It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Originally posted by stumason
So what if your "constitution" forbids it!!! I'm sure other countries forbid it also, but international law supercedes domestic law, so if a resolution was passed (i know it wont as you have the right of veto, but as an example) the US would be expected to abide by that decision, regardless of what their constitution said.
There is no such thing as international law. It's a catchy buzz phrase, but it has no meaning. "International law" is nothing more than a series of tentative agreements between nations, almost always by unelected, self-indulgent bureaucrats. There is no superpowerful international body fairly elected by the people of all countries to impose any dictates on individual soveriegn nations. There is no representative world government; there can't be as long as dictatorships and theocracies exist. Government can only legitimately exist by the consent of the people, the electorate. Can anyone tell me who their international legistlator is? Which world executive officer signed all the legistlation into international law? Are any of the world politicians accountable to the populace?
Originally posted by koji_K
there's plenty of international law. take the EU for example. it has an independent legislative body. also a judiciary and an executive.
i think what you mean is that there's no *global* enforcement body stronger than any of the constituent members of an agreement or treaty.
Originally posted by jd27
And by unstable I mean the entire government itself, Bush while an idiot, is not unstable, and he is not truly a religious fanatic, he just manipulates gullible bible-belt citizens to vote for him as a mandate of God. [edit on 24-7-2004 by jd27]
Originally posted by Murcielago
You can't possibly compare the US to a terrorost group, yes they both have their own agenda's but a US soldier doesn't strap a bomb on his chest and blow them selves up in a crowd of inoccent people. All they want to do is interfere with the economy. They can praise Allah all they want but there fighting a up hill battle that they can't possibly win.
Originally posted by Indy
Maybe I'm missing the point. But to me there is absolutely no excuse to target civilians. I don't care what someone hopes to accomplish. Its no better than the guy that blows himself up on a bus.
TO JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet. We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2,000 of our giant B-29's can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate. We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city. Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our President has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender: We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace loving Japan. You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Other-wise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
EVACUATE YOUR CITIES
Because of the almost inconceivable expense of each individual Atomic Bomb, it is obvious that no live, i. e., "bomb smashing" munitions could be used for practice or training. One of the initial problems of the tactical application of the Atomic Bomb was the necessity for using an air burst to derive the most advantage from the terrific blast effect of the bomb. To get the greatest possible accuracy (using visual instead of radar bombing) with such an expensive weapon it would be necessary to accomplish daylight visual attacks. Because of the wide destructive area of the bomb it would be necessary for only a single bomb to be dropped during any one attack on any one target.
Originally posted by Indy
We could have flown over and bombed their military facilities but we didn't. We wanted to kill their civilians. And while the pilots may have been upset there was obvious excitement within our government for what we had done. We went after the civilians to influence the government. Any way you slice it.. thats terrorism.
Originally posted by Indy
There is no real thing as a "military city". Does that justify nuking it? What we basically told the Japanese is that if you do not surrender we will target your civilians. There is no more of a perfect example of terrorism than that.
Originally posted by FredT
How big would the cemetaries at Arlington be if we had chosen to simply invade the mainland of Japan and take it by force? Based on the resistence seen in the outer islands during the Pacific campagin, each city would have had to been burned to the ground in order to clear it.