How unjustified were the Hiroshima bombings? Was 9/11 any different?

With respect, 9 questions would ordinarily cost you 45 points. Your request is completely unreasonable. I will be happy to answer the one question you paid 5 points to ask, and some of your sub questions as a bonus.

I think it would be wrong to answer all your subquestions, and I feel your request is bordering on gaming the answers system. Did not the U.S. kill the Muslims first? Killing does not justify killing, and it definitely does not justify war.

Also, it was Al-Qaeda that claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, not the Muslim community. To your three reasons question: -While the UN was performing weapons inspections prior to 9/11, Bush used the WMDs as an excuse to invade Iraq after 9/11, not before. So no, your first point the way you worded it is impossible; Bin Laden couldn't predict the future, and even if he could, divination is hardly an excuse for war.

You can't attack a country based on what tea leaves and tarot cards tell you. -Can you elaborate as to how owning a military base is justification for an attack on another nation? This is a rhetorical question; the answer is no, not by itself or paired only with your two other reasons.

-This is a motive for hostile attitudes toward the U.S. and might establish a motive, but it does not go far enough to justify a war or an attack on a country's peaceful civilian population. Also, I'd like you to provide the direct word-for-word quotes from Dr Paul, as I simply don't believe he said these things in this context. I believe you are exaggerating and misquoting Ron Paul.

Doesn't logic that says 1+1=2 also say that killing a million civilians is worse than killing 3000? No. Deductive reasoning can indeed be used to conclude things like "if everything we know about addition and cardinal numbers is true, adding 1 and 1 will give us 2".

It can't be used with ethics. Otherwise, you can produce terrible conclusions, like this: Feeding the homeless is always good. Homeless people can eat seeds.

Therefore, instead of ever planting any seeds, we should always feed them to the homeless. Obviously that's nonsense; growing crops would feed a lot more people than feeding the seeds to them directly. Ethics and policy demand more from us than deductive reasoning.

People are capable of making better decisions than calculators can, and have a responsibility to use this power. In this case, killing a million civilians is just as bad, in my opinion, as killing 3,000. Both cross a line, killing, unnecessarily.

It would be just as bad as killing 1 person intentionally. The act of killing, itself, is the problem that needs to be addressed directly. It doesn't matter how effective the killing is, we need to find ways to keep people from killing each other at all.

That includes making sure that people don't kill each other out of revenge; the end result is simply more killing. Finally, again, please provide the places where you are quoting Dr Paul. I don't believe for half a second that you are doing any of his positions justice.

You are riding his good name to make your points, and that is dishonest. Being intentionally vague is worse than lying.

When Muslims in Russia blew up that school full of children was that because of US involvement in the Middle East. How about the bombings in Bali and the Phillipines? What exactly did the innocent people that were killed there do?

And this past Christmas when Muslims attacked and murdered dozens of Christians in Nigeria on Christmas day was that also justified? THe obvious truth is that Muslims can not peacefully co-exist with anyone, anywhere.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.