Who is the worst, Sadam or the American millitary?
Just been reading a history of the Nuclear bombing of japan , by an American millitary historian.
It was well known (( in millitary circles )) that japan was ready to surrender days before the bombs were dropped .
The only obstacle was the word "" unconditional"", NOT the fact , just the word , and while the negotiations wre still going on the bombs were delivered , killing nearly 200.000 civilians .
Not a war strike but a scientific experiment , a lot of money had been spent developing this thing and it WAS going to be tried out somewhere .
So , Sadam has been hanged , supposedly by the Iraqi government , who says Bush wasnt in there somewhere overlooking his political experiment .
How many more American and British kids will have to be killed before this experiment will be called a failure
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
That's unfair... Sadaam was obviously worse...
- wolf560Lv 51 decade ago
#1- Read your history closer.
We firebombed and 'Nuked' Japan true...... however READ the history of those events. The Japanese Government was telling its people that they were about to overcome the American Soldiers at the beach, It was estimated that America would lose 1,000,000 men taking Japan by main force.
Harry Truman had seen enough death already and if 175,000 Japanese had to die instead of 1,000,000 American soldiers...then so be it.
It was NOT "Well Known" in anything but a conspiracy theory news article that Japan was ready to surrender. I am a History Major and I concentrated on WWII history specifically. The Japanese War Cabinet had just approved an order to fight to the very last man woman and child.
Negotiations were NOT on-going..... the Americans had tried over and over again to get anything started.Source(s): WHERE DO YOU GET THIS NONSENSE FROM????? For the record, Saddam killed 180,000 Kurds alone in 1995. It is estimated that he is responsible for as many as 1~2 million deaths MINIMUM and possibly as many as 30 million. So even in your drug induced delirium........ SADDAM WINS (YAY.... so HANG HIM)
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Saddam was certainly bad but then Bush is no saint either. I think it is fairer to compare Saddam and Bush rather than Saddam and the US military. The difference is that Bush has the bigger fist and can kill seemingly legally, using his military to do the dirty job. Whilst Saddam also killed through his military, he had no 'legal' right to do so in the eyes of America and its cohorts. Bush through his armed forces sent thousands to their graves, directly or indirectly, and in this sense he is the equal if not far better (in terms of death toll) than Saddam's regime. Yet Saddam was adjudged guilty and hanged whereas Bush thought he helped rid the world, legitimately even, of a big evil. To the mightier, the right to act and to the loser, the inevitability of death. That is the sum total of modern day democrazy (repeat democrazy) as espoused by Bush. If the full score of evilness is 10, Bush outscores Saddam by a long shot. Meantime, Saddam has been consigned to his maker while Bush through his military continues to pile up dead bodies. There is thus really no comparison at all between the two as Bush's evilness continues.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
'unconditional' was more that just a word, it would have meant that the military regime who started the war would still have been in a position of power and they wanted to hang on to parts of china,Manchuria and Korea. one problem when you are at war with a people fired up with nationalism, unless you totally defeat them and show them the consequences of their aggressive action they are likely to commit the same crime all over again. for example Germany after the first world war. they though of themselves as undefeated and were unaffected by the consequences of their actions, therefore, they were still nationalistic and militaristic, and were easily swayed by the words of Adolf Hitler. bringing the brutality and violence of war to the German people during WWII let them know what war was and the consequences of aggression. if the atom bombs had not been dropped and japan had been allowed to surrender 'conditionally', we would have seen a very different japan today. they would have probably taken the same route as the german people after WWI, and there would have been much more bloodshed as the sought to agressively reassert themselves. the atom bombs made the japanese a peaceful people who ardently wish for atomic weapons never to be used again. the area bombing of germany inadvertently produced the same effect. this was necessary and expedient brutality. as for the military in iraq, they are doing what the military do, don't blame them. if any blame is to be apportioned it must be the politicians who take the blame because of their short-sighted and blundering policies emanating from their naive and simplistic dogma.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- samurai_daveLv 61 decade ago
where's this tinfoil hat proof that Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped? That's a bunch of crap.
Anyway ask many southeast asians about the bombs. Many of them wondered why we stopped at two after all the things the Imperial Japanese forces did to their people.
Saddam seized power then coldly executed his rivals, gassed people, put people into wood chippers, and let his dogs tear apart enemies.
- kolacat17Lv 51 decade ago
I don't think your question is about Saddam and the American military but rather Saddam and the commander in chief of the American military. Saddam was an evil man but I don't consider George Bush to be an angel. He blatently lied to the American people about Iraq to get his war started. He badly wanted war long before 9/11 tragedy. The American military stands ready to defend and protect us. It is their commander that chooses their action and where he sends them. I think your problem is not with our military but instead with the Presidency.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It is a fair question...Our government has done the same things Sadam has done and they were far worst. More people were killed. (The Indians, and Slaves...just to name a few) America is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. We are no better than any other country!
- kittLv 44 years ago
you're neither, you're a individual with the nicely suited on your guy or woman opinion. i've got not walked on your footwear so i would not comprehend the kind you experience. you may would desire to do what your judgment of right and incorrect dictated to you. I think of many human beings experience such as you, except there's a political parent who knows your attitude you're caught interior the middle. in the process the worldwide wars over right here there have been many objectors who refused to serve interior the war. it somewhat is their perogative, it would not lead them to undesirable human beings or undesirable british human beings. They have been named and shamed it somewhat is extra to do with human beings's concept, not theirs. you will desire to return to a determination your self in case you think of you're a sturdy american or not, i'm specific others would have their own opinion. it somewhat is what you think of that extremely counts. As for russian tanks, they're extra probably to grant to worldwide places like iran and for this reason be a in the back of the curtain stress. They nevertheless have not made amends to the human beings, orphans and generations of victims of the Chenobyl disaster.
- 2007Lv 51 decade ago
Your initial question is comparing Saddam to the American military, that is not so. The American military is not bad and they serve their country in ways they feel the country needs them.
- ball_courtneyLv 51 decade ago
The two are in no way comparable!