Karma wrote:The comment was meant to provoke some thinking not name calling. I respect others point of view and do not resort to name calling and vulgarities simply because I do not agree with a point of view.
terrorism: the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.
terroize: to coerce by threat or violence.
In 1945 the Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration. The United States did not get what they wanted. Truman then authourised use of the atomic bomb to coerce the Japanese into surrendering and giving the United States what they wanted. When the Japanese did not surrender after the first attack a second attack was authourised. Under the definition of terrorism this would qualify as a terrorist attack. Guess it depends on which country you are standing in as to the point of view.
The United States is not viewed favourable by many other countries. For decades they have been called the big bully on the block. It is time for the United States to stop invading other countries and trying to impose their form of government on others. The United States has a reputation of wanting their own way all the time. This has created animosity and hatred toward the United States. Now is the time for the United States to lay down their arms and extend the olive branch. Violence creates more violence. Talk with friends and enemies, learn to compromise and keep your nose out of other's business.
With regard to Japan-
Japans emporer stated they would fight to the end Truman's advisers estimated a couple a hundred thousand US troops would die at a minimum and at least 400,000 Japanese civilians if we invaded. No-one could quite grasp the ramifications of the use of a nuclear bomb at that time- it didn't seem as cruel as at least 900,000 dead humans from a land invasion. That estimation might have been wrong but you see where it came from.
The fact that when we occupied Japan after the war, MacArthur showed mercy to the Japanese leadership, insisted that American troops show respect to Japaese civilians, and build Democratic institutions.
On a general note:
The Marshall Pan, was not bullying, naked pig ignorant self interest or war mongering nor was the Peace Corps, nor the Millenium Challenge accouts which has allocated a record amout of US govt fudinding to fight Aids in Africa. Nor was the Berlin Airlift, or NATO, or our public moral support (and behind the scenes arm twisting in favour of) of the hero dissidents in Eastern Europe in the early 1980's.
Nor is the fact that that private American citizens give a higher percetage of their personal revenue to overseas charities than any other country in the world .
These are but a few examples of good things the US has done overseas.
Yes the US makes alot of mistakes and does not come off well overseas all the time. Ive seen this first hand- and Ive read history books .
But I could pick out any other country, for example Britian- one which I admire greatly by the way- and dig up all sorts things from its history and make
up a horribly unfair characterization of it. That would be unfair. Perhaps some fair mindedess is needed from you too.
