Two atomic bombs to be dropped. That said, the situations are hardly analogous; Truman ordered the destruction of two cities in a nation we would've otherwise had to conquer. At the time this weapon was the most precise one in his arsenal capable of achieving the task at hand.
Need I remind you that we have already occupied Iraq? Need I further remind you that one of our stated objectives was to liberate the people of Iraq from a cruel and murderous dictator who committed exactly the same kind of atrocities you're advocating on this thread?
Was that a good idea?
Yes it was. But again, extracting and applying the same means that worked 60 years ago to this situation is pure folly. And that's putting it kindly. We now have far more efficient means of achieving the same results.
Was it right to save US soldiers lives over the lives of the enemy?
Of course it was, and is. But those soldiers are in place to protect the freedom of Americans - and now Iraqi citizens as well. That's the moral responsibility that falls upon a conquering nation, like it or not. (And before you ask, I was in favor of this war, and remain so.)
Do you agree with the Bush doctrine, ie, to wage war against terrorism anywhere it is found and to hold those responsible whether they are terrorists, or harbor terrorists, support terrorists or sympathize with them.
Yes, I do. And do you remember the numerous distinctions this Administration has drawn between the actions of the Hussein regime v. the actions of the Iraqi people as a whole? Is the entire nation to be held guilty for the actions of a few?
Is that's the case, how long does that collective guilt last?
How would you sort out the Iraqis? Is it your claim that the way it has been done, that is, allowing them to target our troops in ambush fire fights is the best and only way to discover their motives?
You're going to have to do better than misrepresentations if you hope to make your case. "The way it has been done" is to actively seek out and destroy those who continue to support the Hussein dictatorship, while being mindful of the fact that this must necessarily play out in civilian areas and taking all possible caution.
Now, I would support the US if they (say) fired on and destroyed a house that held the enemy, and incurred collateral damage in the process. Or if a cruise missile killed civilians while destroying an enemy target. Both situations involve taking reasonable precautions to protect civilians, but balancing that against the need to destroy your enemy. But destroying an entire city as you suggest here is utterly depraved, and ultimately counterproductive (except perhaps to make you feel better by gaining retribution).
It would be like a man of the house discovering an intruder in the house but not clear about what to do. He waits in the darkness, quietly, until the motives of the intruder are known by committing an unspeakable act upon a family member before the man of the house takes action. By then he is sure, but a family member is surely dead. With a clear conscience the man now can go to his child's funeral.
It's like no such thing. As stated above, you need some work on your analogies.
Is this what you believe?
Oh brother. You know that isn't what I believe, but feel free to continue distorting my position if it makes you feel better.
If you want to learn an effective way to deal with situations like these, I suggest you read about the Israeli response to the 1972 Munich Olympics. The message was sent loud and clear.