Moment of Truth In The Middle East.

And I can tell you that the number from those two bombs was significantly lower than the daily fire bombings of Japanese cities were causing every month. And yhose weren't doing a whole lot to dampen the Japanese fighting spirit.

 

From what I'm reading, we intend to bomb them for three days.

And as I understand it, that should fix it.

 

It made the post-war occupation a million times easier. MacArthur got directives from DC. He passed them to Hirohito. Hirohito made the directives (free press, freedom of speech, etc) to the Japanese people. The people said, "we've never done it like that before, but if the emperor says so, ok." I think it was genious to use a now figurehead that had no real political power post WWII. We got Tojo.

 

Much like Hassad's daily military intervention wasn't adequately quelling the rebels?

 

I don't agree, but (more of a jovial than sarcastic tone) if it makes anyone feel better, Bockscar missed it's target rendering the blast less effective than normal.

 

Thus the decision to use WMDs. Which stands a good chance to accomplish that. It's a circular argument.

 

They are "global forces for good", IP.

Its as plain as day, if you just watch the commercials. Here, this should put your concerns to rest:

[YOUTUBE]h3wtUCPWmeI[/YOUTUBE]

 

Circular as in similar?

The US' military objectives were not being met, or as efficiently as they would prefer, hence, they used WMD's.

Syria's military objectives were not being met, or as efficiently as they would prefer, hence, they used NBC's.

 

All tongue-in-checking aside, here are the larger points that I'm trying to at least propose for collective consideration:

1. The UN is a completely impotent and utterly useless organization, and has been such ever since the Security Council gave veto power to any one of their permanent members, and deserves to be completely ignored outside of the being the world's largest debate club. But if this is true, then it's true, and we should never again allow "UN dis/approval" to either guide or deter our actions, that is, beyond the theoretical realm, alone.

2. If the world wishes for the US to be its global police officer / moral voice / beacon of goodness, or even if we must do it because we're the only one who can (we aren't) - then let's accept that truth, as well, and ask the global community to consent to it. If they agree, then we are. If they do not, then we are not. But let's settle this question, once and for all.

 

I liked how they closed that commerical with one of (if not the least) used ship in the fleet...the Mercy. I've seen that ship get underway on maybe 2 occasions and it was for 1-2 days.

 

I'm growing tired of the US using its own blood, money, and resources while the rest of the world watches. There's no way around getting involved here because of this administrations "red line" so the time has come to shit or get off the pot. I just ask that if you do it, don't half-ass it.

 

Re 2: No country is going to essentially give up its sovereignty by consenting to allowing the US to "world police."

The simple fact is we have the power to act, and therefore should. Others that also have the power to act should as well, but they won't without our lead, and there are very few of them even then.

 

That's the biggest problem we have in front of us right now. They are so used to us taking the initiative, that they want to see what we do first. If they so cared the the situation at hand, why not grow some balls and do what they wish us to do first? Unless others step up and assist us on taking the fight to someone else, before we do, then we take all the responsibility. There are more people in the world that dislike us for taking a strike first stance, and yet we ignore that. We pretty much are the world's police, in the fact that people expect a response from us, but don't view us as allies of the people. We are the hired gun of the world, but its our people that feel the hurt in that, when they lose family members because no other nation wants to sack up and help us in the way it should be done.

No matter what we do, it will be half-assed, because this administration is half-assed.

 

I wish we were getting paid. We could use the money. Kind of funny how defense budget cuts are looming but we can't seem to avoid conflict.

 

No circular.

The difference is that there were no international treaties outlawing nukes in 1945.

TD, I hope you are never put in this position, but if you ever find yourself looking for work, I believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that you would be one of the most amazing contemporary issues teachers I've ever seen.

 

Way to piss on our allies who have taken casualties right along with us.

 

The great poet, Stan Lee, once said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

 

I've said it before, but we need to remind people the US spends more money on defense than any country. If we don't use it, don't spend the money on it.

 

While I do think a UN type organization can be a good thing, the current setup makes the UN essentially a British Bobby wielding his/her baton. "Stop!!!!!!!! Or........I'll say stop again!"

Russia/China will never let another Korea type vote happen again. Float was right, veto power by each of the Big 5 in the Security Council is designed for nothing to happen except hand wringing and bellicose rhetoric. In that sense, it's much like our political system's rule that 60 votes is now the definition of a majority in the Senate of 100 members.

 

You actually bring up a decent point here.

We've drug our allies through enough to protect our interests, it's probably past time for us to "take one for the team" in regards to Syria whether or not it directly affects us or not.