Using the atom bomb

Dec 22, 2012
64
1
united states
#41
I think it was the right thing to do. I have a hard time understanding the kinda sorta wars we have fought since that time. If a country is going to go to war, it should only be because there is a mortal threat against the country and that threat should be totally eliminated, no matter how many civilians were killed. What we have done since we abandoned the Total War principle makes no since to me. Does anyone know why there have not been any declarations of war since WWll? It seems to me, we've lost every so-called war since then.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#42
I think it was the right thing to do. I have a hard time understanding the kinda sorta wars we have fought since that time. If a country is going to go to war, it should only be because there is a mortal threat against the country and that threat should be totally eliminated, no matter how many civilians were killed. What we have done since we abandoned the Total War principle makes no since to me. Does anyone know why there have not been any declarations of war since WWll? It seems to me, we've lost every so-called war since then.
Lost? No, Serbia still hasn't picked itself up, SK is running circles around the North, Vietnam is an ally, the Soviet Union is gone, The British Empire has been dismantled... As far as America goes, we're still on top. The difference is now the enemy survives (even if it takes them a few decades to get back into fighting shape) and we don't gain any economic benefit from our conquests. If Iraqi oil and Afghan Lithium and the money it brings was flowing into the US, those wars would be far more popular right now.
 
Dec 22, 2012
64
1
united states
#43
Lost? No, Serbia still hasn't picked itself up, SK is running circles around the North, Vietnam is an ally, the Soviet Union is gone, The British Empire has been dismantled... As far as America goes, we're still on top. The difference is now the enemy survives (even if it takes them a few decades to get back into fighting shape) and we don't gain any economic benefit from our conquests. If Iraqi oil and Afghan Lithium and the money it brings was flowing into the US, those wars would be far more popular right now.
Thanks, David, I see what you mean but it's hard to sort it all out. Those "actions" or whatever they call them haven't really ended in a loss. I know the USA is still on top. It's just that we don't seem to have real, concrete objectives anymore. I'm in the process of studying the wars since the last WW, and this point should become clearer as I learn more.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#44
Thanks, David, I see what you mean but it's hard to sort it all out. Those "actions" or whatever they call them haven't really ended in a loss. I know the USA is still on top. It's just that we don't seem to have real, concrete objectives anymore. I'm in the process of studying the wars since the last WW, and this point should become clearer as I learn more.
We wage imperialist wars while pursuing a self-determination policy now. The result is wars of conquest and the ill will it creates without actually expanding our borders or improving our economy. The world hates us and the only people getting anything out of it are weapon makers.
 
Dec 22, 2012
64
1
united states
#45
Oh, so you are with the "blame America" crowd? I dispute your theory that we are imperialists. If we were, we would take the oil resources that the West developed for ourselves, but we don't do that, do we? I think we should in some cases.

Uh, please define, "wars of conquest" in your context.

Most of the ill will against us is due to the Leftist propaganda against Western ideals, in my opinion. Actually, we have a long waiting list of people from all over the world clamoring to get in. I think we should let them come, actually. A lot of people in the world still think of us in a positive light, but none of the media outlets will tell that story and neither will Hollywood: our own propaganda machine has been spreading anti-American sentiment for decades.

I know you are likely to go on about the dictators we have supported in the Middle East and I will state my opinion now that the current situation in most of those countries is worse than the situations under the dictators we were backing. Obama switched gears and backed the "Arab Spring" causing instability and the return of savage treatment for all enemies of Islam, such as Christians, women, gays, etc. Some may blame the USA for that but it was a democratic decision made by the citizens of those countries, so they deserve the decrease in liberty just as we do for voting in Obama - twice. Democracy in action. Ain't it pretty?
 
Last edited:
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#46
War is a terrible institution, the usage of weapons to kill people who can not coexist is awful.

Some times it is necessary, as far as the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki I think it was terrible that it had to come to that, but it was effective, and it seems to have kept the peace inout relatively stable. Looking back, not sure if it could have been avoided.

I cherish peace but I must be prepared for war. Just the thought of ending someone else's life really bugs me to think about, but there are times when it is necessary. Same goes four war.

It isn't pleasant but we don't really have the luxury of an alternative sometimes.