+13

continuing from the preceding post

Oh yes, I almost forgot, then he got elected for a second term.  

+12

Actually, it seems that the second atomic bomb was dropped only three days after the first. Unless I am missing something, I don't understand why those responsible for such actions were not dragged by their collars to courts, president and others. Although for courts here, how much one could expect from the court that saw the isolation of Japanese Americans constitutional? 

How could the excuses used for those actions pass even if one wants to tolerate the argument for killing some in order to save more? If the purpose was to show Japan its power why did it need to be surprising and involving real human targets? How could it be convincing to any honest person that there were no other easily found paths that could have also showed the other side the power of that bomb? Instead what is more clear to the eye here seems to be that someone had the power of having an atomic bomb gone to his head.

Moreover, assuming it was the right action to do, why would a president make such decision without the approval of congress?

Again, you want to say that involving such political process would have let Japan have an idea about the threat and its magnitude, I say and why would that be a bad thing since the purpose was to threaten it? I don't understand how could people accept that easily the fit in that the purpose was to show Japan that power with that it needed to stay secret.  Instead we had that president and a bunch of military guys making a decision affecting the entire nation and all the sacrifices and patience it had already put in the war against an enemy that became lonely and already talking about how its surrender should be.

And as if all that was not bad enough, three days later he drops the second one and the justification and toleration were extended to it.

+11

If  there were civilians in the two cities in Japan that suffered the nuclear bombs, how is the drooping those bombs is not seen as a crime? Even if one wants to tolerate the argument of killing some innocent people in order to save more, one could hardly find a case for it here. Why would one do such that shortly after the surrender of  Germany and the rest of the allied forces free to focus on Japan even assuming it intended to continue for long after that? Moreover, there were only about 14 days between bombing the first and second cities. In addition to other things, do those arguing for the validity of those actions give sufficient consideration to how somebody could have had impatiently, if not for even a worse reason, disgraced his country after all that time of sacrifice in the long war?

I applaud that visiting to the Hiroshima site. 

+10

Regarding the crossing into the Green Zone in Iraq, anyone disrupt the work of a democratically elected government I would cut..you know what.. off him and his boss whether he is a Shia or a Sunny.