I'm probably wrong but hadn't Germany surrendered or was about to be overrun by the time the first a-bomb dropped?

Germany surrendered in May 1945, the A-bomb was dropped in August.

you are correct, but the discussion had been going on for some time and the idea to use this weapon on german soil, if and when ready, was rejected on all sides. when it was available the same charitable views were not extended toward the japanese.

Many discussions were ongoing. Would the bomb cause the atmosphere to burn. Whether it would be better to drop the bomb over the ocean in clear view of Japanese cities. Whether to just drop plutonium - to contaminate the city rather than kill so many.

But to understand a decision to drop the bomb, one must always go back to the strategic objective. Something that clearly existed for Afghanistan, Kuwait, and WWII. Something that did not exist for Iraq. Churchill and FDR spent much time together in 1942 defining many critical objectives that would become the guiding principles of WWII. The most fundamental was the number one objective - "unconditional surrender". This caused great fear within German High Command who understood early on where the war would be going after German declared war on the US. Germany accepted demands for "unconditional surrender". War over. The bomb that was developed much later would not be necessary.

But Japan just did not get it. Negotiations (if they existed) would have been for a settlement. That would violate the Allied Strategic Objective - "unconditional surrender". 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - a Japanese government that could not even consider unconditional surrender. Even three days after the Hiroshima bomb, still, the Japanese government remained in denial that a bomb existed and that "unconditional surrender" was even an option. With the second bomb, finally, the mindset at highest levels changed.

Rather unfortunately that so much energy must be wasted to change the 'attitude and knowledge' of but a few minds. But welcome to a fundamental principle throughout history - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Now the American perspective. We were at war with only one acceptable alternative. Total Japanese surrender. They would not. That leaves two tactical options: invasion or the bomb. Invasion was an ongoing plan with estimates of up to 0.5 million Allied casulties and even far more Japanese. One can present all kinds of reasons for the dropping of two bombs. But fundamental remains one major reason: the American objective of "unconditonal surrender". All options were only for that objective.

Take this back to the Iraq invasion. What is the strategic objective? Colin Powell was so obstinate for a strategic objective, clearly defined, in the 1990 Kuwait war that some (ie Scowcroft) feared they had the wrong generals. Scowcroft et al did not understand how absolutely critical a strategic objective, clearly defined by a smoking gun, is to the successfull achievement of military victory. Powell did understand which is why Anglo-American forces were so dominate in that war. Even worse, when objectives are defined by lies, we have disaster, torture, massacres, and scandel. It is inevitable. No clear and honest strategic objective (the reason why that smoking gun is so important) has repeatedly meant no victory for US military forces. We civilians must first and foremost honor and respect the military by first demanding that strategic objective. We must first demand a smoking gun. Sending in the military on anything less is to only disrepect the military. No true patriot sends in the military without a clearly defined stategic objective. Without same, there can be no exit strategy.

Plus in order to invade the Japanese mainland, some of the troops in Europe would have to be sent to the Pacific instead of home. That's one announcement nobody wanted to make.:(

Re: Beheading in Iraq
 

I sort of considered something similar, but I doubt that the US would be dumb enough to do something so high profile. Very few conspiracies, from Watergate through Iran-Contra and the blue dress, have stood the test of time, and the active murder of a US citizen would have no statute of limitations.

However, the holding by Iraqi police is slightly suspicious. Could the arrest have been a setup? If so, which side were they setting him up for?

IMO, there is a %90 chance that the Berg killing was carried out by hostile terrorists, militia, etc. Occams razor rules and thanks to our fucked up policies there are enough hostile factions and cells there to want to do us in.

However, there are a few groups which would want to inflame American public opinion and keep us in Iraq. Right now, there are a number of Iraqis who have hitched their star to the US occupation, and if we bail out, they not only stand to lose whatever power and kickbacks they are getting, they might very well lose their lives.

Starting with the Iraqi Governing Council , and going down through middlemen dealing with Haliburton, local politicians and ex-generals, a lot of people are prospering because we have to subcontract everything outside of the green zone to locals.

So I will say that there is a %10 chance that Berg was killed by 'friendlies' in an attempt to re-inflame American passions.

Has anyone seen the ENTIRE Berg tape? If you watch the timestamp, it has a jump of 11 hours in the time it takes these bastards to grab Bergs hair and throw him to the ground. 11 hours in 2 seconds? The editor of that tape must have been watching "Contact" while working on it.
Also, there are reports that the FBI told Berg three days prior that it would be in his best interests to get out of there. Berg refused. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. My condolences to his family, but he may have been under the employ of a government agency that cannot reveal any connection, now or ever.

11 hours? really? I didnt spot that. I watched the whole tape, I didnt really take in the time stamp....

this thing is starting to reek badly.

As if it wasn't reeking badly to begin with? :)

Now it's like a 2 week old cod left in the sun.

The US government has very clearly stated that they never had Berg in custody before he was beheaded. They said the Iraqi police had him in custody and that US officials checked on him once or twice to make sure he was OK. This is in direct contrast to what the family has said.

Well now, the family is producing e-mails that were sent to them at the time, by US officials stating that Berg was in US custody.

It's getting so you need to just assume that when the US governemnt speaks, it is lying. It's too bad. I'd like to be able believe my government.

Wouldn't we all? I stopped believing in my government when Kent State happened. That really drove the point home that the government will kill anyone who gets in its way. I became a radical after that.

trouble ahead, trouble behind...
 

There is more to this than a simple story of a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's an odd "coincidence" that Nick Berg would somehow get kidnapped and murdered by one of the most notorious terrorists in the world just two years after his laptop somehow got in the hands of another notorious terror suspect.

odd yes but what does it mean?

The story CNN has is that the e-mails are from Berg. The government explanation is that some Iraqi facilities have US M.P.s working there.