The Iran Thread

[Addendum]

And there's an interesting item I just heard a few minutes ago:

The amount of American casualties from weapons from Iran is 8%. Total wounded is 4%.

The majority of American casualites (92%) are from weapons used by Sunnis, which originate from Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

[Spider-Bite]

Yes you won. Just like in Thunderdome: 2 men enter. 1 man leaves.

However, "winning" doesn't remove the consequences from your actions.


I won the battle but I still lost. I certainly didn't come out of it ahead, no pun intended.

[blind_fury]

Most of the weapons that killed US soldiers during the Vietnam War came from China.

I wonder why we didn't invade China? :huh:

[Spiderine]

And there's an interesting item I just heard a few minutes ago:

The amount of American casualties from weapons from Iran is 8%. Total wounded is 4%.

The majority of American casualites (92%) are from weapons used by Sunnis, which originate from Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Thankyou so much for clearing that up.Jordan and Saudi Arabia are just as involved in this whole ordeal, finally someone sees this.And the US knows it. But,We wont do anything to further damage our relations with them.

[Spiderine]

Yes, They claim Saddam was so much a threat, it took a 2 weeks to take him out and when the pressure was on he hid his a$$ in a hole and didnt even have time to grab his shaving kit. We just had to take this threat out.:whatever:
LOL!:woot:

[Memphis Slim]

A Letter from Mosul
By Cal Thomas

With the House debating this week how much "non-binding" grief to lay on President Bush about Iraq, I e-mailed a soldier friend of mine for his impressions of the increasingly amplified protests.

Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson, 22, of Grand Rapids, Mich., is on his second tour in Iraq. I asked him what he thinks of the growing opposition to the war. Writing from Mosul, he says he appreciates the freedom Americans have to protest, but adds:

"The American military has shown a stone-cold professional veneer throughout the seething debate raging over Iraq. Beneath that veneer, however, is a fuming, visceral hatred. We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress."

Sgt. Dobson believes the military is being hamstrung against an enemy with no reservations or restrictions:

"It is our overwhelming opinion that we have not been allowed to conduct the war to the fullest of our capability; neither do we feel that we should pull out because of a lack of 'results.' War is not a chemistry set with predetermined outcomes or complications. With a great army matched with an equally cunning enemy, we find ourselves in a difficult, but winnable fight. We do not seek results; rather, we seek total and unequivocal victory."

It's been a while since anyone spoke of "victory." Critics ask war supporters to define the word. Sgt. Dobson makes an effort: "That victory is close at hand. With nearly 80 percent of all terrorist and insurgent activity within 50 miles of Baghdad, the sheer thought of not taking out this stronghold is madness. If we can eliminate 80 percent of terrorist activity, the war is nearly won. To throw away a battle of this magnificent importance would be to waste the suffering and the sacrifice of American service members."

What of the effect on the troops from anti-war remarks on the streets and in Congress? Some assert it doesn't hurt troop morale. Sgt. Dobson disagrees:

"The question has been posed to me recently what congressional resolution hurts troop morale the most. No doubt we would be happy to come home tomorrow. But the thought is bittersweet. Most service members would tell you the same thing: there is no honor in retreat . and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight for a cause. Those of us who fight for (peace) know all too well that peace has a very bloody price tag."

To make his point, he tells a story: "An army once marched on the great city of Rome. The emperor, fearing for the future of the Roman Empire, sent the Empire's greatest warrior to the camp of the general to negotiate the cessation of hostilities. After several hours with the general, he asked the warrior just how much he loved Rome. Without thinking, the warrior rose and walked to a fire and stuck his right hand in the flames until it was completely burned away. 'This,' the warrior said 'is how much all Romans love Rome.' The general, struck with fear, said that if all Romans should have the same spirit as this warrior, he could not afford war with Rome, and so retreated back to his homeland.

"I fear that when questioned of their love for country, many Americans would shy from the flames. It breaks our hearts to see our nation, which was more of a Union on Sept. 12, (2001) fall to such petty bickering. No longer are we (one) out of many, but have fallen from one into many. We on the front lines long to see the white-fisted, purple-faced, raging hatred for our enemies that we saw on the morning of the 12th. We long to see America seeking victory as much as we do."

Sgt. Dobson has another wish beyond the desire to come home and a successful ending to the conflict:

"We need to drop the politics and get back to what really matters: Our nation and its future. The question, therefore, lies in what will leave scars on our national spirit; a war in Iraq, or a war between Americans..."

To the recurring question about patriotism and policy, Sgt. Dobson replies: "I would never presume to call anyone's love for country into question. I ask the same of you. Truly our nation's honor is at stake, and we have been given the opportunity to put our hand to the flame. Should we now, in our moment of testing, shy from it? When asked how much we love our country, should we call retreat? No, we stand at a moment of great truth, let us now show our enemies just how much we love America and our way of life. Let us show them our love of country is as great as it ever was."

Pro, or anti-war, you've got to admire Sgt. Dobson and the other virtuous and committed young men and women our military attracts.

[Mr Sparkle]

" <DIV id=article-box-ad>var zflag_nid="598"; var zflag_cid="14/4/1"; var zflag_sid="1"; var zflag_width="300"; var zflag_height="250"; var zflag_sz="9"; on error resume nextc0=IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.Shock waveFlash.5"))if(c0"

that sergeant is really eloquent :up:

boooo! Menphell SLimdog fixed it...booooo!

[Selene]

We don't need to be fighting other people's wars anymore. We are losing allies left and right cuz of the current war.

They dont have anything they didnt have before.And there not doing anything different then they were doing before.
I say No.

[Memphis Slim]

Mr. Sparkle:
that sergeant is really eloquent :up:

[/QUOTE]
Yes he is...

[Mr Sparkle]

meh...I was referring to to you botched copy and paste job.
the sergeant or whoever is just spewing the same bull**** we've heard over and over

"there is no honor in retreat . and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight for a cause"

what cause?
I thought it was about WMD's?
wait, it wasn't it was about ties to Al Quaida.
wait it wasn't.
it's about terrorism.

that, wasn't there...until...uh..after the invasion.

so yeah.
fight for a cause.
honor.
peace through killing and stuff.

whatever.

[Memphis Slim]

meh...I was referring to to you botched copy and paste job.
the sergeant or whoever is just spewing the same bull**** we've heard over and over

"there is no honor in retreat . and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight for a cause"

what cause?
I thought it was about WMD's?
wait, it wasn't it was about ties to Al Quaida.
wait it wasn't.
it's about terrorism.

that, wasn't there...until...uh..after the invasion.

so yeah.
fight for a cause.
honor.
peace through killing and stuff.

whatever.
:yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

:yay:

you're happy that soldiers are dying?:o
you're happy that the insurgency is killing of teenagers left and right?:csad:
wow Celldog.

[Addendum]

It's not like any dissent over the war prevents a soldier from doing their job.

"Oh damn! I don't how to operate my machine gun because some 29 year old in Memphis thinks that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary! ****! I can't support my buddies anymore because a housewife in Kansas wants us to come home!"

And from the Federalist Papers: In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

[mwm1331]

As badly as hes making it, slim does have a point. America didn't lose vietnam, it gave up becasue the American People no longer had the will to fight it. WHen OUr soldiers, and the Iraqi's hear the rhetoric they do from our newspapers, and our legislators, it makes them believe that will happen again.
That it truns takes away a lot of thier motivation to fight, and for the iraqi's, damn near any motivation to work with us. They will still have to live there if we pull out, and they know what will happen to those who helped us if we do.

[Addendum]

There was no need for Vietnam either. It wasn't our war. It was a civil war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

About half of the 58,209 U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam, were killed in combat AFTER the government knew it couldn't win in Vietnam. That's just completely immoral.

I don't buy the petty claim that any dissent to the war will demoralize the troops. When a soldier is pulling 16-18 hour work days in the desert, the hours that they actually have off are just about spent asleep.

Besides, I don't even think that the Iraqis want democracy anyway. If they did, wouldn't they have already taken charge of things by now?

[mwm1331]

There was no need for Vietnam either. It wasn't our war. It was a civil war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

About half of the 58,209 U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam, were killed in combat AFTER the government knew it couldn't win in Vietnam. That's just completely immoral.



There was never a point where we couldn't win.
And yes it was our concern. Like it or not containing communism was necessary. It wasn't just an opposing ideology, it wasn't just an alternative way of doing things, it was a true and clear threat to us.



I don't buy the petty claim that any dissent to the war will demoralize the troops. When a soldier is pulling 16-18 hour work days in the desert, the hours that they actually have off are just about spent asleep.

Besides, I don't even think that the Iraqis want democracy anyway. If they did, wouldn't they have already taken charge of things by now?
Well I know soldiers who have been demoralised by it. And if they didn't then why did they vote in higher percentages than in any US election in the last 50 years?

[superion]

The entire world took part in restoring Germany and Japan, it was a joint effort. The world took part in that war. The US would be striking Iran in a F*** yall we'll do it ourselves mentality. Thats the problem.

What entire world? After WWII America was the only power in any position to really help restore Germany and Japan. France, England and most of Europe were still recovering themselves from the war.

Mwm is right if you wanted to rebuild Iraq into a democracy you would have to decimate the country and kill a large percentage of their fighting age men. Of course that is no longer accceptable behavior thanks to liberalism. So if you are not willing to do what is necessary to win then its better not to fight at all because you'll end up getting a lot of your soldiers killed and end up losing anyway like Vietnam. Though why Bush and the idiots in this administration would invade Iraq and help make Iran stronger by eliminating Saddam Iran's biggest enemy still boggles my mind.

I think the best course is probably to withdraw and hope the Sunnis and *****es are so preoccupied with killing each other they don't have the time or strength to bother us. If we're lucky when we leave the *****es with Irans help will start slaughtering the Sunnis in Iraq since they out number them about 3 to 1 which will force other Sunnis nations to intervene creating a huge regional war among Arab countries which will leave them so decimated they won't have the manpower or resources to launch attacks against the US.

[Addendum]

So the soldiers are "demoralized" when the civilian populace uses it's right to dissent, by asking the question "Why are even in Iraq? Wouldn't it be better for the soldiers over to actually be home with their families?"

They're demoralized by that, instead of serving third or even fourth tours in Iraq? They're not demoralized when they have to beg for donations from friends and/or businesses back home so they can have body armor because the government didn't bother to make sure the equipment was there? They're not demoralized by the increase of suicides among members of the military? They're not demoralized by the increase in the divorce rate among military families? They're even not demoralized when the latest U.S. budget report wants to cut funding for various veteran programs?

If so, then they shouldn't be demoralized by the lowering of standards so someone can join the military, including allowing convicted felons and high school dropouts to join. They'll sure feel safe seeing that multiple felon holding his AR15 knowing that he's fighting for America.

[mwm1331]

So the soldiers are "demoralized" when the civilian populace uses it's right to dissent, by asking the question "Why are even in Iraq? Wouldn't it be better for the soldiers over to actually be home with their families?"

They're demoralized by that, instead of serving third or even fourth tours in Iraq? They're not demoralized when they have to beg for donations from friends and/or businesses back home so they can have body armor? They're not demoralized by the increase of suicides among members of the military? They're not demoralized by the increase in the divorce rate among military families? They're even not demoralized when the latest U.S. budget report wants to cut funding for various veteran programs?


They are demolised by the idea that the people they are fighting to protect, as many believe they are, aren't willing to to allow them to do thier job, when they are the ones dying, and all you have to do is sit there.
They are demorilised by the idea that our country has become so weak, that even when you and I aren't asked to make any sacrifices, even when we aren't asked to ration, when all we have to do is see images of violence on TV, while they have to see it in thier dreams every night for the rest of thier lives, and in thier faces every day while thiey're awake, many of us still aren't even strong enough to bear even that minor burden, and that we cant even keep our faith in them through such minor setbacks.
I can't speak for all, or even most, just the ones I know and have spoken to. But it seems to me that when these men and women are bearing so damn much, the least we could do is be willing not to lose the fight at home, while they are winning it over there.

[Addendum]

What do you mean "fight at home"?

Like being so scared of the "big-bad-monster-called-terrorism" that the populace storms retail stores trying to buy as much as they can of the live saving instrument called "duct tape"?

Or is "the fight at home" referring to blindly going along with what the White House says because they claim that any dissent is aiding the enemy?

[PhotoJones]

What do you mean "fight at home"?

Like being so scared of the "big-bad-monster-called-terrorism" that the populace storms retail stores trying to buy as much as they can of the live saving instrument called "duct tape"?

Or is "the fight at home" referring to blindly going along with what the White House says because they claim that any dissent is aiding the enemy?

hey, watch your mouth.

if the people in the white house say it's so, then it is so.

[Addendum]

hey, watch your mouth.

if the people in the white house say it's so, then it is so.

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/President%20Bush.jpg
"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself—not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."

[Mr Sparkle]

I'd expect someone that has travelled the entire world to be able to correctly write "demoralized" :confused:
I guess I'm a snob.

[PhotoJones]

I'd expect someone that has travelled the entire world to be able to correctly write "demoralized" :confused:
I guess I'm a snob.

that must be the way the people hiding from the rape squads spelled it. he's bringing it back to honor them.

[Mr Sparkle]

Ahahahaha!

[logansoldcigar]

IF it's proven? Iran has been in Iraq since day one. Us taking out Saddam was just what Iran wanted. They have been and still are helping the *****e kill the Sunni and our guys and they will continue to help kill our guys till we get out. Then Iran will take over Iraq and when that happens all hell is going to break loose. All thanks to Bush and his unneeded war.

In other words, All Bush has managed to do with his war is give Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.:whatever:

This is what Ive been saying.

and you know what? if and when there is an agreement/union beyween Iran & Iraq (probably by the Iraqis voting for a shia theocracy), Bush will probably claim he achieved stability in the middle east

[sinewave]

They are demolised by the idea that the people they are fighting to protect, as many believe they are, aren't willing to to allow them to do thier job, when they are the ones dying, and all you have to do is sit there.
They are demorilised by the idea that our country has become so weak, that even when you and I aren't asked to make any sacrifices, even when we aren't asked to ration, when all we have to do is see images of violence on TV, while they have to see it in thier dreams every night for the rest of thier lives, and in thier faces every day while thiey're awake, many of us still aren't even strong enough to bear even that minor burden, and that we cant even keep our faith in them through such minor setbacks.
I can't speak for all, or even most, just the ones I know and have spoken to. But it seems to me that when these men and women are bearing so damn much, the least we could do is be willing not to lose the fight at home, while they are winning it over there.

and people wonder why conservatives are mocked so frequently... what exactly are we fighting to protect in iraq? al qaeda wasn't in iraq before we removed their main deterrent (saddam's regime) and gave them a target there. if we wanted to fight them overseas so we didn't have to fight them here in the u.s. then we would have stayed solely in afghanistan. we're certainly not making the citizens of iraq safer. we're only fomenting (to steal one of bush's hand-fed words) violence over there by giving the insurgents and terrorists targets to attack. by any rational estimate, hundreds of thousands of iraqis have died since our invasion, not to mention 3,500+ coalition troops and government workers, and for what? so we can force a political ideology on a country that obviously isn't interested? oh, and i love it when conservatives ***** about the lack of sacrifice for this war when they are the primary demographic for owning and driving huge, road-hogging, gas-guzzling SUVs. you and your ilk are delusional beyond comprehension.

[Addendum]

and people wonder why conservatives are mocked so frequently... what exactly are we fighting to protect in iraq? al qaeda wasn't in iraq before we removed their main deterrent (saddam's regime) and gave them a target there. if we wanted to fight them overseas so we didn't have to fight them here in the u.s. then we would have stayed solely in afghanistan. we're certainly not making the citizens of iraq safer. we're only fomenting (to steal one of bush's hand-fed words) violence over there by giving the insurgents and terrorists targets to attack. by any rational estimate, hundreds of thousands of iraqis have died since our invasion, not to mention 3,500+ coalition troops and government workers, and for what? so we can force a political ideology on a country that obviously isn't interested? oh, and i love it when conservatives ***** about the lack of sacrifice for this war when they are the primary demographic for owning and driving huge, road-hogging, gas-guzzling SUVs. you and your ilk are delusional beyond comprehension.

http://www.sci-experiments.com/chromatography/Chromatography_Detective_files/Boris.jpg
If Fearless Leader says we must fight, we fight!

[Spider-Bite]

You know the United States helped Israel in it's terrorist attacks against Hezbollah. We gave them the weapons they used and even sped up the sale of arms to Israel after they began the terrorist attacks.

According to the logic of conservatives we should also bomb ourselves I guess.

edit... I completely forgot, that according to conservatives the life of a Christain is worth that of a thousand muslims, which is why they don't want to bomb our own country. Sort of a mixed blessing I guess.

[Memphis Slim]

They are demolised by the idea that the people they are fighting to protect, as many believe they are, aren't willing to to allow them to do thier job, when they are the ones dying, and all you have to do is sit there.
They are demorilised by the idea that our country has become so weak, that even when you and I aren't asked to make any sacrifices, even when we aren't asked to ration, when all we have to do is see images of violence on TV, while they have to see it in thier dreams every night for the rest of thier lives, and in thier faces every day while thiey're awake, many of us still aren't even strong enough to bear even that minor burden, and that we cant even keep our faith in them through such minor setbacks.
I can't speak for all, or even most, just the ones I know and have spoken to. But it seems to me that when these men and women are bearing so damn much, the least we could do is be willing not to lose the fight at home, while they are winning it over there.


Nicely said. :up: :up:

[Memphis Slim]

What would some of you think if we lost 20,000 men injust one battle in Iraq but still came out victorious ???

[PhotoJones]

and people wonder why conservatives are mocked so frequently... what exactly are we fighting to protect in iraq? al qaeda wasn't in iraq before we removed their main deterrent (saddam's regime) and gave them a target there. if we wanted to fight them overseas so we didn't have to fight them here in the u.s. then we would have stayed solely in afghanistan. we're certainly not making the citizens of iraq safer. we're only fomenting (to steal one of bush's hand-fed words) violence over there by giving the insurgents and terrorists targets to attack. by any rational estimate, hundreds of thousands of iraqis have died since our invasion, not to mention 3,500+ coalition troops and government workers, and for what? so we can force a political ideology on a country that obviously isn't interested? oh, and i love it when conservatives ***** about the lack of sacrifice for this war when they are the primary demographic for owning and driving huge, road-hogging, gas-guzzling SUVs. you and your ilk are delusional beyond comprehension.

better said :up::up:

[Memphis Slim]

If those Iraqis were not interested in "Our" ideology, they would not have come out in droves to vote!!

Did you somehow forget how they a 70 percent turn-out even when terrorist thugs threatened their lives??? Theier turn-out put ours to shame.

They want it dude! That's the clearest sign ever. It just will not happen over night! This is not instant oatmeal. Especially when there are evil men who keep coming in to disrupt the process.

If the insurgents were gone, there would be no fights....Do you realize this??

These are Muslims killing other Muslims. Our soldiers aren't slaughtering innocent children. But we get played as the bad guys??? Bull!

[PhotoJones]

If those Iraqis were not interested in "Our" ideology, they would not have come out in droves to vote!!

Did you somehow forget how they a 70 percent turn-out even when terrorist thugs threatened their lives??? Theier turn-out put ours to shame.

They want it dude! That's the clearest sign ever. It just will not happen over night! This is not instant oatmeal. Especially when there are evil men who keep coming in to disrupt the process.

If the insurgents were gone, there would be no fights....Do you realize this??

These are Muslims killing other Muslims. Our soldiers aren't slaughtering innocent children. But we get played as the bad guys??? Bull!

oh really? when did this stop happening?

[Addendum]

I don't consider the increase in the suicide rate among members of the military, and the increase in the divorce rate in families with a spouse in the military to be "minor setbacks".

Getting out the vote is one thing. Actually fighting for your country is another thing, but then the Iraqis don't have to fight because that's what the U.S. military is there for.

[Eros]

oh really? when did this stop happening?

You don't know what your talking about.

[Memphis Slim]

oh really? when did this stop happening?


No...You tell me when has it been going on??????

Sure there are skirmishes that happen. That's war! People get caught up in gunfire!! But you tell me when our boys targeted innocent Iraqis as a part of this mission!!

[PhotoJones]

I don't consider the increase in the suicide rate among members of the military, and the increase in the divorce rate in families with a spouse in the military to be "minor setbacks".

Getting out the vote is one thing. Actually fighting for your country is another thing, but then the Iraqis don't have to fight because that's what the U.S. military is there for.

very well said. :up:

[PhotoJones]

No...You tell me when has it been going on??????

Sure there are skirmishes that happen. That's war! People get caught up in gunfire!! But you tell me when our boys targeted innocent Iraqis as a part of this mission!!

where do you get your news?

i'm serious. what news source is telling you that children aren't killed for fear of being a suicide bomber? what news source is telling you that civilian homes aren;t being destroyed?

am i being cliched to suggest foxnews?

i also think it's funny that you assume to know everything that's going on over there, as if you were there.

[Memphis Slim]

very well said. :up:

Answer the question!!

You're calling our soldiers "butchers"! They've been trying to help keep the peace! Fixing schools and roads and restoring drinking water!! That's their mission!

So, tell me when "killing off the Iraqi population became part of the mission!!!

[Memphis Slim]

where do you get your news?

i'm serious. what news source is telling you that children aren't killed for fear of being a suicide bomber? what news source is telling you that civilian homes aren;t being destroyed?

am i being cliched to suggest foxnews?

i also think it's funny that you assume to know everything that's going on over there, as if you were there.



Answer the question!!

When did it become part of our mission??:cmad:

[Addendum]

And the lack of actual equipment such as body armor, armored vehicles, spare parts for the weapons; sending in soldiers who are improperly trained; lowering the admission standards including letting high school dropouts and convicted felons join so the military can finally make their minimum number of recruits; having soldiers serve third and/or fourth tours in Iraq without a break between tours so they can actually spend time with their families-

That's not "minor setbacks". That's just a cluster**** of problems.

But if a congressman presents a bill that addresses those issues and wants ALL of them changed including a phasing out of forces in Iraq so the Iraqis will have to take charge, then that's just partisian politics and he's not supporting the troops. Even though the military agrees with virtually everything that congressman said.

[PhotoJones]

Answer the question!!

When did it become part of our mission??:cmad:

why are you putting words in my mouth? is that the "conservative way"?

i said soldiers were killing innocent people, children included. that's a fact.

did i say the slaughtering of innocent people was a direct order sent down by bush himself? no, i don't think so.

and why don't you answer my question?

[Spider-Bite]

Originally Posted by mwm1331
They are demorilised by the idea that our country has become so weak, that even when you and I aren't asked to make any sacrifices, even when we aren't asked to ration, when all we have to do is see images of violence on TV, while they have to see it in thier dreams every night for the rest of thier lives, and in thier faces every day while thiey're awake, many of us still aren't even strong enough to bear even that minor burden, and that we cant even keep our faith in them through such minor setbacks.



So were supposed to just sit back and let our troops be killed?

And for your information the cost of the war for 2006 averaged out to 1,000 dollars per American.

And the prospect of World War 3 also makes people kind of angry as well. Maybe I'm angry that my government could have used that money wisely. Maybe we could have helped the underfunded schools in Chicago, or maybe we could have bought a ****load of solar panel roofing and just put it on middle class homes at random. Maybe we could have helped the 40 million americans living in poverty with that money.
Maybe by not going to Iraq the country would be safer because Iran wouldn't be so empowered. This country has sacrificed a lot for the Bush policies, and we really haven't gained anything.

According to your logic none of us should be upset about 9/11 either.

the least we could do is be willing not to lose the fight at home, while they are winning it over there.

We aren't winning over there. They are on the brink of anarchy. And the least we could really do is choose not to fight. There's an idea. Save lots of money and lives, which was supposed to be the point of going there in the first place.

[Spider-Bite]

why are you putting words in my mouth? is that the "conservative way"?

i said soldiers were killing innocent people, children included. that's a fact.

did i say the slaughtering of innocent people was a direct order sent down by bush himself? no, i don't think so.

and why don't you answer my question?


With all the secrecy I wouldn't be shocked if Bush staged an attack against the sh.ites, to make them hate the Sunnis a little more, as part of a larger anti-Saddam Iraq. According to Bush Alquida did that, but it's possible Bush did it.

[blind_fury]

If those Iraqis were not interested in "Our" ideology, they would not have come out in droves to vote!!

Did you somehow forget how they a 70 percent turn-out even when terrorist thugs threatened their lives??? Theier turn-out put ours to shame.

They want it dude! That's the clearest sign ever. It just will not happen over night! This is not instant oatmeal. Especially when there are evil men who keep coming in to disrupt the process.

If the insurgents were gone, there would be no fights....Do you realize this??

These are Muslims killing other Muslims. Our soldiers aren't slaughtering innocent children. But we get played as the bad guys??? Bull!

47% of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces. Check out the third paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

But keep your heads in the sand. It really worked in Vietnam! :up:

[Venom'sDad]

where do you get your news?

i'm serious. what news source is telling you that children aren't killed for fear of being a suicide bomber? what news source is telling you that civilian homes aren;t being destroyed?

am i being cliched to suggest foxnews?

i also think it's funny that you assume to know everything that's going on over there, as if you were there.

You are actuall doing the same thing as MemphisSlim is. Most if not all of you are still getting American media spin, that is seriously dividing the country base off those same spin that tell half trues and half lies. International Feeds are no different, but at least one get another perspective as seen through others POV of the situation going on, not just in Iraq, but all over the world. That's what you all are missing, and that's why I say there are more things happening than most of you here in America know or care to know.

Not everybody wants to lose their own sovereignty.

[PhotoJones]

You are actuall doing the same thing as MemphisSlim is. Most if not all of you are still getting American media spin, that is seriously dividing the country base off those same spin that tell half trues and half lies. International Feeds are no different, but at least one get another perspective as seen through others POV of the situation going on, not just in Iraq, but all over the world. That's what you all are missing, and that's why I say there are more things happening than most of you here in America know or care to know.

Not everybody wants to lose their own sovereignty.


no i'm not.

the difference is, is that this guy is so far up the right wing's ass, be refuses to even consider the possibility that what he thinks he knows, might not be 100% correct.

to keep myself from becoming biased, i actually make a conscience effort to watch foreign news channels (like the bbc), as well as domestic. i'm full aware of the dangers of spin, and i like to get the full picture, if you know what i mean.

that said, i do like to indulge in keith olbermann's show every now and then. :cwink:

[Addendum]

that said, i do like to indulge in keith olbermann's show every now and then. :cwink:

I speed home from work every night just so I can watch it. I've never done that for any other show. Ever.

[PhotoJones]

I speed home from work every night just so I can watch it. I've never done that for any other show. Ever.

sometimes when i watch i see glimpses of ed murrow.

of course, he's taken to the "goodnight, and goodluck" phrase, which kinda reinforces that murrow image.

[Memphis Slim]

why are you putting words in my mouth? is that the "conservative way"?

i said soldiers were killing innocent people, children included. that's a fact.

did i say the slaughtering of innocent people was a direct order sent down by bush himself? no, i don't think so.

and why don't you answer my question?



Memphis Slim says: These are Muslims killing other Muslims. Our soldiers aren't slaughtering innocent children. But we get played as the bad guys??? Bull!



Photojones says: "oh really? when did this stop happening?"


Remember now??

Don't dodge!! Answer the frikkin' question!! When did we start "slaughtering" innocent chidren???

[Spider-Bite]

I speed home from work every night just so I can watch it. I've never done that for any other show. Ever.

I used to watch Hardball religously, but it's gotten boring, because it's like the same exact thing every day. Lately I've been watching Keith Olberman more often.

You know what I've been watching the most often lately? The O'Reily Factor. I disagree with him on like 90% of what he says, and he really makes me angry quite often because he uses his show as a tool to promote hatred and intolerance for atheists and gays, and to promote poverty as well, but I think I enjoy getting angry at him. Plus it makes me feel intellectually superior to watch it, because I'm like debating him in my head while I'm watching it, and I'm whipping his ass every time.

[Eros]

What we are doing in Iraq, you know helping them, reminds me of some kind of myth.

A powerful Kingdom [America] comes to the aid of the suffering people of a faraway country [Iraq], who have been brutalized by their tyrant ruler[saddam]. They saved these people from the evil king Saddam, and help them fight off threats both innwords and outwards.

[Spider-Bite]

Remember now??

Don't dodge!! Answer the frikkin' question!! When did we start "slaughtering" innocent chidren???


I'm going to pick one example out of many. A year ago we mistook a wedding for an insurgency operation and bombed everybody in it.

[PhotoJones]

I used to watch Hardball religously, but it's gotten boring, because it's like the same exact thing every day. Lately I've been watching Keith Olberman more often.

You know what I've been watching the most often lately? The O'Reily Factor. I disagree with him on like 90% of what he says, and he really makes me angry quite often because he uses his show as a tool to promote hatred and intolerance for atheists and gays, and to promote poverty as well, but I think I enjoy getting angry at him. Plus it makes me feel intellectually superior to watch it, because I'm like debating him in my head while I'm watching it, and I'm whipping his ass every time.

hahaha...i'll flip to his show for exactly the same reason. :up:

[Spider-Bite]

hahaha...i'll flip to his show for exactly the same reason. :up:


And he acts like he's so smart too with his arrogant cocky tone of voice. "see I'll tell you what it is, alright, it's like this"

You know who I watched once or twice? Glenn Beck. he's on like CNN or Headline news I think. that guy is just as arrogant, but he's like really really stupid. SpongeBob has a higher IQ than that guy.

[X-Rated]

I used to watch Hardball religously, but it's gotten boring, because it's like the same exact thing every day. Lately I've been watching Keith Olberman more often.

You know what I've been watching the most often lately? The O'Reily Factor. I disagree with him on like 90% of what he says, and he really makes me angry quite often because he uses his show as a tool to promote hatred and intolerance for atheists and gays, and to promote poverty as well, but I think I enjoy getting angry at him. Plus it makes me feel intellectually superior to watch it, because I'm like debating him in my head while I'm watching it, and I'm whipping his ass every time.

OMG!!! This (http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/watch/9061) is your future. :ninja:

[PhotoJones]

Remember now??

Don't dodge!! Answer the frikkin' question!! When did we start "slaughtering" innocent chidren???

so you're taking it into a semantical debate, now?

Spider-Bite beat me to it, so i'll let him answer:


I'm going to pick one example out of many. A year ago we mistook a wedding for an insurgency operation and bombed everybody in it.

[Spiderine]

If those Iraqis were not interested in "Our" ideology, they would not have come out in droves to vote!!

Did you somehow forget how they a 70 percent turn-out even when terrorist thugs threatened their lives??? Theier turn-out put ours to shame.

They want it dude! That's the clearest sign ever. It just will not happen over night! This is not instant oatmeal. Especially when there are evil men who keep coming in to disrupt the process.

If the insurgents were gone, there would be no fights....Do you realize this??

These are Muslims killing other Muslims. Our soldiers aren't slaughtering innocent children. But we get played as the bad guys??? Bull!
I believe they later adjusted those numbers to much less. Inflating numbers are very characteristic of this government when convenient.

[Spiderine]

And he acts like he's so smart too with his arrogant cocky tone of voice. "see I'll tell you what it is, alright, it's like this"

You know who I watched once or twice? Glenn Beck. he's on like CNN or Headline news I think. that guy is just as arrogant, but he's like really really stupid. SpongeBob has a higher IQ than that guy.
Beck is a F***ing joke.

[Electrix]

9/11 lead to Afganistan
Which lead to Iraq
Which lead to Iran

What next?

[Memphis Slim]

I'm going to pick one example out of many. A year ago we mistook a wedding for an insurgency operation and bombed everybody in it.


"MISTOOK" dude !!!! "MISTOOK"!! I just said earlier that mistakes happen!! People get caught up the war!! But it was never part of our mission to kill innocent people !!!

If the insurgents weren't there to begin with, we wouldn't have been looking for them and then made the mistake!!!!!!!!

What part of "WE ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS" do you not understand???????

[Spider-Bite]

OMG!!! This (http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/watch/9061) is your future. :ninja:

what does stalking have to do with being smarter than bill O Reilly?

[PhotoJones]

And he acts like he's so smart too with his arrogant cocky tone of voice. "see I'll tell you what it is, alright, it's like this"

You know who I watched once or twice? Glenn Beck. he's on like CNN or Headline news I think. that guy is just as arrogant, but he's like really really stupid. SpongeBob has a higher IQ than that guy.

hey "shut your mouth!"

o'reilly's "looking out for us". :cwink:

and i don't know of a glen beck, but i'll check him out. :up:

[blind_fury]

9/11 lead to Afganistan
Which lead to Iraq
Which lead to Iran

What next?

Who has more oil than Iraq or Iran?

[jaguarr]

^^^
Did you seriously just justify bombing a wedding? Wow.

jag

[Eros]

Bill O'Reilly is a amazing, and he will take on anyone in a debate, and probbaly win most of the time.

[Electrix]

Who has more oil than Iraq or Iran?

Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Watch this space....:wow:

[Spiderine]

9/11 lead to Afganistan
Which lead to Iraq
Which lead to Iran

What next?
World Domination.

[Eros]

^^^
Did you seriously just justify bombing a wedding? Wow.

jag


It was a simple mistake.

[Eros]

World Domination.


That could work, so many 3rd world nations people are dieing, and if America were to rule the world, we can adress these situations without arguement from the U.N. or anyone [who will be neutralized].:oldrazz:

[Spider-Bite]

"MISTOOK" dude !!!! "MISTOOK"!! I just said earlier that mistakes happen!! People get caught up the war!! But it was never part of our mission to kill innocent people !!!

If the insurgents weren't there to begin with, we wouldn't have been looking for them and then made the mistake!!!!!!!!


If we weren't there to begin with there wouldn't have been insurgents targeting us either. The only way for this civil war to end is for it to play itself out. It's the only way they will learn the arrogance of their ways. A kid can't learn math when you have a calculator do everything for him. They have to learn what the consequences are for their hate crimes against each other. That's why we need to get out of the middle east and let them progress at their own pace. It's kind of like the prime directive on Star Trek. It's based off of real and correct philosophy.


What part of "WE ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS" do you not understand???????

That's a prejudice stereotype. There are conservatives rallying for war on both sides of the fence, and there are liberals rallying for peace on both sides of the fence. There are good and bad people on both sides.

[PhotoJones]

"MISTOOK" dude !!!! "MISTOOK"!! I just said earlier that mistakes happen!! People get caught up the war!! But it was never part of our mission to kill innocent people !!!

If the insurgents weren't there to begin with, we wouldn't have been looking for them and then made the mistake!!!!!!!!

What part of "WE ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS" do you not understand???????

so because it's "just an accident", that means it's justified?

i mean, you're like a bad sitcom:
"some innocents died a firey death? that's war!" (cue the laugh track)

you take human life so lightly, you're willing to just tow that company line even further with your head in the sand. and for what? why do you accept this type of slimey filth? what's in it for you?

don't you see? this whole war is a lie. it's a messy lie, and it's costing more innocent people to die everyday. there were no weapons, they iraqis don't want us there. what's the ****ing point?

until you and the rest of the nazi party realizes that, nothing's going to change.

[Memphis Slim]

so you're taking it into a semantical debate, now?

Spider-Bite beat me to it, so i'll let him answer:


This not semantics! You're a liberal parakeet! Rattling off their talking points....not thinking through what you are saying.

[Mr Sparkle]

Answer the question!!


from January 4 2006:
[/URL]BAGHDAD, Jan. 3 -- U.S. pilots targeting a house where they believed insurgents had taken shelter killed a family of 12, Iraqi officials said Tuesday. The dead included women and children whose bodies were recovered in the nightclothes and blankets in which they had apparently been sleeping. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300524.html)
A Washington Post special correspondent watched as the corpses of three women and three boys who appeared to be younger than 10 were removed Tuesday from the house outside the town of Baiji, 150 miles north of Baghdad. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300524.html)





March 15 that same year

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201796.html"]U.S. commanders used appropriate force in taking down a safe house in Iraq during a March 15 military raid that led to the deaths of as many as a dozen civilians, according to the results of an investigation announced in Baghdad yesterday. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300524.html)

July 21 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi forces backed by a U.S. helicopter battled Sunni gunmen south of Baghdad on Friday, and at least 11 combatants died. U.S. troops killed five Iraqis — including two women and a child — in a separate exchange of fire. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13969209/)

december 2006

BAGHDAD — U.S. forces destroyed two buildings west of Baghdad, killing six suspected insurgents, two women and a child, the military said Sunday.

It was the latest in a series of raids in which civilians have been killed as U.S. and Iraqi forces battle insurgents in residential areas. The U.S. military has accused insurgents of using women and children as human shields. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq4dec04,1,3826701.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true)

Neighbors disputed the military's account, saying that the victims were members of a local family and that there were more civilian casualties than the U.S. acknowledged. It was not possible to verify the conflicting accounts.


overall

Out of 50 so-called "decapitation strikes" against members of Saddam Hussein's regime, none were hit, the group said, but 40 civilians were killed because planners relied on rough Global Positioning System locations derived from satellite phones. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0116-04.htm)


question answered.
I will be glad to use your own "answer the question"quote next time you try to sidestep something. :up:

[Spider-Bite]

Bill O'Reilly is a amazing, and he will take on anyone in a debate, and probbaly win most of the time.


It looks like he wins because he screams over them so you can't hear their side of the debate. The debates on his show are in serious need of an objective moderator.

And the rest of the time if he were debating me, he'd lose. A lot of times he does win the debates fair and square, but that's because the guest on his show either

A. is intimidated, by the hositility
B. afraid of offending him or the viewers, or afraid to hit it where it hurts
C. just not a very good debater or really stupid, and he chooses them for that reason
D. It's skewed behind the scenes

Seriously 90% of the time people here on SHH make a better argument against Conservative beliefs, than the people do who are arguing with O'Reily on the show.

[blind_fury]

What part of "WE ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS" do you not understand???????

If you invade another country without being provoked then it's not clear who the bad guys are and who's defending their country.

This was the same case in Vietnam.

[Mr Sparkle]

one of my favorites

Five girls and a baby have been killed in a US raid on a house in the Iraqi city of Ramadi, the US military has told Al Jazeera.

The US military said two armed men had opened fire from the roof of a house on a US patrol disarming a roadside bomb, prompting the soldiers to reply with tank fire on Tuesday.

Following the pre-dawn barrage, US troops carried out "an extensive search of the house and found one male and five females, ages ranging from infant to teenaged, dead", the statement said.

The US military blamed the fighters for the incident. (http://www.thecornerreport.com/index.php?title=children_killed_in_us_raid_in_iraq&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1)

[Eros]

If you invade another country without being provoked then it's not clear who the bad guys are and who's defending their country.

This was the same case in Vietnam.

well those Vietnese were some toughs SOBS, we bascially lost Nam. Iraq went down in less then a week on the otherhand. Saddam was planning something with Osama, we just can not prove it IMO.

[PhotoJones]

This not semantics! You're a liberal parakeet! Rattling off their talking points....not thinking through what you are saying.

HAHA..."liberal parakeet"?

can i call you a "conservative blowfish"?


and where's the answer to my question?

[Spider-Bite]

This not semantics! You're a liberal parakeet! Rattling off their talking points....not thinking through what you are saying.


Bush made the decision to go to war, fully aware that civillians would be killed. He made the decision for them to die. It's true that he believed that was the only possible way we could win, and he wasn't going to let murdered innocents stop him. He fought the war in the way that he thought would help him win.

Osama Bin Laden made the exact same decision. Alquida did not believe they could win their war without American civillains dying, so they made the choice for civillains to die. Both sides have made choices that include civillains dying on the other side of the fence.

[blind_fury]

well those Vietnese were some toughs SOBS, we bascially lost Nam. Iraq went down in less then a week on the otherhand.

um dude, I hate to break it to you, but we're still fighting the Iraq War. :huh:

[PhotoJones]

hey Slim, are you by chance the banned member, celldog?

[Spider-Bite]

well those Vietnese were some toughs SOBS, we bascially lost Nam. Iraq went down in less then a week on the otherhand. Saddam was planning something with Osama, we just can not prove it IMO.


that is so retarded. You just prejudicely assume that? Based on what? The fact that they are both muslim?

They were bitter enemies. If Saddam was planning anything for Osama it was a grave. Saddam did not want an influential powerful person in Iraq besides himself. Saddam also wanted women to have rights, and he increased the women's literacy rate from 5% to 70% in 15 years. Osama believes that women shouldn't be allowed to read, because he thinks women are inferior. Saddam did not want somebody like that in Iraq challenging his worship or authority.

Osama Bin laden wanted Saddam dead for years, because it was the only possible way for Alquida to form a base of operations in Iraq. And look what happened.

[PhotoJones]

um dude, I hate to break it to you, but we're still fighting the Iraq War. :huh:

well, he's one of those that believes that after the iraqi government fell (during shock and awe), that was the end.

i guess everything since then have just been little "skirmishes" and "tussles".

[Mr Sparkle]

well those Vietnese were some toughs SOBS, we bascially lost Nam. Iraq went down in less then a week on the otherhand. Saddam was planning something with Osama, we just can not prove it IMO.

I think I said it yesterday but it's fitting today as well.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! !

*takes breath*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA!!!!:woot::woot::woot::woot:

[Spider-Bite]

sometimes I wonder if Saddam was really evil or a guy who did was necessary to prevent a civil war in Iraq, bring women on a more equal playing field, fight poverty, having schools give children an actual education instead of just more Islam, Islam, Islam when they are supposed to be learning math, english etc, prevent Iran from getting ahold of the world's second largest oil supply, and staving off terrorists.

Of course the dictatorship went to his head, but it comes with the job. He did disgusting things, but it was the only way for him to stay in power and make those accomplishments which in the end outweighed the bad. I don't know if he was evil, or just a guy who made a tough choice to become the lesser of two evils.

[Spiderine]

If you invade another country without being provoked then it's not clear who the bad guys are and who's defending their country.

This was the same case in Vietnam.
Saddam found Osama and his network a threat to his regime with his extreme idealistic goals. Osama hated Saddam because he considered him a bad muslim who was a threat to other arabs and muslims in the region when he invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia.The thought of these guys teaming up was obsurd.

[Addendum]

This not semantics! You're a liberal parakeet! Rattling off their talking points....not thinking through what you are saying.

Says the neo-con tweety bird

[Addendum]

well those Vietnese were some toughs SOBS, we bascially lost Nam. Iraq went down in less then a week on the otherhand. Saddam was planning something with Osama, we just can not prove it IMO.

So basically, you're making **** up regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda, despite only actual meeting that took place in '95 in Sudan between an Iraqi representative and an al-Qaeda representative. Saddam then told the Iraqi representative to never meet with them again.

The only other contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda were refusals by Iraq to meet with al-Qaeda.

But Iraq was "planning something" with Osama :huh:

[Spiderine]

The way I see it, it was inevitable that Iraq was going down no matter what.

[Venom'sDad]

Saddam found Osama and his network a threat

I think it more likely a replacement.

[Spiderine]

And eventually it will be Iran's downfall if they continue with this nuclear program.They will never allow Iran to go nuclear no matter what.

[Spiderine]

I think it more likely a replacement.
Either way, Saddam wasnt havin it.

[Venom'sDad]

No doubt.

[Eros]

So basically, you're making **** up regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda, despite only actual meeting that took place in '95 in Sudan between an Iraqi representative and an al-Qaeda representative. Saddam then told the Iraqi representative to never meet with them again.

The only other contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda were refusals by Iraq to meet with al-Qaeda.

But Iraq was "planning something" with Osama :huh:


I find a rapists,sadist,egotictical,racist,murderer and meglomanic that was Sadam, a major player with Osama and company.

[Eros]

On another note, since non of us can say we followed Saddam Insane all the time, we do not know for positive either way, but the general conseus would be saddams involvement with Osama in someway.

[Addendum]

I find a rapists,sadist,egotictical,racist,murderer and meglomanic that was Sadam, a major player with Osama and company.

And I find the lack of proof that there was a connection between the 2, to be more convincing that the character of Saddam

[PhotoJones]

I find a rapists,sadist,egotictical,racist,murderer and meglomanic that was Sadam, a major player with Osama and company.

you say that, but you don't have anything to back it up.

that's like me saying that since charlie manson was a bad person, he must've been buddies with saddam, as well. in fact i'm going to report this as truth.

see how that doesn't work?

[Eros]

you say that, but you don't have anything to back it up.

that's like me saying that since charlie manson was a bad person, he must've been buddies with saddam, as well. in fact i'm going to report this as truth.

see how that doesn't work?

edit.

[Eros]

you say that, but you don't have anything to back it up.

that's like me saying that since charlie manson was a bad person, he must've been buddies with saddam, as well. in fact i'm going to report this as truth.

see how that doesn't work?

who knows, you cannot prove against my theory, and vice versa.

[Spiderine]

who knows, you cannot prove against my theory, and vice versa.
Yes but this was part of the argument in the case for war.Can you make a case for war based on theory?

[PhotoJones]

who knows, you cannot prove against my theory, and vice versa.

*sigh*

*shakes head*....

[Addendum]

who knows, you cannot prove against my theory, and vice versa.

The burden of proof is your responsibility, since you're the one making the claim of a "connection" between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

[Spider-Bite]

who knows, you cannot prove against my theory, and vice versa.

Overwhelming evidence contradicts your theory. Your not even debating anymore, your basically spamming.

[blind_fury]

lolz!

Eros perfectly embodies the "Bush doctrine".

[Alexia Dark]

I'm a little torn. If there is no war, the soldiers leave Iraq and Afganistan but provide training for police, the army, help rebuild, ect., that would be good. On the other hand, if the US military leaves and loses whatever stronghold it has in that region and the Iranian government is already so pissed with them that they innitiate a war, it'll be a disaster. World War 3. Nukes flying and the end of the world.

[Addendum]

lolz!

Eros perfectly embodies the "Bush doctrine".

So the Bush doctrine is “I reject your reality and substitute it for my own"?

I think Adam Savage should sue

[PhotoJones]

So the Bush doctrine is “I reject your reality and substitute it for my own"?

I think Adam Savage should sue

do you mean michael savage?

[Addendum]

do you mean michael savage?

No. Adam Savage.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/meet/gallery/adam_bio.jpg

One of the dudes from Mythbusters

[Asteroid-Man]

Ture, and the last time we fought a war against more than one country at a time, we had to use one of these!

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/250px-Nagasakibomb.jpg
And one of the HUGE difference between then and now, is that now, A LOT MORE COUNTRIES HAVE ONE OF THESE TOO!
yeah, the US used one of those and killed thousands of people. I believe THAT is also called terrorism. See the point is, no one should have those!

[Spider-Bite]

I'm a little torn. If there is no war, the soldiers leave Iraq and Afganistan but provide training for police, the army, help rebuild, ect., that would be good. On the other hand, if the US military leaves and loses whatever stronghold it has in that region and the Iranian government is already so pissed with them that they innitiate a war, it'll be a disaster. World War 3. Nukes flying and the end of the world.


Iran would not declare war on the Iraqi government. If anything they would help the Iraqi government slaughter the kurds. We built a sh.ite dominated government in Iraq who's views are 100% in sync with Iran. We built an ally for Iran, out of an enemy.

[Asteroid-Man]

No man, the Iranian Gov. hates Iraq more then China hates Japan. And Iran's people love the Kurds cause they have the most culture in the north. Gov hates them cause they cant really enforce law on them

[Spiderine]

I dont think Iran or Turkey likes the Kurds.There is nothing the Kurds want more than their own soveriegn nation.

[Spider-Bite]

No man, the Iranian Gov. hates Iraq more then China hates Japan. And Iran's people love the Kurds cause they have the most culture in the north. Gov hates them cause they cant really enforce law on them

then what's with all of these allegations that the Iranian government has connections with the Iraqi sh.ite militias in helping them kill the sunni's and kurds?

[Spiderine]

Can you say Kurdistan?

[blind_fury]

Iran could probably stabilize Iraq better than Bush could ever hope to.

But that would mean giving them control of the second largest oil reserve on the planet.

That's Bush's oil! :cmad:

[Honey Vibe]

Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, has arrived in the Iranian capital Tehran to discuss instability in Iraq and Lebanon, Iranian state media has reported.

During his two-day visit, Assad will hold talks with Iranian leaders, including the president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the IRNA news agency said.

State television said al-Assad will discuss strengthening bilateral ties and the situation in the Middle East region.

Al-Assad was the first world leader to visit Ahmadinejad after his election victory and relations have remained robust.

Accompanied by Walid Muallem, Syrian foreign minister, and Faruq al-Shara, Syria's vice president, al-Assad is to meet Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president later on Saturday.

Ahmadinejad said after al-Assad's last visit that the strong relations between Iran and Syria "makes our enemies angry", in a reference to the US.

The Iranian president visited Damascus in January last year, where he held talks with al-Assad and the Syria-based political leaders of Palestinian groups.

Accusations

Al-Assad's latest visit to Tehran comes at a time when both Syria and Iran have been accused by the US of "meddling" in the region. Both deny the charges.

Washington accuses the two countries of helping to stir up insecurity in Iraq by supporting armed groups and allowing fighters to cross their borders.

Earlier this week, both borders were closed in the initial stages of an Iraq security crackdown.

But Brigadier Qassim Moussawi, a spokesman for the officer overseeing the plan, said on Saturday that Iraq will re-open its borders with Iran and Syria.

He said: "Seventy-two hours have passed and the borders will gradually re-open, but it will take 60 days for the border crossings to return to normal."

He said the closure was mainly to allow for the smooth deployment of additional security forces in Baghdad, where US and Iraqi troops have stepped up an operation to try to stabilise the capital.

Syria-Iran unity

Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a political analyst with Tehran University, said: "Many fear the United States is looking for scapegoats in order to put the blame on them, so Iran and Syria feel they have to be united in this period.

"Both sides have a moral obligation to each other, it's more than just a strategic alliance."

Damascus has also been accused of fomenting the violence that has wracked Lebanon since the assassination Rafiq al-Hariri, a former prime minister, in 2005, while Tehran stands accused of arming the Shia group Hezbollah.

Syria is a supporter of Iran's nuclear programme, which the US alleges is a cover for making nuclear weapons. Iran insists its atomic drive is solely aimed at generating energy.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/12640/195/

[SentinelMind]

ppph...and people said Bush couldn't unite people. :whatever:

[VenomsMom]

Iran would not declare war on the Iraqi government. If anything they would help the Iraqi government slaughter the kurds. We built a sh.ite dominated government in Iraq who's views are 100% in sync with Iran. We built an ally for Iran, out of an enemy.
Nobody likes the Kurds. If there was a popularity contest between Kurds and Isrealis, the Isrealis would win.

[Deleted User]

yeah, the US used one of those and killed thousands of people. I believe THAT is also called terrorism. See the point is, no one should have those!

If they would've invaded Japan, they would've been sacrificing tens of thousands of more of American soldiers' lives. Weighing one against the other, they had to make a choice. They chose what would hit closer to home.

It wasn't terrorism, it was the cost of sparing their own mens' lives and ending the war quicker.

[CrypticOne]

So, Congress went against Bush, didn't they? No more troops will be going to Iraq or anywhere, are they? Cause I read in tha paper that Congress rebuked Bushs plan. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[PhotoJones]

If they would've invaded Japan, they would've been sacrificing tens of thousands of more of American soldiers' lives. Weighing one against the other, they had to make a choice. They chose what would hit closer to home.

It wasn't terrorism, it was the cost of sparing their own mens' lives and ending the war quicker.

you're talking about killing thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers, and you're not calling it terrorism?

the very idea behind those attacks was to "break the japanese will". if that doesn't sound like terrorism to you, i don't know what will.

[X-Rated]

The terrorist is surely breaking the will of the American people huh....

[Kritish]

So, are the eight people that want us to fight Iran planing on signing up anytime soon?

[PhotoJones]

i kinda hope so.

[Memphis Slim]

you're talking about killing thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers, and you're not calling it terrorism?

the very idea behind those attacks was to "break the japanese will". if that doesn't sound like terrorism to you, i don't know what will.



You do know that "THEY" started it, right???? :dry: You do know that they did a "sneak attack" on our country, right??? They basically terrorized us first.

So, at that point, the War had dragged on for over 7 years and countless U.S. lives had been sacrificed to fight this enemy that was hell bent on our destruction. As fanatical as the Japanese were (suicide pilots etc....) they were not going to surrender. Truman did not want this War to keep going. European War had ended and he did not want to send those men into the Pacific theatre.

He had a super weapon that could end it all right there. You should Blame the rulers of that country (Japan) for dragging their civilian population into this war in the first place. If Hiro Hito had been a peace loving king he would not have been at war with us and there would be no need to drop the A-bomb.

Stop pissing on this country for doing what it needed to do. We have not used it since.

Again....America the villain. This is amazing.

[PhotoJones]

You do know that "THEY" started it, right???? :dry: You do know that they did a "sneak attack" on our country, right??? They basically terrorized us first.

So, at that point, the War had dragged on for over 7 years and countless U.S. lives had been sacrificed to fight this enemy that was hell bent on our destruction. As fanatical as the Japanese were (suicide pilots etc....) they were not going to surrender. Truman did not want this War to keep going. European War had ended nad he did not want to send those men into the Pacific theatre.

He had a super weapon that could end it all right there. You should Blame the rulers of that country (Japan) for dragging their civilian population into this war in the first place. If Hiro Hito had been a peace loving king he would not have been at war with us and there would be no need to drop the A-bomb.

Stop pissing on this country for doing what it needed to do. We have not used it since.

Again....America the villain. This is amazing.

they being the japanese governement, not it's civilians. you seem to forget that.

the governments go to war, not their people.

[Addendum]

Although there is plenty of evidence for both sides of the discussion as to how much advance knowledge, or if any, the U.S. had of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And civilians are different from the military, in that the civilians don't fight the wars. They stay home and raise families, go to their jobs and do the regular stuff that the military people decided could wait while they go off and fight.

[PhotoJones]

you really can't defend your position on this one, slim.

no matter how you look at it, we attacked women and children, and we did it intentionally.

that's terrorism, buddy.

[Kritish]

I just don't think it would work out, Bush's approval rating is at an all time low and so is the Iraq war. The sad truth is I think we need to finish up what we started, we invaded like it or not and if we leave now people worse than Saddam will gain power. But, I think the troops should be spending more time training the Iraqi soldiers and police so that they'll be ready for when we leave. But for the record we shouldn't have entered in the first place.

[Memphis Slim]

you really can't defend your position on this one, slim.

no matter how you look at it, we attacked women and children, and we did it intentionally.

that's terrorism, buddy.


It's war. I don't need to defend it.

[Memphis Slim]

you really can't defend your position on this one, slim.


I just did. You just don't want to hear it. :dry:

no matter how you look at it, we attacked women and children, and we did it intentionally.

And their Japanese government bares no responsibility? :dry:

that's terrorism, buddy.


It's war. :dry:


I

[PhotoJones]

It's war. :dry:


I

don't side step by just saying, "it's war".

new york city was attacked by what you would label terrorists. you would label them that because their goal was to instill terror, and to murder innocent people.

the atomic bombs over hiroshima and nagasaki were the same thing; instill fear, murder innocents. you can't call it by any other name. you can say it's war all you want, you can even say it was necessary. but at the end of the day, you have to call it for what is was:

TERRORISM.

[Kritish]

It's war. :dry:


I

Ever heard of the Geneva convention? There's certain things you aren't allowed to do even in war. Like what we did to thousands of Japanese Americans during WW2.

[PhotoJones]

Ever heard of the Geneva convention? There's certain things you aren't allowed to do even in war. Like what we did to thousands of Japanese Americans during WW2.

it's war, Kritish.

he doesn't need to defend it.

[Kritish]

it's war, Kritish.

he doesn't need to defend it.

Then we're no better than the Nazi's. :dry:

[X-Rated]

bin Laden was right. American don't have the balls for war. No wonder he said that America would be the shortest lived Empire in World History.... bunch of pus.sies.

[PhotoJones]

i can just imagine celldog typing feverishly, trying to come up with a response.

[Kritish]

bin Laden was right. American don't have the balls for war. No wonder he said that America would be the shortest lived Empire in World History.... bunch of pus.sies.

Hitler was right on some aspects, we should kill retarded people.

Let's start with this dude...

[Addendum]

Hitler was right on some aspects, we should kill retarded people.


There are a few funny retards.

Gary the Retard from the Stern show. Shoo Shoo Retarded Flu (http://www.starterupsteve.com/flash/html/gary_the_retard_flu.shtml)

[Kritish]

There are a few funny retards.

Gary the Retard from the Stern show. Shoo Shoo Retarded Flu (http://www.starterupsteve.com/flash/html/gary_the_retard_flu.shtml)

Stern :up:

[Spider-Bite]

I just don't think it would work out, Bush's approval rating is at an all time low and so is the Iraq war. The sad truth is I think we need to finish up what we started, we invaded like it or not and if we leave now people worse than Saddam will gain power. But, I think the troops should be spending more time training the Iraqi soldiers and police so that they'll be ready for when we leave. But for the record we shouldn't have entered in the first place.


It wont work. The Iraqis are way too prejudice. A while ago some sunnis randomly found some sh.ites and killed them. The very next day some sh.ites wanted revenge so they found a couple sunnis at random and burned them alive, while sh.ite soldiers watched and did nothing. A sh.ite will not shoot a sh.ite to protect a Sunni, and a sunni will not shoot a sunni to protect a sh.ite.

With that much prejudice and bigotry a stable democracy free of civil war is not possible. The only possible way we could ever hope to stop it is to go Saddam on them, but that would really piss them off big time and increase U.S. hatred in Iraq.

The only possible way for the Iraqis to overcome this obstacle is to make their mistake(civil war) and learn from it, by how much it sucks having bombs go off everywhere. Look at America. We learned that Iraq was a mistake, and it took 3000 dead Americans for a solid majority to realize it. They already have over 50,000, but they blame us. We need to get out of the middle east and let them develop at their own pace. Yes they will have a huge horrible war, but they wont be able to point the finger at us anymore. The finger pointing will go inward instead of outward, and since they will have nobody to blame but themselves, they will finally learn.

After they learn, hopefully some government social programs in Iraq will desegregate that country. That would help a lot.

[Spider-Bite]

Although there is plenty of evidence for both sides of the discussion as to how much advance knowledge, or if any, the U.S. had of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And civilians are different from the military, in that the civilians don't fight the wars. They stay home and raise families, go to their jobs and do the regular stuff that the military people decided could wait while they go off and fight.


The only difference is when you shoot a man with a gun in self defense before he shoots you. Otherwise for the most part countries fight their wars in whatever way they think they can win.

[Deleted User]

you're talking about killing thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers, and you're not calling it terrorism?

Correct. Because terrorism isn't done with the intent to save anyone's lives. It's done with the intent to.. well, terrorize. The US did it as an option to save their men's lives, not to terrorize the Japanese people. They predominantly did it as a way to break the fighting spirit of the military, not of the people.

Terrorism is aimed at the general populace of a nation, to frighten and confuse them. The US's actions in WWII were aimed at the military and command structure. Either way, people had to die. Either they knowingly had to kill thousands of Japanese civilians, or they knowingly had to send tens of thousands (a few figures even suggested nearing a million) of soldiers to their deaths. They made the choice that would hit closer to home and wouldn't exhaust the country's resources fighting a never-ending war.

[CyberFaust]

"we"...who's "we"?

[Deleted User]

Ever heard of the Geneva convention? There's certain things you aren't allowed to do even in war. Like what we did to thousands of Japanese Americans during WW2.

Yes, and the Japanese killed American civilians at Pearl Harbor. Why is nobody complaining about them breaking the code of the Geneva Convention, huh? That's quite the double standard you have there.

[sinewave]

Correct. Because terrorism isn't done with the intent to save anyone's lives. It's done with the intent to.. well, terrorize. The US did it as an option to save their men's lives, not to terrorize the Japanese people. They predominantly did it as a way to break the fighting spirit of the military, not of the people.

Terrorism is aimed at the general populace of a nation, to frighten and confuse them. The US's actions in WWII were aimed at the military and command structure. Either way, people had to die. Either they knowingly had to kill thousands of Japanese civilians, or they knowingly had to send tens of thousands (a few figures even suggested nearing a million) of soldiers to their deaths. They made the choice that would hit closer to home and wouldn't exhaust the country's resources fighting a never-ending war.

some might argue that al qaeda's brand of terrorism is a response to the violence against the middle east as a result of u.s. foreign policy. in their eyes they're striking back against a real threat to them, in an attempt to spare the lives of their fellow muslims, by eradicating their enemy, us. there's more than one way to look at things.

[PhotoJones]

some might argue that al qaeda's brand of terrorism is a response to the violence against the middle east as a result of u.s. foreign policy. in their eyes they're striking back against a real threat to them, in an attempt to spare the lives of their fellow muslims, by eradicating their enemy, us. there's more than one way to look at things.

that's a concept a great majority of this country fails to grasp.

[souloffire]

you're talking about killing thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers, and you're not calling it terrorism?

the very idea behind those attacks was to "break the japanese will". if that doesn't sound like terrorism to you, i don't know what will.You shouldn't comment on historical events the you obviously know nothing about.

[PhotoJones]

You shouldn't comment on historical events the you obviously know nothing about.

tell me, what don't i know about this?

[souloffire]

tell me, what don't i know about this?this sums it up.


you're talking about killing thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers, and you're not calling it terrorism?

the very idea behind those attacks was to "break the japanese will". if that doesn't sound like terrorism to you, i don't know what will.

they being the japanese governement, not it's civilians. you seem to forget that.

the governments go to war, not their people.

you really can't defend your position on this one, slim.

no matter how you look at it, we attacked women and children, and we did it intentionally.

that's terrorism, buddy.

don't side step by just saying, "it's war".

new york city was attacked by what you would label terrorists. you would label them that because their goal was to instill terror, and to murder innocent people.

the atomic bombs over hiroshima and nagasaki were the same thing; instill fear, murder innocents. you can't call it by any other name. you can say it's war all you want, you can even say it was necessary. but at the end of the day, you have to call it for what is was:

TERRORISM.

[PhotoJones]

what is it with people being unable to accept the fact that their government is not perfect, and makes mistakes??

anyway, considering that the definition of terrorism is this:

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

added with the fact the united states government has admitted the purpose of those attacks was to instill fear and break the japanese spirit...

i'd say i'm right on the money. :up:

[souloffire]

what is it with people being unable to accept the fact that their government is not perfect, and makes mistakes??

anyway, considering that the definition of terrorism is this:

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

added with the fact the united states government has admitted the purpose of those attacks was to instill fear and break the japanese spirit...

i'd say i'm right on the money. :up:Last I looked you don't win a war by making the spirits of you're enemy stronger.

Since you're so concerned about the Japanese civilians I want you to pick the best option, A. The thousands that died from the Atomic bomb, or, B. The Millions of civilians that would have died from starvation if we invaded Japan. (BTW that's the Japanese estimates). This of course does not include the thousands of deaths of American Solders and her allies.

[Memphis Slim]

Yes, and the Japanese killed American civilians at Pearl Harbor. Why is nobody complaining about them breaking the code of the Geneva Convention, huh? That's quite the double standard you have there.


Nobody blames the Japanese for their part in this because America is the villain. Don't you see?? :whatever: They attack us first and then we "end" it. But the way we ended it is not to their liking. See, they'd rather the war go on for another Lord knows how many years. They would rather we be so preoccupied with the Pacific war that we'd not be able to protect Europe from the Russian threat at that time (Russia was trying to take all of Berlin and who knows what else). By moving our troops out of Europe, it would have emboldened Stalin. By ending that war with the A-bomb We actually saved Europe from the Soviets by being able to keep a strong force there.

Also.....how many of you hypesters have grandparents who faught in that War and survived? And because they survived, your parents were born and because they were born, you got here. If that war had lingered another 7 years or more who knows if their luck would have run out? Then you would not be here to complain about how evil they were.

I also don't know any "terrorist" nation that beats you down and then turns around and helps you re-build your nation. And to this day "WE" protect Japan!! Look how we jumped to there side when N. Korea was acting a fool, last year. Name a terrorist nation that does that. :dry:

[VenomsMom]

what is it with people being unable to accept the fact that their government is not perfect, and makes mistakes??

anyway, considering that the definition of terrorism is this:

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

added with the fact the united states government has admitted the purpose of those attacks was to instill fear and break the japanese spirit...

i'd say i'm right on the money. :up:
Absolute sheer unadulterated brilliance on your part Photojones.Magnificent!

[PhotoJones]

Last I looked you don't win a war by making the spirits of you're enemy stronger.

Since you're so concerned about the Japanese civilians I want you to pick the best option, A. The thousands that died from the Atomic bomb, or, B. The Millions of civilians that would have died from starvation if we invaded Japan. (BTW that's the Japanese estimates). This of course does not include the thousands of deaths of American Solders and her allies.

where/how does starvation factor in? at any rate, i'll take option C:

enter world war II earlier and remove hitler.

[Kritish]

Yes, and the Japanese killed American civilians at Pearl Harbor. Why is nobody complaining about them breaking the code of the Geneva Convention, huh? That's quite the double standard you have there.

You're an idiot, we have to be better than the enemy.

[Mr Sparkle]

Correct. Because terrorism isn't done with the intent to save anyone's lives. It's done with the intent to.. well, terrorize.

actually, if we're specifically talking about September 11th Bin Laden was pretty clear what his reasons had been and what the motivation behind them was.
you cannot seriously justify one and not the other.
"terrorism" is a word that has always been manipulated.
and I cannot stress this enough, back when the US was financing Bin Laden the Russians called Bin Laden a terrorist, Reagan opted fro calling him ans his forces "freedom fighters".
how exactly can Celldog say that the use of nukes was warranted because (and these are his actual words) "they started it" well, guess what dude!
in the middle east the US "started it" does that make all actions taken against it's citizens to "break their will" justified in your eyes?
can they also say "it's war" like you do?
or is this only a good excuse when the US is doing the killing?:huh: :up:

[Memphis Slim]

You're an idiot, we have to be better than the enemy.


So when they shoot and kill our people we don't shoot back?? :dry:

[Mr Sparkle]

I also don't know any "terrorist" nation that beats you down and then turns around and helps you re-build your nation. And to this day "WE" protect Japan!! Look how we jumped to there side when N. Korea was acting a fool, last year. Name a terrorist nation that does that. :dry:

I have yet to see a "terrorist nation" inflict 201,000 deaths on American soil.
look at you Celldog, it's been 6 years and you're still obsessed over 3,000 deaths.
can you imagine how you would feel if instead of 3,000 dead it would've been 201,000 dead plus hundreds more from radiation and a legacy of deformed children and cancer?
you fail at humanity :down

[PhotoJones]

So when they shoot and kill our people we don't shoot back?? :dry:

yes.

we don't nuke them.

if you can't understand that, you have no business being capable of procreating.

[souloffire]

where/how does starvation factor in? ."The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshū from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa."

This will tell you of the planned invasion of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

at any rate, i'll take option C: enter world war II earlier and remove hitler.How would that help against Japan?

[PhotoJones]

"The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honsh? from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa."

This will tell you of the planned invasion of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall



and that's cool with you?

"starving people to death; it's the american way!"

[souloffire]

and that's cool with you?

"starving people to death; it's the american way!"I can't belive this, are you serious? One of the reasons we droped the bombs is because we didn't want millions of people to starve to death.

[PhotoJones]

I can't belive this, are you serious? One of the reasons we droped the bombs is because we didn't want millions of people to starve to death.

so instead we'll just kill them quickly. except the ones that survive, that is. those people will just live the rest of their lives slowly dying from radiation poisoning, and give birth to deformed children.

that sounds about right.

[Mr Sparkle]

Japan continuing the fight despite Germany's fall has been a long held theory that happens to be just that.
a theory.
again.
201,000 dead mostly civilians.
NO justification.
and just so you know there's also a theory that the bombs were dropped DESPITE the fact that Japan was well on their way to surrender
In a Newsweek interview, Dwight Eisenhower said:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

William Leahy

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Herbert Hoover

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

[souloffire]

so instead we'll just kill them quickly. except the ones that survive, that is. those people will just live the rest of their lives slowly dying from radiation poisoning, and give birth to deformed children.

that sounds about right.It sounds like to me that you would rather have Millions die instead of thousands. Maybe you're a terrorist.

[souloffire]

Japan continuing the fight despite Germany's fall has been a long held theory that happens to be just that.
a theory.
again.
201,000 dead mostly civilians.
NO justification.
and just so you know there's also a theory that the bombs were dropped DESPITE the fact that Japan was well on their way to surrender
In a Newsweek interview, Dwight Eisenhower said:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

William Leahy

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Herbert Hoover

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."If that was true than why did it take two bombs for them to surrender?

[Mr Sparkle]

If that was true than why did it take two bombs for them to surrender?

LOL, for someone so knowledgeable on history you seem to forget about how it's written by the winners.
and remember you're not correcting my view on it, you're correcting.

Dwight Eisenhower
William Leahy
Herbert Hoover

and also

Douglas MacArthur
Joseph Grew (Under Sec. of State)
John Mccloy (Assistant Sec. of War)
Ralph Bard (Under Sec. of the Navy)

amongst many, many men at the time with much more access than both you and I have ever had to complete information on the matter.

uh, so there :huh:

[PhotoJones]

It sounds like to me that you would rather have Millions die instead of thousands. Maybe you're a terrorist.

wow.

[souloffire]

LOL, for someone so knowledgeable on history you seem to forget about how it's written by the winners.
and remember you're not correcting my view on it, you're correcting.

Dwight Eisenhower
William Leahy
Herbert Hoover

and also

Douglas MacArthur
Joseph Grew (Under Sec. of State)
John Mccloy (Assistant Sec. of War)
Ralph Bard (Under Sec. of the Navy)

amongst many, many men at the time with much more access than both you and I have ever had to complete information on the matter.

uh, so there :huh:"The US drops an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Japan's Supreme War Guidance council meets and splits 3 in favor of immediate acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration and three against. The War Minister and the Army and Navy Chiefs of Staff argue that all is not yet lost and that they should hold out in attempts to get more favorable conditions from the allies. In a gozen kaigi later that night, the emperor decides that it is time to surrender. After a meeting of the cabinet, telegrams are sent to the Allies signaling their acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.
August 14, 1945 Hirohito records his surrender speech late at night. Later still, one last attempt to halt the surrender was made with a coup by Junior army officers. It is finally put down early the the next morning.
August 15, 1945 The Emperor's surrender speech is broadcast by radio message, telling the people for the first time that Japan will end the war for humanitarian reasons. (He never actually admits that Japan is surrendering.)"

That really sounds like they were ready to surrender.

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL.

good hustle, good hustle :up:
way to miss the point AND clumsily try to imply that all these Generals and government officials were less informed than you.

:D you rock you awesome historian of awesomeness :up:

[souloffire]

LOL.

good hustle, good hustle :up:
way to miss the point AND clumsily try to imply that all these Generals and government officials were less informed than you.

:D you rock you awesome historian of awesomeness :up:Love it when people reply with a wise-ass comment to avoid the points brought up in the post.

[PhotoJones]

Love it when people reply with a wise-ass comment to avoid the points brought up in the post.

you mean, like you do?


It sounds like to me that you would rather have Millions die instead of thousands. Maybe you're a terrorist.

:up:

[Mr Sparkle]

Love it when people reply with a wise-ass comment to avoid the points brought up in the post.

I'm sorry, since you didn't address a single point I had made with my post and apparently missed the whole "history is written by the winners" portion of it (meaning you weren't paying attention or...you know? reading) I thought there was really no point in addressing your post.
:csad: sorry S.O.F. but until you tell me why all those generals and government officials were either wrong or flat out lying there really is no point in "answering" any of your "points" is there?

[Memphis Slim]

"The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshū from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa."

This will tell you of the planned invasion of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

How would that help against Japan?


It's useless. These knuckle heads don't know history. All they come back with are quips.

[Memphis Slim]

Love it when people reply with a wise-ass comment to avoid the points brought up in the post.



Exactly!! Not one response to my whole "why the bomb was necessary". The Russian threat in Europe? Nothing. The prolonging the war for another many years? Nothing.

The benefit of their relatives not having to possibly die in the Pacific battle? Nothing.

[PhotoJones]

It's useless. These knuckle heads don't know history. All they come back with are quips.

i'll admit, i'm not too fluent in conservative spin bull****.

i've always considered facts to be my best bet. :up:

[Memphis Slim]

yes.

we don't nuke them.

if you can't understand that, you have no business being capable of procreating.


Tell me Einstein....how would you have ended the war?? Give me your plan. :dry:

[Memphis Slim]

i'll admit, i'm not too fluent in conservative spin bull****.

i've always considered facts to be my best bet. :up:


You're not "fluent" at all.

[Mr Sparkle]

Exactly!! Not one response to my whole "why the bomb was necessary". The Russian threat in Europe? Nothing. The prolonging the war for another many years? Nothing.

The benefit of their relatives not having to possibly die in the Pacific battle? Nothing.

Dood, I actually responded

LOOK:

Japan continuing the fight despite Germany's fall has been a long held theory that happens to be just that.
a theory.
again.
201,000 dead mostly civilians.
NO justification.
and just so you know there's also a theory that the bombs were dropped DESPITE the fact that Japan was well on their way to surrender
In a Newsweek interview, Dwight Eisenhower said:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

William Leahy

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Herbert Hoover

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

see? but then , then I said

LOL, for someone so knowledgeable on history you seem to forget about how it's written by the winners.
and remember you're not correcting my view on it, you're correcting:

Dwight Eisenhower
William Leahy
Herbert Hoover

and also

Douglas MacArthur
Joseph Grew (Under Sec. of State)
John Mccloy (Assistant Sec. of War)
Ralph Bard (Under Sec. of the Navy)

amongst many, many men at the time with much more access than both you and I have ever had to complete information on the matter.

uh, so there

so I fail to see how that is "not an answer"
:up:

LOL, poor Celldog, you fancy yourself Captain American protecting the US from Evil. but you're actually crazy Jack Monroe fighting the Ice Cream man.:woot:

[PhotoJones]

dear memphis slim (celldog),

you do know by now that the reason this has gone on as long as it has is because we're (or at least i am) making fun of you. right?

i don't have to prove anything or justify anything to you. i do this because it's hilarious. you are providing me with free entertainment. :up:

sincerely,
photojones2

[PhotoJones]

LOL, poor Celldog, you fancy yourself Captain American protecting the US from Evil. but you're actually crazy Jack Monroe fighting the Ice Cream man.:woot:

HAHAHA!!!

:woot: :up:

[X-Rated]

OK, I'm loss.... what are we debating now. :huh:

That the Crusaders terrorize the Arab army in Jerusalem during the Dark Ages..... :dry:

[X-Rated]

OK, I'm loss.... what are we debating now. :huh:

That the Crusaders terrorize the Arab army in Jerusalem during the Dark Ages..... :dry:

[mightiest_mortal]

OK, I'm loss.... what are we debating now. :huh:

That the Crusaders terrorize the Arab army in Jerusalem during the Dark Ages..... :dry:

Well they shouldn't have burnt down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

[souloffire]

In a Newsweek interview, Dwight Eisenhower said:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." You might be right with this one. A member of one political party criticizing the actions of a member of another party. Things like this just don't happen.


William Leahy

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

He also said this about an Invasion of Japan, "Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone."
Herbert Hoover[/SIZE]

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." I guess Hoover forgot about The Potsdam Declaration from July 25, 1945 when the Japenese rejected the terms for surrender.

[SIZE=4][B]
[I]Douglas MacArthur He also said the bombs saved lives. He also said that "this apparatus will make men like me obsolete".

[Memphis Slim]

President's civilian advisers on the use of the bomb. The arguments of the opponents had been considered and rejected. So far as is known, the President did not solicit the views of the military or naval staffs, nor were they offered.
Military Considerations
The military situation on 1 June 1945, when the Interim Committee submitted its recommendations on the use of the atomic bomb, was distinctly favorable to the Allied cause. Germany had surrendered in May and troops from Europe would soon be available for redeployment in the Pacific. Manila had fallen in February; Iwo Jima was in American hands; and the success of the Okinawa invasion was assured. Air and submarine attacks had all but cut off Japan from the resources of the Indies, and B-29's from the Marianas were pulverizing Japan's cities and factories. The Pacific Fleet had virtually driven the Imperial Navy from the ocean, and planes of the fast carrier forces were striking Japanese naval bases in the Inland Sea. Clearly, Japan was a defeated nation.
Though defeated in a military sense, Japan showed no disposition to surrender unconditionally. And Japanese troops had demonstrated time and again that they could fight and inflict heavy casualties even when the outlook was hopeless. Allied plans in the spring of 1945 took these facts into account and proceeded on the assumption that an invasion of the home islands would be required to achieve at the earliest possible date the unconditional surrender of Japan-the announced objective of the war and the first requirement of all strategic planning. [31]
Other means of achieving this objective had been considered and, in early June, had not yet been entirely discarded. One of these called for the occupation of a string of bases around Japan to increase the intensity of air bombardment. Combined with a tight naval blockade, such a course would, many believed, produce the same results as an invasion and at far less cost in lives. [32] "I was unable to see any justification," Admiral Leahy later wrote, "for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated Japan. I feared the cost would be enormous in both lives and treasure." Admiral King and other senior naval officers agreed. To them it had always seemed, in King's words, "that the defeat of Japan could be accomplished by sea and air power alone, without the necessity of actual invasion of the Japanese home islands by ground troops. " [33]

The main arguments for an invasion of Japan-the plans called for an assault against Kyushu (OLYMPIC) on 1 November 1945, and against Honshu (CORONET) five months later-are perhaps best summarized by General Douglas MacArthur. Writing to the Chief of Staff on 20 April 1945, he declared that this course was the only one that would permit application of the full power of our combined resources-ground, naval, and air-on the decisive objective. Japan, he believed, would probably be more difficult to invade the following year. An invasion of Kyushu at an early date would, moreover, place United States forces in the most favorable position for the decisive assault against Honshu in 1946, and would "continue the offensive methods which have proved so successful in Pacific campaigns." [34] Reliance upon bombing alone, MacArthur asserted, was still an unproved formula for success, as was evidenced by the bomber offensive against Germany. The seizure of a ring of bases around Japan would disperse Allied forces even more than they already were, MacArthur pointed out, and (if an attempt was made to seize positions on the China coast) might very well lead to long-drawn-out operations on the Asiatic mainland.

Though the defeat of the enemy's armed forces in the Japanese homeland was considered a prerequisite to Japan's surrender, it did not follow that Japanese forces elsewhere, especially those on the Asiatic mainland, would surrender also. It was to provide for just this contingency, as well as to pin down those forces during the invasion of the home islands, that the Joint Chiefs had recommended Soviet entry into the war against Japan.

Soviet participation was a goal long pursued by the Americans. [40] Both political and military authorities seem to have been convinced from the start that Soviet assistance, conceived in various ways, would shorten the war and lessen the cost. In October 1943, Marshal Stalin had told Cordell Hull, then in Moscow for a conference, that the Soviet Union would eventually declare war on Japan. At the Tehran Conference in November of that year, Stalin had given the Allies formal notice of this intention and reaffirmed it in October 1944. In February 1945, at the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt and Stalin had agreed on the terms of Soviet participation in the Far Eastern war. Thus by June 1945, the Americans could look forward to Soviet intervention at a date estimated as three months after the defeat of Germany. But by the summer of 1945 the Americans had undergone a change of heart. Though the official position of the War Department still held that "Russian entry will have a profound military effect in that almost certainly it will materially shorten the war and thus save American lives," [41] few responsible American officials were eager for Soviet intervention or as willing to make concessions as they had been at an earlier period. [42] What had once appeared extremely desirable appeared less so now that the war in Europe was over and Japan was virtually defeated. President Truman, one official recalled, stated during a meeting devoted to the question of Soviet policy that agreements with Stalin had up to that time been "a one-way street" and that "he intended thereafter to be firm in his dealings with the Russians." [43] And at the 18 June meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the President, Admiral King had declared that "regardless of the desirability of the Russians entering the war, they were not indispensable and he did not think we should go as far as to beg them to come in." [44] Though the cost would be greater, he had no doubt "we could handle it alone."
The failure of the Soviets to abide by agreements made at Yalta had also done much to discourage the American desire for further cooperation with them. But after urging Stalin for three years to declare war on Japan, the United States Government could hardly ask him now to remain neutral. Moreover, there was no way of keeping the Russians out even if there had been a will to do so. In Harriman's view, "Russia would come into the war regardless of what we might do." [45]
A further difficulty was that Allied intelligence still indicated that Soviet intervention would be desirable, if not necessary, for the success of the invasion strategy. In Allied intelligence, Japan was portrayed as a defeated nation whose military leaders were blind to defeat. Though her industries had been seriously crippled by air bombardment and naval blockade and her armed forces were critically deficient in many of the resources of war, Japan was still far from surrender. She had ample reserves of weapons and ammunition and an army of 5,000,000 troops, 2,000,000 of them in the home islands. The latter could be expected to put up a strong resistance to invasion. In the opinion of the intelligence experts, neither blockade nor bombing alone would produce unconditional surrender before the date set for invasion. And the invasion itself, they believed, would be costly and possibly prolonged. [46]

According to these intelligence reports, the Japanese leaders were fully aware of their desperate situation but would continue to fight in the hope of avoiding complete defeat by securing a better bargaining position. Allied war-weariness and disunity, or some miracle, they hoped, would offer them a way out. "The Japanese believe," declared an intelligence estimate of 30 June, "that unconditional surrender would be the equivalent of national extinction, and there are as yet no indications that they are ready to accept such terms."



See Mr. Sparkle.....you don't tell the whole story. You like those little sound bites. sure there will always be conflicts over something of that magnitude. Some agreed. Some disagreed. But in the end, it had to be done.

[Addendum]

Yup. That's our celldog.

Inability to copy and paste in a readable fashion, and then overuse of the bold feature.

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/gallery/files/1/7/8/6/7/0/funny__10.jpg

[Memphis Slim]

Typical....no answers. :yay:

The U.S. is not a terrorist nation.

[Addendum]

Since I wasn't part of the discussion, I have nothing to answer to :oldrazz:

[Memphis Slim]

Yup. That's our celldog.

Inability to copy and paste in a readable fashion, and then overuse of the bold feature.

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/gallery/files/1/7/8/6/7/0/funny__10.jpg

Dang Addendum! You are one ugly sonavagun!! :wow:
Where'd you get that Super suit?

[Addendum]

And I thought it was a picture of you.

And I'm as white as a piece of notebook paper. I've never had a job that required work outside. When I was a kid, my mom would by SPF 100 sunscreen

[Memphis Slim]

And I thought it was a picture of you.

And I'm as white as a piece of notebook paper. I've never had a job that required work outside. When I was a kid, my mom would by SPF 100 sunscreen
LOL

[Addendum]

I'm proud to admit that my skin tone was created by years of interior light fixtures, the warm glow of the TV, and the hum of various computer monitors :woot:

[Mr Sparkle]

You might be right with this one. A member of one political party criticizing the actions of a member of another party. Things like this just don't happen.

LOL weak :down you must've panicked and desperately looked for a way out and this was the best you could do. tsk tsk.



He also said this about an Invasion of Japan, "Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone."

:huh: Admiral Leahy was talking about himself?
and lest we forget leahy said this, I'll bold out the important parts
"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
so unless he later said "kidding LOL" again a very weak attempt, try again.
better luck next time.
see, the key would be to adress their comments as erroneous, not try and say "but they also said...." because , again, that doesn't make your theory any more valid than mine, I know this is soimewhat above your head, but it's the way things are nonetheless.


I guess Hoover forgot about The Potsdam Declaration from July 25, 1945 when the Japenese rejected the terms for surrender.

April 29
In a report entitled Unconditional Surrender , the Joint Intelligence Committee informs the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "numbers of informed Japanese, both military and civilian, already realize the inevitability of absolute defeat." (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/decision-drop-bomb-chronology.htm)

June 14
The Franck Committee Report - with its recommendation that bomb be demonstrated to Japan before being used on civilians - is taken by Compton to Los Alamos, and copies were given to Fermi, Lawrence and Oppenheimer.
June 16
Compton, Fermi, Lawrence and Oppenheimer conclude: "We can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use."
June 17
McCloy tells Stimson that "there were no more cities to bomb, no more carriers to sink or battleships to shell; we had difficulty finding targets."




June 18
Admiral Leahy makes diary entry noting, "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." He also notes that General Marshall believes that an invasion of Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island, "will not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation." This may be compared to later estimates, after the atomic bombings, of 500,000 to 1,000,000 American lives saved.


June 20
A meeting of the Supreme War Direction Council before Emperor Hirohito is held on the subject of ending the war. According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "the Emperor, supported by the premier, foreign minister and Navy minister, declared for peace; the army minister and the two chiefs of staff did not concur."
June 26
Stimson , Forrestal and Grew agree that a clarification of surrender terms should be issued well before an invasion and with "ample time to permit a national reaction to set in." The three agreed that "Japan is susceptible to reason."
July 1
Szilard begins circulating a petition to President Truman expressing opposition on moral grounds to using the atomic bomb against Japan.
July 2
Secretary of War Henry Stimson advises Truman to offer a definition of unconditional surrender, and states, "I think the Japanese nation has the mental intelligence and versatile capacity in such a crisis to recognize the folly of a fight to the finish and to accept the proffer of what will amount to an unconditional surrender."
July 3
James Byrnes becomes U.S. Secretary of State.
July 3
New York Times reports, "Senator [William] White of Maine, the minority [Republican] leader, declared that the Pacific war might end quickly if President Truman would state, specifically, in the upper chamber just what unconditional surrender means for the Japanese."
July 4
Szilard writes to a colleague regarding the petition to president: "I personally feel it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war."
July 7
Truman leaves for Potsdam on the Augusta accompanied by Secretary of State Byrnes .
July 10
At a meeting of the Supreme War Direction Council, Emperor Hirohito urges haste in moves to mediate the peace through Russia.
July 13
Washington intercepts and decodes a cable from Japanese Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to his Ambassador in Moscow that states, "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.."
July 13
Secretary of Navy Forrestal writes in his secret diary: "The first real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war came today through intercepted messages from Togo , Foreign Minister, to Sato , Jap Ambassador in Moscow, instructing the latter to see Molotov if possible before his departure for the Big Three meeting and if not then immediately afterward to lay before him the Emperor's strong desire to secure a a termination of the war."
July 15
President Truman lands at Antwerp on his way to Potsdam meeting . Byrnes has convinced him to drop Article 12 of the Potsdam Declaration, which had provided assurance that the Emperor would be allowed to retain his throne as a constitutional monarch.
(some say this was the one term that broke the peace agreement along with the phrase "unconditional surrender" ironically, Hirohito was allowed to remain "emperor"after th bombs)
July 25
President Truman writes in his diary: "We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley era, after Noah and his fabulous ark. Anyway we think we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling - to put it mildly.. This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10. I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson , to use it so that military objectives and soldiers are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful."
July 25
General Carl Spatz , commander of the United States Army Strategic Air Forces, receives the only written order on the use of atomic weapons from acting Chief of Staff, General Thomas Handy .
July 26
Potsdam Declaration calls upon Japanese government "to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces." The alternative, the Declaration states, is "prompt and utter destruction."
July 26
Forrestal secret diary states, "In the past days Sato in Moscow has been sending the strongest language to the Foreign Office at Tokyo his urgent advice for Japan to surrender unconditionally. Each time the Foreign Minister, Togo , responds by saying that they want Sato to arrange for the Russians to receive Prince Konoye as a special representative of the Emperor to Moscow. Sato's persistent reply to these messages was that this is a futile hope, that there is no possibility of splitting the concert of action now existing between Great Britain, the United States and Russia."
July 28 | :oldrazz:
Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration

August 6
Upon hearing the news of the atomic bombing of Japan on his way home from Potsdam, President Truman remarked that this was "the greatest day in history."

Leo Szilard , the atomic scientist who had worked so hard to prevent the use of the bomb, writes to a friend, "Using atomic bombs against Japan is one of the greatest blunders of history.

August 15
New York Times reports, "Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so, even if no atomic bombs had been dropped, is the opinion of Major-General Claire Chennault .."

1946
July 1
United States Strategic Bombing Survey states: "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms." The Survey also states: "On 10 July [1945] the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August." The Survey concluded: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."





He also said the bombs saved lives. He also said that "this apparatus will make men like me obsolete".

and again, I'd like to see how it makes the use of the Bomb in the instance we are talking about justified? even if he thought the bomb was useful doesn't mean that he agreed with the way it was used in the specific incidents we having to be talking about.
:huh: are you ...LOL. having trouble understanding this?

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL, I think that's the whole story by the way Cell-diggity dog :D

[sinewave]

there's way too many long-ass posts in this thread.

[Mr Sparkle]

My hand was forced they said I didn't post "the whole story" :(

[Addendum]

And then they'll respond by posting the entire "history of world war 2", the hardback book that the military uses

[sinewave]

this is completely off topic, but i get a kick out of celldog. he's the ultimate minority. he's a black, neo-con nerd. that's pretty impressive.

[DV8]

US Plans for Attack on Iran Revealed
The BBC is reporting the US military has drawn up contingency plans for massive air strikes against Iran. The plans call for attacks on Iran's nuclear sites, air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centers. As part of the plan, long-range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs to penetrate Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

Link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523245

Front row seats to WWIII, anyone? :(

[Speedball]

AWESOME!
Can't wait to see some fireworks.

[Cobblepot]

This makes my stomach turn.

[jaguarr]

It's unsettling, but they are CONTINGENCY plans. Meaning they're to be used if the primary plans fail (whatever those are). Let's not go all Chicken Little just yet.

jag

[DV8]

well . . . it's only if Iran doesn't meet the UN deadline . . . and then 'other economic sanction will be considered' . . . which pretty much means we're going to bomb **** . . .

[Prognosticator]

It's not like we didn't know someone out there working for the U.S. Govt. wasn't doing this??!?

The only stupid/out of place thing is how the media is ruining the art of war.

[DV8]

It's unsettling, but they are CONTINGENCY plans. Meaning they're to be used if the primary plans fail (whatever those are). Let's not go all Chicken Little just yet.

jag

right . . . and I agree that this news came from a liberal site, which is trying to spin the news . . . the grim reality is that this is just how **** started hitting the fan w/ Iraq and look how that turned out . . .

[Kebab gud]

leve it to the americans to destroy the world

[Cаrter]

Everything else is left to us, so why not?

[Kaleb]

urggghh CONTINGENCY ppl :o

[jaguarr]

urggghh CONTINGENCY ppl :o

Yeah, I already pointed that out and it got glossed over. The U.S. probably has contingency plans for every single problem country in the world including N. Korea, Cuba and Syria. It's not a surprise to me that they would have one for Iran and in fact, i'd be disappointed if they didn't. What's surprising is that the press is getting ahold of any of this information AT ALL and releasing it.

jag

[DV8]

Yeah, I already pointed that out and it got glossed over.

jag

right . . . and I agree that this news came from a liberal site, which is trying to spin the news

:hyper:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

If they didn't have contingency plans they'd be remiss. *sniff*

[raybia]

It's unsettling, but they are CONTINGENCY plans. Meaning they're to be used if the primary plans fail (whatever those are). Let's not go all Chicken Little just yet.

jag

I wonder what Iran's contingency plans are if the U.S. goes with their contingency plans?

[jaguarr]

:hyper:

Have you quit smoking yet, young man?

jag

[jaguarr]

I wonder what Iran's contingency plans are if the U.S. goes with their contingency plans?

I don't know, but it can't be good. I really wish the U.S. would work more in accordance with the U.N. on stuff like this. We've gone cowboy way too much and we don't have the funds, resources or troops to get into a war with Iran.

jag

[StorminNorman]

Is anybody really surprised by this? I would hope the US has plans if things go south.

[Apollo]

arent we already in world war III

[Wilhelm-Scream]

We've gone Commando for too long.
Iran stands ready to chafe us.

[raybia]

I don't know, but it can't be good. I really wish the U.S. would work more in accordance with the U.N. on stuff like this. We've gone cowboy way too much and we don't have the funds, resources or troops to get into a war with Iran.

jag

I have no choice but to believe at this point that the Bush Adminstration, though they represent the will of the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world, is doing what is in the best interest of themselves and the unknown entities that they serve, regardless of the consequences to America itself.

In other words, America has been hijacked, but those who recognize it and are in a position to do something about it, are too bogged down in bureacracy and Bipartisanism to do anything about it.

This is a perfect situation that reveals the weakness of our current structure of goverment in the context of the Goverment of the U.S. being for the people, of the people, by the people.

The Bush Adminstration are conspirators against the United States of America but our system seems to be unable to remove them and bring them to justice.

[jaguarr]

I have no choice but to believe at this point that the Bush Adminstration, though they represent the will of the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world, is doing what is in the best interest of themselves and the unknown entities that they serve, regardless of the consequences to America itself.

In other words, America has been hijacked, but those who recognize it and are in a position to do something about it, are too bogged down in bureacracy and Bipartisanism to do anything about it.

This is a perfect situation that reveals the weakness of our current structure of goverment in the context of the Goverment of the U.S. being for the people, of the people, by the people.

The Bush Adminstration are conspirators against the United States of America but our system seems to be unable to remove them and bring them to justice.

You and I share the same concerns and fears.

jag

[Kaleb]

im about to launch an air strike in my pants :o...........*feeeep*

[Kritish]

US Plans for Attack on Iran Revealed
The BBC is reporting the US military has drawn up contingency plans for massive air strikes against Iran. The plans call for attacks on Iran's nuclear sites, air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centers. As part of the plan, long-range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs to penetrate Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

Link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523245

Front row seats to WWIII, anyone? :(

WW3 my ass, Iran is nowhere near our level of military might. Like it or not we're good at blowing **** up.

[hippie_hunter]

http://www.friendsoffoamy.com/index.php?id=323

[Kritish]

We're going to end blowing the **** out of their plants; they're going to scream "death to america"...how is that new?

[raybia]

WW3 my ass, Iran is nowhere near our level of military might.

They don't have to be able throw a monkey wrench into our plans nor for other countries to get involved.

Attacking Iran may just set off an unfortnated series of events.

[Kritish]

They don't have to be able throw a monkey wrench into our plans nor for other countries to get involved.

Attacking Iran may just set off an unfortnated series of events.

Who's going to help them? We're about to clip North Korea's wings and China is a semi-friend now.

[CyberFaust]

Who's going to help them? We're about to clip North Korea's wings and China is a semi-friend now.

but....dude, aren't you british? you don't clip didly-squat

[Kritish]

but....dude, aren't you british? you don't clip didly-squat

I'm not from England I'm from Texas...why did you think that? :confused:

[CyberFaust]

I'm not from England I'm from Texas...why did you think that? :confused:

you know...i thought the name was a typo :o

[R0rschach]

I hope the US attacks Iran and spends billions and billions on the war against them. That would be great. :word:

[raybia]

I hope the US attacks Iran and spends billions and billions on the war against them. That would be great. :word:

Wouldn't it also be great if the U.S. decides to reinstate the draft and you are one of the first to go? :word: I have a feeling you would be eligible.

[Kritish]

There is no chance of Iran declaring war upon America. They have no way to move their troops nor do they lack the technology to hit the US with a missile. The odds are that Iran will give into the U.N.'s demands just like North Korea is doing.

[Kritish]

Wouldn't it also be great if the U.S. decides to reinstate the draft and you are one of the first to go? :word:

Okay, this thread has officially turned ignorant.

[CyberFaust]

nor do they lack the technology to hit the US with a missile.

yes, it's true, they can do that

[Kritish]

yes, it's true, they can do that

China is the only country that can pose a threat to us at the moment, and they aren't going to attack us.

[raybia]

There is no chance of Iran declaring war upon America. They have no way to move their troops nor do they lack the technology to hit the US with a missile. The odds are that Iran will give into the U.N.'s demands just like North Korea is doing.

Or strike at U.S. interest abroad like further destabilizing Iraq by unleashing a wave of terror in that country unlike anything the U.S. has witnessed thus far.

[Prognosticator]

I have no choice but to believe at this point that the Bush Adminstration, though they represent the will of the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world, is doing what is in the best interest of themselves and the unknown entities that they serve, regardless of the consequences to America itself.

In other words, America has been hijacked, but those who recognize it and are in a position to do something about it, are too bogged down in bureacracy and Bipartisanism to do anything about it.

This is a perfect situation that reveals the weakness of our current structure of goverment in the context of the Goverment of the U.S. being for the people, of the people, by the people.

The Bush Adminstration are conspirators against the United States of America but our system seems to be unable to remove them and bring them to justice.

BLAH! This sounds like the rant of a foreigner posing as an American...(?)

[Kritish]

Or strike at U.S. interest abroad like further destabilizing Iraq by unleashing a wave of terror in that country unlike anything the U.S. has witnessed thus far.

That would be pretty hard considering there's atleast an attack a day in Iraq. I doubt the US will have to take any action; the UN has all of these rouge nations on a tight lease.

[R0rschach]

Wouldn't it also be great if the U.S. decides to reinstate the draft and you are one of the first to go? :word: I have a feeling you would be eligible.

I have a feeling I live in The Netherlands. :woot:
And yes I draft would be great. :woot:

[Prognosticator]

There is no chance of Iran declaring war upon America. They have no way to move their troops nor do they lack the technology to hit the US with a missile. The odds are that Iran will give into the U.N.'s demands just like North Korea is doing.

I agree. MiddleEastern countries don't want to go anywhere! They are at war w/themselves b/c everyone over there is after "THE MIDDLE EAST".

You can realistically narrow it down to two reasons that Middle Eastern countries hate the U.S. :

1) the U.S. foundation is historically based on Christianity (though it rarely resembles that POV anymore). Muslim extremists are in a war of conversion as much as anything. But other than that, they have NO reason to even want to "invade" the us.

2) ...and this accounts for 99% of the tension b/w U.S./MiddleEastern relations, we have always supported Israel. We supported their birth as a nation, we supported their war efforts in the 70s & 80s, we support them economically, militaristically, and we (unlike most ME nations) RECOGNIZE they exist.

[blind_fury]

well that would boost terrorism by 500%.

fun fact: The first suicide bombers originated in Iran.

[souloffire]

[/B]Admiral Leahy makes diary entry noting, "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression."
This is my favorite, in his "OPINION". What was his time frame for surrender? Two weeks? Two months? or Two Years? Wonder how many would have died while waiting for Japan to Surrender?

BTW love the cheap shots, very classy thing to do while sitting miles away behind a computer. It will really make people take you seriously in a debate.

[raybia]

Okay, this thread has officially turned ignorant.

Yeah, my reply did this rather than his response. Right. :whatever:

[raybia]

I have a feeling I live in The Netherlands. :woot:
And yes I draft would be great. :woot:

Thanks for your support.

[Mr Sparkle]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! you think I want you to "take me seriously!"?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! glad to see that out of the mini-bible I posted the only thing you attack was a single word in a quote.
nevermind all the other stuff.
all the other people that shared his view, all the military specialists and government sanctioned studies.
nevermind that!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You are very jovial.

[raybia]

BLAH! This sounds like the rant of a foreigner posing as an American...(?)

I guess you think jag is a foreigner too because we all know that no American would ever exhibit dissent towards their Government. :whatever: