Was it necessary to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, again killing hundreds of thousands?
It's easy to sit back and ask questions like that these days when hindsight is 20/20. But the fact of the matter is that the Japanese were warned of our atomic bomb. After we dropped the first one, their pride would not allow them to surrender even though we told them to or face another a-bomb dropping. After the 2nd, they finally gave in.
Yes, war is bad and I am not saying how great it is that people die. But people do die in wars, lots of them. It's what people do (go to war). I'm at the point where I almost think it is kind of natural for man to war to keep the population in check. Of course, I'm pulling that out of my ass, but we've gone to war ever since we were able to do so and I don't think it's a switch that can just be turned off cold turkey.
Look at teh drama that happens on this and many forums. When a conflict occurs, it attracts a lot of people and "dealing" with said conflict you are involved in can be very hard to resist.
I appreciate your comments on war, but the one thing I will retort with is this: I disagree with your lumping all of 'the Japanese' together rhetorically. The other fact of the matter is that the Japanese government at that time was a dictatorship, and the civilians targeted by the U.S. atomic bombs (and the U.S. firebombings) had nothing to do with the dicision making process.
Yeah and these same lame f*ckin a$$holes will say bin laden is still alive even though they did a dna test. You can say the sky is blue and they would say its not. Grow the f*ck up.
They would also say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, so we need to go in an kill him and all his children,at great cost to Iraqi civilians and it could turn out to be nothing but a lie.
Because I have a job. 
Believe me, I was celebrating last night when I heard the news.
It's not a street gang warfare mentality. It's being happy that an evil man who has killed many innocent Americans is now dead.
I can't believe I even need to explain this. Would you have said the same thing when Hitler died if you were around then?
Hitler was defeated, at the cost of . Was it really necessary to firebomb civilian targets in Germany and Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people living under dictatorships? Was it necessary to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, again killing hundreds of thousands?
Means to an end you may say, but I'm sure Hitler would say the same, so in the end what's the difference?
Let's not forget our "ally" Stalin that was responsible for more deaths than Hitler 
Have you ever read about both the civilian, and soldier death estimates of a mainland Japan invasion? While the atomic bombs can be debated forever, a direct invasion would have been catastrophic on a MUCH higher bodycount. War has def changed in the last 60+ years...many things done in the past are no longer "acceptable/necessary."
To be honest Nec, no, I don't think I have ever read anything on death estimates of a mainland Japan invasion. I can, however, tell you that in the upper division U.S. history course I took on the period, an entire lecture and discussion day was dedicated to the debate about the atomic bombing, so I'm well aware of the argument.
Have you ever read anything on the
Hague conventions, which were international treaties governing the laws of war through World War II, which were used as the legal basis for the war crimes trials of captured Nazi leaders? In 1963, a
Japanese court ruled that the atomic bombings in Japan were violations of international law at the time they took place.
My point with all of this is that vilifying people like Hitler and Osama Bin Laden while at the same time giving war profiteers based in the U.S. and her allies a free pass is extremely hypocritical. I think that celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden, when it's common knowledge that he was actually propped up by U.S. support in the first place, is unwise at best, because it reflects a lack of wisdom concerning the real movers and shakers that are behind military actions around the world.
The left-leaning regime in Afghanistan that Osama Bin Laden was so violently opposed to seemed like it was doing some very positive things, particularly with regards to the role of women in society, education, etc. None of that matters, however, because they were going to give the Soviet Union more access to their strategic territory and natural resources, leaving our big mega corporations out of the loop. Therefore, supporting Osama Bin Laden was in line with "U.S. strategic interests," which to me, is merely propaganda speak for "The interests of the rich and mega-rich in the U.S."
Rather would've seen him captured alive. I think the end result that way would've been better than satiating vengeance mentality. That said, if he wasn't willing to surrender right away, I see no foul in sending him a bullet.
Either way, I hope this brings some sense of closure to the families of 9/11 victims.
The Nazis killed millions of people, yet when possible, their leaders were captured and put on trial. I think a trial of Osama Bin Laden would have been very productive, particularly because it may have led to more transparency with regard to 9/11. I think that if in fact Osama Bin Laden was guilty of masterminding 9/11, and convicted, it would be beneficial to the U.S.' image abroad.
