The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

Of course they have. If they didn't KNOW that Iraq was guilty they wouldn't of pursued this.

And the UN weapons inspectors did find evidence that Iraq had exported it's weapons.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course they have.  If they didn't KNOW that Iraq was guilty they wouldn't of pursued this.

And the UN weapons inspectors did find evidence that Iraq had exported it's weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Weapons experts in Iraq have found large quantities of illegally smuggled materials, chief inspector Hans Blix has said.

But they have not yet determined if they are related to weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs or chemical warfare, Mr Blix said in a BBC interview.

<span id='postcolor'>

It looks like they don't know yet. Besides, it's UN's job - not US' job

[FSPilot 0]

Yeah, but the US started it, so they're expected to have some convincing evidence.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA prepares rebuild plan for post-conflict Iraq

By Kim Burger

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is preparing for its role in rebuilding Iraq after a projected US-led invasion and is expecting significant demands for units that can provide intelligence capabilities, chemical and biological detection and defence, civil affairs and force protection, US defence officials have disclosed to Jane's Defence Weekly.

The US armed forces are expected to maintain a significant presence in Iraq, well beyond the end of combat operations, to deal with what defence and humanitarian experts say could be a dangerous and volatile situation. Predictions range from the formation of armed resistance factions to water and food shortages. US officials would also want to seek out and destroy or secure any remaining stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and related equipment. They also are preparing for more conventional threats against US forces.

Among the DoD's primary concerns are stability within the country and maintaining Iraq's borders with its neighbours, particularly Turkey. There is a belief that much of the regular Iraqi army will defect, surrender or stay out of the battle. Many of them, however, could join factions split along ethnic, clan and sect lines. Adding to the potential for turmoil are signs that Turkey and other neighbours intend to close their borders to Iraqi refugees.

The DoD is aware of the potential humanitarian crises and is planning to administer aid from the beginning of a military campaign. The effort will be co-ordinated with other US agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). It will be larger in scope than the food-drops made during Operation 'Enduring Freedom' in Afghanistan, and involve efforts to move NGOs into the southern and central parts of Iraq to provide assistance. US officials believe it "absolutely critical" that there be international involvement in Iraq, particularly from the surrounding states.

The goal will be to maintain as much of the Iraqi government infrastructure as possible, and to return control of government services to a new Iraqi leadership when possible. The senior US official in the country would be a civilian, not a military officer.

349 words out of 715

[End of non-subscriber extract.]<span id='postcolor'>

Since I don't have $2000 for a subscribtion to Jane's...you'll have to take that for what its worth.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, but the US started it<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I believe you are right about that. And I think it's a good thing actually. If only Bush would avoid war and use the military pressure to force Saddam to give up possible WMD's.

It would even be a political triumph if that happened. But not war.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, but the US started it<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I believe you are right about that. And I think it's a good thing actually. If only Bush would avoid war and use the military pressure to force Saddam to give up possible WMD's.

It would even be a political triumph if that happened. But not war.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that's what he wants too, if it isn't what he's doing in the first place.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Wuh oh, the US is going to end a war and save lives!  Run everybody!<span id='postcolor'>

looks more like you're about to start one and take lives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

It's not fatuous at all.  Nothing about saddam has changed since he gassed those people.  Everything has changed about our country.  We've gone through plenty of presidents, and our military has changed too.

<span id='postcolor'>

US foreign policy hasn't had a lot of groundbreaking changes. And since the 1st Gulf War you've gone from Bush Senior to Bush Junior and it looks to me like the desire to wage a war on Iraq runs in the family. If, nothing in Iraq has changed, why attack now when you've kept Saddam contained for a decade. BTW, you keep bringing up what Saddam did...should I remind you again what you said about the revelance of past events?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Saved the lives of US servicemen, Japanese servicemen, and Japanese civilians.

<span id='postcolor'>

Kind of hard to find  that out for sure isn't it, since just the civilian population was targeted in what can only be called a terror attack. Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense and cost a lot less lives to bomb a couple of military bases?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Exactly why the US is not going to be using them today.

<span id='postcolor'>

We should all hope so, dosen't stop the US from constantly reminding the world that the option is always there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The only sources I've seen on this are obviously biased, including you.

<span id='postcolor'>

And you aren't? This seems to be a common defence of yours, cry 'bias' any time a source is brought up that dosen't show the US as a knight in shining armour. Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US has, yes, the US uses?  Probably not.

And I still haven't seen a reliable source about us giving saddam WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

That "probably" is very reassuring. The sources are there, you would just never consider them for the reason I stated above.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 14 2003,20:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hi lads !

I just returned from Turkmenistan with a load of info in my backpack.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey!

You made it, I can't wait for all the info, this will be great. Well you know what I mean.

[Tovarish 0]

Ah yes, welcome back Balschoiw. You're back sooner than I think anyone expected, great to see you, look forwards to the info

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 15 2003,03:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Saved the lives of US servicemen, Japanese servicemen, and Japanese civilians.

<span id='postcolor'>

Kind of hard to find that out for sure isn't it, since just the civilian population was targeted in what can only be called a terror attack. Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense and cost a lot less lives to bomb a couple of military bases?<span id='postcolor'>

No its not all that hard to figure at all.

Consider the Emperor, and certainly the Japanese military were unwilling to give up the fight. Yes I know they made "peace overtures," but they consisted of unacceptable terms like keeping parts of China.

Consider the US having to invade Japan. Consider the amount of men needed to say, just land on and take control of Kyushu. Consider the human waves of Japanese soldiers throwing themselves against US machine guns. Consider the need for systematic bombing of cities. Consider the civilian population, believing in their Emperor, doing anything to get away, or stop the American "barbarian." Consider the house to house fighting in a highly flammable city structure. Consider scores of young boys being trained for kamikaze's. Consider what remained of the IJN going out for "one last sortie", like the brave Yamato.

Now consider having to do that at least one more time on Honshu, the main island and the largest of the three main islands. Consider possibly having to do that on the third island Hokkaiddo.

Yes. It is easy to say millions were saved.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in what can only be called a terror attack.<span id='postcolor'>

Revisionist claptrap.

EDIT: Stupid coding.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,03:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes. It is easy to say millions were saved.

<span id='postcolor'>

By committing an atrocity against the civilian population. As I've said, why not nuke some major military bases?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Revisionist claptrap.

<span id='postcolor'>

Call it what you like

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 15 2003,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">looks more like you're about to start one and take lives.<span id='postcolor'>

No we're not! Like you said, history repeats. Don't think we've ever done this before.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US foreign policy hasn't had a lot of groundbreaking changes. And since the 1st Gulf War you've gone from Bush Senior to Bush Junior and it looks to me like the desire to wage a war on Iraq runs in the family. If, nothing in Iraq has changed, why attack now when you've kept Saddam contained for a decade. BTW, you keep bringing up what Saddam did...should I remind you again what you said about the revelance of past events? <span id='postcolor'>

Do I have to say AGAIN my example of the murderer with an arrest warrant on his head?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kind of hard to find that out for sure isn't it, since just the civilian population was targeted in what can only be called a terror attack. Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense and cost a lot less lives to bomb a couple of military bases?<span id='postcolor'>

Eh, you're in a gray area. They were technically civilians, but they were producing war materials. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were military bases near Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Also, we had been dropping conventional bombs throughout the whole war to no real avail. How would it of ended the war if we bombed a few more bases?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We should all hope so, dosen't stop the US from constantly reminding the world that the option is always there.<span id='postcolor'>

The US has only said it would retalliate accordingly. It's not threatening to attack anybody, more of a counter-attack.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you aren't? This seems to be a common defence of yours, cry 'bias' any time a source is brought up that dosen't show the US as a knight in shining armour. Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you even bother reading what I say, or do you just take the main theme and post whatever propoganda you can find online?

I've already said that MOST online sources are biased, even the ones that agree with me. It's not like I'm only saying that the ones that disagree with me are biased.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That "probably" is very reassuring. The sources are there, you would just never consider them for the reason I stated above.<span id='postcolor'>

The one I negated before you even posted it?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes. It is easy to say millions were saved.<span id='postcolor'> But millions of who? Using a nuclear bomb on a civilian population targets so many people who would otherwise have not participated in and survived any war. Completely innocent people.

You can't get away from calling it terrorism, whether it was necessary you can debate. Look for the definition of the word, maybe what happened in Japan is THE defenition of terrorism. I can't believe this actually happened, and what's still waiting.

Such a waste of time and... everything

EDIT: Typos causing grammatical errors.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 15 2003,08:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But millions of who? Using a nuclear bomb on a civilian population targets so many people who would otherwise have not participated in and survived any war. Completely innocent people.<span id='postcolor'>

It doesn't matter who. Millions of military personnel, millions of civilians. And the bomb was used on a military target and, if I remember right, a military base. They just happened to be near a city. And read what Akira said. They might not of survived the war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't get away from calling it terrorism, whether it was necessary you can debate. Look for the definition of the word, maybe what happened in Japan is THE defenition of terrorism. I can't believe this actually happened, and what's still waiting.<span id='postcolor'>

Calling dropping the atomic bomb terrorism is just stupid. Terrorism is using a threat of violence to scare people into doing things. Dropping the bombs on Japan made them realise that the war was hopeless and they were only killing people by dragging it on.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,03:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorism is using a threat of violence to scare people into doing things.  Dropping the bombs on Japan made them realise that the war was hopeless and they were only killing people by dragging it on.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO Don't tell me you can't see it FSPilot. You just declared dropping the abomb to be terrorism

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> But millions of who? Using a nuclear bomb on a civilian population targets so many people who would otherwise have not participated in and survived any war. Completely innocent people.<span id='postcolor'>

You need to check your history then. Check for example when the US took Saipan. Scores of civilians jumped off cliffs to get away from the Americans, who the Officers said would "eat their babies."

What would happen if the homeland was invaded? If the US was bogged down in city fighting? How many civilians would be lost then?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't get away from calling it terrorism, whether it was necessary you can debate. Look for the definition of the word, maybe what happened in Japan is THE defenition of terrorism.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

The key here being "unlawful." And please remember that the US was attacked. If you want to talk about terrorism, then why not bring up Pearl Harbor? A premeditated attack given without a declaration. Or the invasion and subjugation of Korea, China, and Manchuria? Or the Rape of Nanking?

Calling it terrorism is nothing but looking 50 years back with the eyes of some one firmly planted in the 20th century. As I said. Revisionism. It does nothing but belittle the war and spit on the memory of ALL those that died in the war. You can call it terrorism if you like but it shows an ignorance of the past and histories lessons that I wouldn't have expected from you. I'm not going to sit back and criticize actions taken to end a war that I had no experience with. Both my grandfathers were in Europe and then in the Pacific. It would be debatable that I would be here if the war continued.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Such a waste of time and... everything<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that the definition of War?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By committing an atrocity against the civilian population. As I've said, why not nuke some major military bases?<span id='postcolor'>

They were chosen not only for their civilian population, but their production of war material.

A show had to be made to the Emporer, and more importantly the Military Junta that dragged Japan to war, that it was in their interests to surrender. Two bombs were prepared in case the message was not recieved. I'd say they were wise in making two since the Military Junta still refused after Hiroshima. it only became clear after Nagasaki. And what did the US do? Rebuild Japan and help it prosper after.

Let us not forget either that warnings were given to the ruling Military, that the US had a "devastating bomb." The warnings were ignored and the fighting continued.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,03:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,03:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorism is using a threat of violence to scare people into doing things.  Dropping the bombs on Japan made them realise that the war was hopeless and they were only killing people by dragging it on.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO   Don't tell me you can't see it FSPilot. You just declared dropping the abomb to be terrorism  <span id='postcolor'>

Hehe.... this is allready a classic.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,08:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,03:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorism is using a threat of violence to scare people into doing things.  Dropping the bombs on Japan made them realise that the war was hopeless and they were only killing people by dragging it on.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO   Don't tell me you can't see it FSPilot. You just declared dropping the abomb to be terrorism  <span id='postcolor'>

No, you're just twisting what I said.

Terrorism = FREE HOSTAGES OR WE BOMB YOU!!!

What the US did = Please don't make us bomb you again.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,03:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 15 2003,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">looks more like you're about to start one and take lives.<span id='postcolor'>

No we're not! Like you said, history repeats. Don't think we've ever done this before.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol think about where you are about to start a war

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[

Do I have to say AGAIN my example of the murderer with an arrest warrant on his head?<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, it's biased

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Eh, you're in a gray area. They were technically civilians, but they were producing war materials. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were military bases near Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Also, we had been dropping conventional bombs throughout the whole war to no real avail. How would it of ended the war if we bombed a few more bases?<span id='postcolor'>

No grey area there. what they produce dosen't change the fact that they were civilians. A huge number of civilians in the US were producing war material. They were still civilians. And do you truly believe that bombing cities conventionally would have ended the war? No it was a terror attack against the population. Had you nuked the military it would have had a great demoralizing effect on them, without causing such loss of innocent life.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you even bother reading what I say, or do you just take the main theme and post whatever propoganda you can find online?

I've already said that MOST online sources are biased, even the ones that agree with me. It's not like I'm only saying that the ones that disagree with me are biased.<span id='postcolor'>

The difference is those of us who read your sources and feel they're biased still read them and respond to what they say, and discuss the statements contained in those sources. Half the time you just dismiss what you know you're not going to like to hear.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The one I negated before you even posted it? <span id='postcolor'>

Thank you for proving my point

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorism = FREE HOSTAGES OR WE BOMB YOU!!!

What the US did = Please don't make us bomb you again.<span id='postcolor'>

So you're now saying terrorists are only half as bad as the US?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 15 2003,08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lol think about where you are about to start a war <span id='postcolor'>

Thats quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard today.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No grey area there. what they produce dosen't change the fact that they were civilians. A huge number of civilians in the US were producing war material. They were still civilians. And do you truly believe that bombing cities conventionally would have ended the war? No it was a terror attack against the population. Had you nuked the military it would have had a great demoralizing effect on them, without causing such loss of innocent life.<span id='postcolor'>

No, it is a gray area. The civilians who were producing war materials for the US soldiers in America were a war asset and they could of been a target. Without them we might not of done so well. The Japanese civilians were civilians, but they were a target because they were producing military assets. And like I said, no, bombing civilian cities conventionally would not end the war.

And NO, it was NOT a terrorist attack. Like I said. Terrorists use terror to terrorize their opponents into submission. We used superior firepower to show them that they were going to lose.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The difference is those of us who read your sources and feel they're biased still read them and respond to what they say, and discuss the statements contained in those sources. Half the time you just dismiss what you know you're not going to like to hear.<span id='postcolor'>

I dismiss them because they're biased. You all are welcome too as well, and you do.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 14 2003,21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorism = FREE HOSTAGES OR WE BOMB YOU!!!

What the US did = Please don't make us bomb you again.<span id='postcolor'>

So you're now saying terrorists are only half as bad as the US? <span id='postcolor'>

,

And Denoir, lol, that was good.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 14 2003,22:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 15 2003,08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lol think about where you are about to start a war <span id='postcolor'>

Thats quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard today.<span id='postcolor'>

Eh, I'm very tired, but how is that dumb?

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,04:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thats quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard today.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd like to hear how so . You said you'd never done this before, yet this would be the second time you go to war with Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And like I said, no, bombing civilian cities conventionally would not end the war.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course not, so you nuked them to terrorize them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And NO, it was NOT a terrorist attack. Like I said. Terrorists use terror to terrorize their opponents into submission. We used superior firepower to show them that they were going to lose.

<span id='postcolor'>

You've just said the same thing twice using different words

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The difference is those of us who read your sources and feel they're biased still read them and respond to what they say, and discuss the statements contained in those sources. Half the time you just dismiss what you know you're not going to like to hear.<span id='postcolor'>

I dismiss them because they're biased. You all are welcome too as well, and you do.<span id='postcolor'>

If everyone did that, discussions such as these wouldn't be possible.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No grey area there. what they produce dosen't change the fact that they were civilians. A huge number of civilians in the US were producing war material. They were still civilians. And do you truly believe that bombing cities conventionally would have ended the war? No it was a terror attack against the population. Had you nuked the military it would have had a great demoralizing effect on them, without causing such loss of innocent life.<span id='postcolor'>

You're lack of understanding of the realities of the Pacific War astounds me.

Demoralizing effect on the military? You GOT to be kidding me! You mean the same military that fought on even after vicotry was no longer possible? You mean the same military that had scores of volunteers to be kamikaze pilots? You mean the same military that provided enough fuel for the Yamato to leave port with the sole purpose of a one way trip to try to sink the carriers off Okinawa? You mean the same military that vowed to keep fighting "for the Emperor"? You mean the smae military that after Guadalcanal was lost, made human wave charges with bayonets and swords against entrenched US machine guns?

Please! Demoralizing effect indeed!