean it is right? isnt it

 

[VCheng]

Hi,

Forgive me for not being so ignorant, but i cannot say that to a mother if her child dies because of another country's national pursuit of objective.

IT is not ! two wrongs will never make right even after hundred years, Nor the justification that's how it work is.

I wonder why do you talk about respect of rule of law when it comes to Pakistan rule of martial law, Just because the way it is doesn't mean it is right? isnt it

Your juvenile thinking will mature someday, obviously.

People die by the thousands and millions. What do you want to say to those who lost their loved ones and everything else when Pakistan was created, for example? See, it is never so simple.

Rule of Law is a country's internal matter. Martial law is illegal, unless it is written into the Constitution by due process. Then, I would be fine with it.

 

[salarsikander]

Your juvenile thinking will mature someday, obviously.

People die by the thousands and millions. What do you want to say to those who lost their loved ones and everything else when Pakistan was created, for example? See, it is never so simple.

Rule of Law is a country's internal matter. Martial law is illegal, unless it is written into the Constitution by due process. Then, I would be fine with it.

HI,

You are just conveniently twisting the statement to suit your failed argument

No parent has to bury their young child unless it natural and not super power hegemony in pursuit of national interest.

Whatever Pakistan lost was in scarface for a reason. Wonder what sacrifices the local iraqi gave of the fault they never committed in first place.

Constitution can be changed in the pursuit of national interest by your example

Or perhaps our conscience will wake up one day when he have to carry our adult children to their graves

 

[VCheng]

HI,

You are just conveniently twisting the statement to suit your failed argument

No parent has to bury their young child unless it natural and not super power hegemony in pursuit of national interest.

Whatever Pakistan lost was in scarface for a reason. Wonder what sacrifices the local iraqi gave of the fault they never committed in first place.

Constitution can be changed in the pursuit of national interest by your example

Or perhaps our conscience will wake up one day when he have to carry our adult children to their graves

Not at all. My logic is impeccably consistent throughout our discussion. And of course, if national interests warrant changes in the Constitution, they must be implemented by due process. Personal tragedies have no bearing on international geopolitics, callous as it may seem.

 

[salarsikander]

Not at all. My logic is impeccably consistent throughout our discussion. And of course, if national interests warrant changes in the Constitution, they must be implemented by due process. Personal tragedies have no bearing on international geopolitics, callous as it may seem.

Hi,

Callulous or not, Justifying wrong in any form will never make it right.

especially when used selectively in arguments

 

[VCheng]

Hi,

Callulous or not, Justifying wrong in any form will never make it right.

especially when used selectively in arguments

Where have I been selective in applying my argument? It is only you who is singling out USA as a target for your hatred, while I am describing how international geopolitics works equally for all sovereign countries in pursuit of national interests.

 

[salarsikander]

Where have I been selective in applying my argument? It is only you who is singling out USA as a target for your hatred, while I am describing how international geopolitics works equally for all sovereign countries in pursuit of national interests.

HI,

No i am not singling out anything, I am just trying to present the valid facts and I have clearly and unequicoally said in your other post if some other country does it, it is equally wrong I admit it.

You on the other hand seems to find really hard to admit the fact. Just because that's how it work doesn't mean it is right nor it can be justified.

Laws and conventions are there to protect us from barbarity.

Then in that case terrorist also have the every right to attack US or any country for that matter. They too are sovereign, they also have authority, in their case they have the authority by gun

 

[VCheng]

HI,

No i am not singling out anything, I am just trying to present the valid facts and I have clearly and unequicoally said in your other post if some other country does it, it is equally wrong I admit it.

You on the other hand seems to find really hard to admit the fact. Just because that's how it work doesn't mean it is right nor it can be justified.

Laws and conventions are there to protect us from barbarity.

Then in that case terrorist also have the every right to attack US or any country for that matter. They too are sovereign, they also have authority, in their case they have the authority by gun

Terrorists are not sovereign, first of all. And as I said before, you clearly require more maturity of thought to understand what I mean by the fact that there is no right or wrong in international geopolitics. This will be my last post with you in this thread.