oops...
2007-08-14 09:52:30 · 27 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
`
Neo-cons justifying A-Bomb on Japan to save the troops:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au66Zvlqkmzd0VOhdid8FSzY7BR.?qid=20070814134013AA1qQ2W
`
2007-08-14 09:58:26 · update #1
They're waiting till September to see if the surge is working. I guess that's just some special, magical time frame they can live with. I wonder how the families of soldiers that die between now and then feel about this.
2007-08-14 09:59:05 · answer #1 · answered by katydid 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Use of the atomic bomb was not "just to save the troops". It was to bring a quick end to the war, save lives of Japanese soldiers and civilians as well. It succeeded, Japan surrendered and there was no doubt we won.
Withdrawing from Iraq will see even more Iraqis killed, and it certainly won't end the war, nor bring us victory. It is a fool's move designed to embarrass a foolish president. I realize starting the war was wrong, but so is leaving. When have two wrongs ever made a right?
2007-08-14 17:24:02 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hiroshima, 6 August, and Nagasaki, 9 August, were in 1945 i.e. 62 years ago.
George Walker Bush did not have a plan to nation build and neither do the Democrats.
Atomic bombs can contaminated the area making almost impossible to get more oil so you can rule out the use of nuclear weapons.
2007-08-14 17:03:10 · answer #3 · answered by Max R Waller 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
when japan was on the verge of defeat, and the allies were ready to invade the Japanese home islands, the number of casualties were estimated at about 1 million allied dead. it was also known that to successfully invade japan, and finish the war would mean the virtual annihilation of the Japanese as a people. we would have had to kill something like 95% of the population on the home islands to finish that war. this was unacceptable even then. thus Truman decided that to save lives, and not just allied soldiers lives, to drop the atomic bombs. this along with a final raid on Japanese oil refineries north east of Tokyo, and the Russians finally getting into the war in the pacific, convinced the Japanese Emporer to end the war quickly.
in Iraq, the insurgents are the ones driving the war effort. if they would go away, then our involvement would much sooner as the new government would be better able to function, and ultimately ask us to leave the country. of course at that time, this insurgents would restart their efforts, and it would then be much harder for the US to reinvolve itself in the war effort.
2007-08-14 17:15:43 · answer #4 · answered by richard b 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Were the choice up to me, I would remove the troops from Iraq. Yes, we broke it so we should fix it, but the costs of staying there are higher than the costs of leaving. I wouldn't want to keep wasting all the time, money, and personnel in a place that has no positive outcome.
If some country wants our military help, they can pay us for our efforts.
Oh...and on a side note...I could see this question coming based on your previous one. You aren't the first person to try and link the two situations and you won't be the last.
2007-08-14 16:59:56 · answer #5 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's quite simple really. Because victory was the goal. The A-bomb allowed victory without massive bloodshed of American troops.
Pulling out of Iraq does not lead to victory.
2007-08-14 17:14:25 · answer #6 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ah, you sly fox you! There is a big difference. The bomb used in Hiroshima ended the war as a victory for the US and secured our continued freedom. Withdrawal of troops from Iraq at this point would not secure those ends.
2007-08-14 16:59:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Wrong again, you are. The atomic bombs won the war. They got the enemy to surrender. That is the way to win a war; get the enemy to surrender.
Pulling troops out of Iraq is not a way to win the war. Remember the goal; win the war.
Concentrate very hard. We do what we have to do to win the war.
2007-08-14 16:57:25 · answer #8 · answered by regerugged 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Tell ya what Chi-Guy....
War is hell.....whenever it is...it's not going to get any prettier just because it's the 21st century!
We can't leave....we removed their government...and now we're there until they are strong enough to stand on their own...
You really don't want Iran and Syria in Iraq unchecked....do you?
2007-08-14 17:09:40 · answer #9 · answered by Nibbles 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Japan was an isolated country, who did not have countries ready to move in and take over. Iraq is surrounded by Anti-American countries. Why would we leave when there would be a larger war caused by the take over of Iraq?
2007-08-14 16:57:18 · answer #10 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋