Belly,

It seems that the Americans "humanized" Saddam when it suited them despite concern for his regime's activities.
Individual countries tend to do what is in their economic interests and, therefore, there is no concrete morality. Grievous atrocities are conveniently overlooked if it suits the agenda of the day. This is evident in this article detailing Donald Rumsfeld's meetings as U.S envoy with Saddam Hussein in the early eighties.
It appears clear that although the U.S. was concerned about Iraq's use of chemical weapons and other human rights abuses, these issues were consistently downgraded in importance in favour of America's priorities which were "preserving access to oil and expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

I concede, if the Japanese refused to surrender after the first one then the 2nd one may have been necessary.

However, I am not being Anti-American.
But, it is only the Japanese, (whom have remained anti nuclear weapon since then) truly understand the horror of it.

The question is what do we think acceptable, could America instead of doing it again, have continued to negotiate for example.
History no doubt, would portray the historical persona of the Japanese as inflexible/fanatical and willing to die, man women and child: "for annihilation" as demonstrated by their reported refusal to backdown. Is this true?.

Is this Anti American or pro Japanese and why is that important in comparison to to the actual deed.
This this post is about the social fabric, their very basis upon which we decide the future. You have to start somewhere!.

Please excuse my stuttering everybody.(haha)

thinker 2, "But, it is only the Japanese, (whom have remained anti nuclear weapon since then) truly understand the horror of it."

Regrettably, the Japanese government has ensured that a well-laundered version of its history, especially in respect of WW2, is only available to its students and citizens. Japan remains a police state.

I join with you in stressing the importance of understanding, negotiation and diplomacy in reducing the likelihood of conflict, but alas as Wikileaks has shown, first we must ensure that our own government is responsible and accountable to us. That is the real struggle and priority for us. That is a non-political statement because none of the established parties puts the wellbeing and rights of Australian first before political populism and short term political advantage.

According to Belly, SPQR and others on this thread it would appear it is not the deed that condemns but who it is doing the deed. If the CIA target civilians it is justifiable but if Saddam does it then it is evil personified. It is not a tenable position to take as not only can they rightly be accused of being hypocritical but it debases their right to criticise.

I can legitimately condemn Saddam's actions in gassing the Kurdish villages and I do so with utter conviction that it transgressed my values, hopefully the values of my country and the values of much of the international community expressed through conventions and international law.

However by refusing to condemn the actions of the CIA in any of the examples I have used, to not question a single 'permissable', Belly and the others are left with little moral legitimacy with which to condemn the gas attack. Saddam in this instance fulfilled their criteria of a justifiable action, he did not fulfil mine.

His ghost is giving me an accusatory glare and is pointing his finger at them saying to me “At least they understand”.

They might but I do not.

I am heartened by the words of General Pertraeus;

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.”

It gives me hope that some time in the not too distant future there will be the will in this administration to correct this evil.

Thinker 2 I have always respected your posts, Poirot too and sometimes csteels.
But I need to highlight your post, you seem unaware of the events leading up to those bombs.
And as pointed out not informed about Japans neglect of the past.
Japan is intent on forgetting its past, it was a nation enslaved in the pre ww2 years.
Its people may not have felt slaves but not unlike North Korea they knew only what they had been allowed.
Militarists ran the country, but the Emperor was seen as a GOD doubt still exists the he was not the driving force behind Japans war.
Mass murders that can be researched are horrible and true.
In retaking the Philippines whole city's/populations suffered rape and murders, beyond anything the west has ever been changed with.
Japan refused to give up its emperor, it wanted him saved, wrongly believed Russia was its middle man.
Invasion of its Islands left massive deaths, American troops sailors and Japanese Civilians who killed them selves, women and children, told Americans would rape and kill.
Russia in fact knew via its spy's America had the bomb, and was waiting to get its hands on soil held by Japan, by invading Manchuria.
Knowing the massive deaths invasion would bring America dropped bomb one.
Continued.