I do not have much objection to monarchy or other form undemocratic govt. if they are peaceful, development orientated and do not hinder progress.There are some undemocratic countries which are fairly good.Like Jordan or Morocco.No one has any problem with them.They are on a path to gradual democratic evolution.But do not tell me, Taliban or Saddam were good guys and American has done any wrong punishing them.
I don't think you have got my point here.
good thinking,that's why i think we also should get nukes.
Give them full free flow just like previous "policeman" enjoyed,when they were gifted the power of sun by someone else,had the opportunity to spend their resource freely because they were not facing competition and most importantly using the cover of Mutually Assured Destruction that they could not have if were not gifted.
As the leader of free democratic world, it has responsibility to punish the rouge regime.In ideal condition,UN security council should have sanction the punishment to these rouge regime.But due to the fact that 2 dictator loving, genocidal maniac loving countries are holding veto power, it is nearly impossible to do any humanitarian intervention with the UN sanction.Fortunately US was able to obtain UN approval to punish the Taliban.While US forced Serbia to stop massacring Kosovo muslim by bombing shit out of Serbia despite vehement opposition from that 2 genocidal maniac loving countries.For Iraq, it is debatable whether US should have gone to punish Saddam without UN approval which is handicapped by veto power anyway.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki was unfortunate event where you can't put blame on any single power.Just because US drop bomb there don't mean they are solely responsible.Even when it was completely clear that, Imperial Japan was going to loose the war, their fanatical army was refusing to surrender and vowing to continue the war until the last Japanese.The only alternative for allied forces other than dropping atom bomb was sending millions of ground troops in mainland Japan.Which would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of allied soldier casualties as well as civilian death and destruction 10 fold of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Only when the fanatical Imperial Japanese army witnessed, what otter destruction can bring the American bomb, they reluctantly agreed to surrender.So you can mostly blame the imperial Japanese army for their senseless determination to continue war despite knowing that they can't win and was willing to sacrifice millions of Japanese civilian to that stubborn reckless attitude.Sometimes you don't have a good and bad choice.Only bad and worse choice.Unfortunately allied forces had to take the bad choice to prevent the worse.
so the way to deal with fanatical power is to drop nukes on them.Do you know the difference between standardized war procedure and crime against humanity?
So what is you suggestion to end the ww2 ? What is your method to convince the imperial Japanese army to surrender instead of continuing a fruitless, destructive war which was taking a heavy toll on Japanese civilian population and soldiers on both side alike? I think you should have commanded the allied forces and stopped that war with your super human quality with out dropping bombs in Heroshima or sending ground troops in Japanese mainland. Americans were mere mortal human being with all the faults and limitations, so they could not end the war for the liking of super human like you.Please forgive them.
You chaps above need to take a chill pill.
If you talk about utopia democracy, look no further than Switzerland. They need to do a public voting even in order to build a bridge somewhere.
kthanksbye
''They could be a threat'' is not any valid arguement to drop nuclear bomb in current times when strength of atom bomb is 100 times greater than what was dropped in Heroshima.USA did not dropped atomic bomb in Japan with mere assumption that Japan could be threat. Japanese were already waging aggresive war for 14 years.They started their campaign of military subjugation of Asia by invading and occupying Manchuria back in 1931.By 1937, they captured most of the China with immense killing and destruction brought upon in Chinese mainland.By 1942, they were bombing Chittagong and Cox's Bazar after capturing vast swath of Asia up to Burma.Do you think, after all of these, US acted on just mere assumption that, Japanese ''could be a threat''? Who attacked pearl Harbor and brought US into direct conflict in ww2 ? Pearl Harbor was not much a less destruction than what American did in Heroshima with atom bomb.
