If nuclear weapons are seen as weapons of mass destruction today, and an act of terrorism if used against a large city, wouldn't the Atomic bomb dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima and Nagaski be considered a weapons of mass destruction and an act of terrorism? Wouldn't the U.S. had demonized another country if that country had dropped a nuclear weapon on a civilian population in the name of saving its soldiers from a prolong war? Or pressing for its enemies to surrender immediately? Isn't it a little hypocritical for Bush to say, "we never used weapons of mass destruction on a civilian population because as a Democracy, we do not commit acts of terror and only tyrannical and barbaric regimes carry out such attacks?"
P.S. I know this question will enrage plenty of people. I'm NOT being saracastic or trying to make the U.S. look like a wolf in sheeps clothing. I asked this question in a serious manner. When U.S. acts immorally its immune to intl court. Other countries are demonized.
2006-09-01
15:06:28
·
8 answers
·
asked by
lisa
3
in
Media & Journalism