SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: marcos who wrote (106350)7/18/2003 8:40:36 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Of course there were alternatives, in both Iraq 2003 and Japan 1945. And Wounded Knee, for that matter. There are always more alternatives than the War Party will acknowledge.

In both Iraq and Japan, all we had to do, was keep doing what we were doing. Nothing more.

Open any history textbook, and you'll see it explained, that Hiroshima was necessary, to avoid a million dead American soldiers during an invasion of the Japanese homeland. This is yet another bogus either/or choice, ignoring the other realistic choices, and vastly inflating the enemy's strength. Our airtight blockade of Japan would have forced an unconditional surrender. Not as quickly, but what's the rush? Germany had already surrendered. With no access to raw materials or imported food, and the near-total destruction of their industry and transportation network by air attack, and all their army trapped on Pacific islands and the Asian mainland, the Japanese would have met our invasion with old men holding sharp sticks. The only rational reason for Hiroshima, was to send a message to Stalin. A rational, and wholly immoral, reason.

Same thing in Iraq 2003. Inspections were working, Iraq had disarmed, Iraq presented zero threat to the U.S., or any other nation. If we were going to do Regime Change for humanitarian reasons, that should have been explained to America and the world.