"Nuclear Bomb: You approve of this- Was it justified? Should America have used this in Vietnam, or in Irak? "
You have to excuse me for answering this one in a fairly long-winded way.
Have you ever served in the military? I guess not. I have.
Back in 1976 when we were doing the Urban Coin Ops (Urban Counter Insurgency Operations), we were practising D-formations. I am not going to go into that because that would make it even more long-winded. Essentially one of the key principles of Urban Coin is the principle of minimum force.
Now, there was a difference in how the SA Police and the SADF used to approach minimum force. In short the police' approach was to talk to the crowd to try and persuade them to disperse, if that did not work they would throw teargas grenades at them, if that did not work the would fire rubber bullets at them. The next step would be bird shot and if that didn't work they would use buck shot and only thereafter would they use real live ammo.
The military approach was to warn them, throw one or two teargas grenades and then the platoon commander would choose one of the main instigators and issue more or less the following command: "Rifleman number __ (any one form number 1 to 30). The man with the red shirt and holding the loud haler, standing on the oil drum, fire to kill". That's it. Nine times out of ten, that would have the desired effect. That is minimum force. Remember what I said when I started my military career, ie 1976, the year of the Soweto uprising. Many more policemen died in those events than soldiers.
Hector Pietersen, a child, was killed by police when they opened fire. That was following the police minimum force protocols, causing the crowd to be pissed off and storming the police, forcing them to defend themselves. the military never killed kids in their operations because they selected one target and that ended the incident.
Fast forward ten years and I am doing my training to become and officers. One of the modules of our course is The Art of Verbal Persuasion. Part of the final evaluation is to deliver a speech to make a statement and then debate it with the class. One of my colleagues, Johan Ellis, made a speech titled "Maximum Force as a Form of Minimum Force". He argued that we could have put an end to the conflict on the Namibian border and in Angola by launching one massive conventional military offensive on the MPLA/FNLA headquarters. He used the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as motivation for his idea.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a perfect example of using maximum force as a form of minimum force.
Whether it should have been used in Vietnam or Iran is a hypothetical. I don't think so. Neither the Vietnam war nor the Iraq war was nearly as devastating as either of the two world wars.
"American Red Neck % Trump Fans: - Can you disprove my statement- if you ask me to prove it? "
You made the initial assertion, it is your call to provide your evidence of your initial assertion.
"World War 2 - America joined the Allies - only after Japan attacked them. Had Japan not attacked, it might not have happened.... "
Another hypothesis. You don't know for sure that they would not have joined.
"False Christian % - Can you disprove that more than 50% of Christians are false Christians? So, asking me to prove something that is an opinion in the same. Would you consider Beeno a good Christian? "
See the redneck issue. Your assertion. Your burden of proof.
It is not my place to judge Beeno as either a "good" or a "bad" Christian. Your remark leaves the impression that you are judging him. Correct? And if so, how would you judge him and most importantly, what do you base your judgement on?
"Their Wars - I was talking about America in one sentence, and Trump in another. Trump is certainly not responsible for these before he was president. "
This entire thread is about Trump and this was what I was trying to get across. There is so much criticism on Trump, yet he is the first US president in decades who is trying to put an end to these endless and mindless fucking wars but he is constantly being regarded as a stupid fucking moron/bozo.
"Economy - Any right-wing government can boost the economy by taking away public services created by a left wing, and cutting taxes. "
A trimmed down public service, coupled with minimum govt intervention and cutting taxes is nothing but basic Economics 101. Although, it is also true that it is not a particular favourite of the liberal lefties who want everything for free rather than working for it in the old fashioned conservative way, and the only way to pay for the freebies is by expanding the public service and raising taxes.
It is the normal course of action to have a conservative govt who put on the brakes after a period of liberal wastage.
The newly elected conservative govt then starts applying the brakes, decrease reckless spending and bring the finances back in line. Then, you have a type relaxing period of prosperity and loads of money to start blowing on freebies again. That is when the lefties start with the election promises of dishing out freebies again, and the sheeple always fall for their BS and voila. Everything starts all over again.
If you want me to explain that to you, I will but know that it leaves me with some doubts.
"South Africa's that like Trump: It seems it is more the far right winger that like Trump. Maybe Trump should import them to Alabama. "
I think you could well be wrong. I think that in Nov 2016, you could have been close to correct but I think that there is a hell of a lot more who like him nowadays. I think.... no, I am 100% sure... that many South Africans, not just far right wingers would not thin twice to accept to be "exported" to Alabama.