The Iraq Thread

[Balschoiw 0]

Calm down buddies. You seem to start WW 3 right here.

The use of nuclear weapons during WW 2 was bad for the japanese civilians (Yes FS they were civilians just like you are , or do you work in a grenade factory ?) and good  (more or less) for the US. It is hard to say the war wouldn´t have been ended without the bombs. Why ?

Remember, Germany already surrendered so the the nuke material fell into US hands. I wrote something about that ages ago here in this thread if I remember right. Only the nuclear material that fell into US hands enabled US to build 2 nukes. And yes the material was on it´s way to Japan.

Imagine one thing:

What would have happened if the material reached Japan ?

They already had the bomb ready , but only missing the stuff from the german sub that surrendered to US.

In case they got the delivery they would have been able to nuke the US. They would have nuked a major city or something like that. Would you still agree that it was ok ?

I mean, hold your breath and try to see it from a non US point only for a few seconds. Step aside your patriotism, and imagine what would have happened if Japan got the nukes. Would you be happy and say "It is war, and in war everything is justified" like you tend to do a lot ?

Japan suffers from the bombs till today and for a nation where managers kill themselves if they are not able to fulfill their role within a company it is the hugest assumeable shame to be beaten by NOT beating it´s military forces but killing it´s civilian population. The Nagasaki bomb, the second one, was pure murder, nothing else. The dramatic effects of the first bomb should have made clear that any further use of a weapon like this is against ALL human basic rules, written or not. The Japanese or asian people in general have a complex codex of life and honour. I respect this. It is no order thing, it is a way of life that was cultivated over thousands of years. We are certainly not the ones to judge them. If they have a system of values we don´t understand , it doesnt mean that it is bad. It is just different.

I am still waiting for the clearance to post some info on IRAQ (which is basically the topic), but I guess it will take 1 more day.

BTW: My boss, has had a look at the OFP forum   I messed his ears up all the flight back from turkmenistan so he was pretty curious. He had a nice comment about the discussion here in this thread, but I am not allowed to tell  

EDIT: Numerouse errors based on heavy abuse of Averna

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 16 2003,06:53)</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">This is a question of where the acceptable limit is. It has nothing to do with my views. It has everything to do with a racist preconception of that the Japanese were savages whou would rather be killed then surrender. It has to do with justifying the mass killings of civilians because of a political agenda.<span id='postcolor'>

I NEVER said that the Japanese were savages. But it is a fact that they were fierce fighters and that they would rather DIE than surrender. Look at the kamikazes, they killed themselves for the HONOR of dying. The atomic bombs were justifyed because they saved lives, both military and civilian. At the time we dropped the bombs the people in command obviously thought the Japanese were not going to surrender.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm aware that it might be controversial to you, but this is not a matter of different opinions. It has to do with applying the same criteria for everybody, no matter what your political/national orientation might be.<span id='postcolor'>

You can't compare the same criteria here because they are two completely different subjects. The attacks on 9/11 were on CIVILIANS. The terrorists were actually using civilians as a weapon while killing them in the process. I don't see how you can compare bombing a military asset to this. And don't try to tell me it was taking civilians lives, they saved civilians by doing this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are saying it again: that because the Japanese were "fierce fighters" it was ok to mass murder their civilian population. This has nothing to do with if lifes were saved on the whole or not. It has to do with the justification of mass murder for a political goal. As I said, in the best case it is very bad taste and insulting to the Japanese.<span id='postcolor'>

No matter how much you twist our words we are not insulting the Japanese, even after you've twisted them to your liking. We did NOT mass murder a civilian population, we saved civilian lives and military lives on both sides because a long and drawn out campaign on the Japanese mainland would of been more bloody than the atomic bombs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No matter how you put it, like i said before, it is terrorism. it was used to strike fear into the civilian population to force it's government to act accordingly to their fears. Same as what Osama is aiming for.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think that's true, but look at the motives behind it. Our aim in world war two was to end the war. Osama's aim is to destroy a country. They're not comparable.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So can you tell us how the Japanese feel about the nukes? I doubt that even you would say that they think it was a necessary evil.<span id='postcolor'>

What difference does it make what the Japanese think? If you ask them they'd probably go on and list all the evils that they think Americans commited during the war. Of course ignoring things like the rape of nanking.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where exactly is the abuse of power? Did anyone get PR'd or banned?<span id='postcolor'>

He did threaten to ban us.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Akira @ Jan. 16 2003,01:44)

So because you don't agree makes it a bad decision? Where were you when Truman needed you?

Not because I disagree, but because there is a disagreement. That rules out the option of it being undoubtably necessary.

<span id='postcolor'>

I never said it was "undoubtedly necesary." There were many options available and the leadership took the one they saw as the quickest to win the war and save lives as they saw it. I will not fault them for a decision that they viewed as the best one for all involved.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you are saying that the holocaust was ok since there were no rules against it?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't remember saying that. But then again I don't remember saying anything rascist either.

Let us just get it straight that you condemned the US based on the Geneva Convention for targeting civilians. You were wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I abused my "power" to "oppress" people that disagree with me you would be banned months ago. This isn't an issue of personal opinion or disagreement. As a moderator it is my responsibility to define the limits of what is acceptable. Would you for instance consider glorifying the holocaust to be acceptable and argue for that it is the freedom of speech?

I understand that the atomic bombing is a more controversial issue. And yes, I will inevitably be biased, since I'm human. It is however also my responsibility to set those rules.

You are trying to make this look like I am after you because we are in disagreement. This couldn't be further from the truth. If everybody would agree with me in discussions then these would be very boring forums. The charm of it is exactly that people have opposite beliefs.

There are however limits of what is acceptable and what is not. And as a moderator, I can't look away from the fact that saying that killing 200,000 people for a political goal "was necessary", is at least in very bad taste and disrespectful towards thos who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<span id='postcolor'>

I know what your duties as moderator are, and I have never spoken an ill word about any moderator including you. I remember what it was like in the "Dark Ages" with the spam wars and all. It was nasty, and the moderators helped change that.

But let us be clear that I NEVER "glorified" the dropping of the bombs, nor would I ever think to do so. The only thing I said was I will not look back on the event tainted with modern day thinking. I look at it from what was happening over the course of the war, what the leaders on all sides were up against, and what choices they were given. Nothing more and nothing less.

And don't tell me that I am disrespectful to those who died. You are just as disrespectful to those that were fighting and would have had to fight on if not for the act that you so condemn. I have more respect for those people, both Japanese and American, then I have for anyone today.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you are saying that the holocaust was ok since there were no rules against it?<span id='postcolor'>

No, but we cant hold the Germans accountable for the geneva convention.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are however limits of what is acceptable and what is not. And as a moderator, I can't look away from the fact that saying that killing 200,000 people for a political goal "was necessary", is at least in very bad taste and disrespectful towards thos who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't believe it was a political goal and I'm not trying to justify it as a political goal. This was a military action with military reasons of ending a war behind it. Yes, politics are involved, but politics are involved in everything. Everything has a political goal behind it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The use of nuclear weapons during WW 2 was bad for the japanese civilians (Yes FS they were civilians just like you are , or do you work in a grenade factory ?) and good (more or less) for the US.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes I know they were civilians, I've been saying they were civilians. But like you said, they were (essentially, not literally) working in a grenade factory. They were producing war materials for the enemy, and made themselves a target.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remember, Germany already surrendered so the the nuke material fell into US hands. I wrote something about that ages ago here in this thread if I remember right. Only the nuclear material that fell into US hands enabled US to build 2 nukes. And yes the material was on it´s way to Japan.<span id='postcolor'>

If I remember correctly, Germany was discovered to not be developing nuclear weapons at the end of the war. I've got a documentary on the atomic bombs that says this, I can dig it up if you want (excellent soundtrack by the way).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Would you still agree that it was ok ?<span id='postcolor'>

Depends. If they targetted were targetting a civilian population and nothing more, then yes I would disagree. But if they targetted our factories or military bases, then I wouldn't disagree.

Don't get me wrong though, I'd be thoroughly pissed off.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Step aside your patriotism, and imagine what would have happened if Japan got the nukes. Would you be happy and say "It is war, and in war everything is justified" like you tend to do a lot ?<span id='postcolor'>

It seems some people are still clinging to the notion that I'm some blind patriot with no mind of my own. No, this is not true. I know some things my country did was a mistake (the vietnam war, for example), but I don't believe that this was a mistake. This was justified because the targets were a military asset, not a civilian population.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Japan suffers from the bombs till today and for a nation where managers kill themselves if they are not able to fulfill their role within a company it is the hugest assumeable shame to be beaten by NOT beating it´s military forces but killing it´s civilian population.<span id='postcolor'>

This is an example of Japans high importance placed on winning, on not losing. A good example of why they wouldn't of surrendered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Japanese or asian people in general have a complex codex of life and honour. I respect this. It is no order thing, it is a way of life that was cultivated over thousands of years. We are certainly not the ones to judge them. If they have a system of values we don´t understand , it doesnt mean that it is bad. It is just different.<span id='postcolor'>

I've got nothing but respect for the Japanese people and their way of life. But you've just reitterated my point. The Japanese were just too proud to surrender.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: My boss, has had a look at the OFP forum I messed his ears up all the flight back from turkmenistan so he was pretty curious. He had a nice comment about the discussion here in this thread, but I am not allowed to tell <span id='postcolor'>

My boss had some things to add too, but I'm trying not to resort to insults to keep this a professional debate, not some name calling festival.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,20:12)</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">Where exactly is the abuse of power? Did anyone get PR'd or banned?<span id='postcolor'>

He did threaten to ban us.<span id='postcolor'>

It's okay, he is letting you know the boundries acceptable in this forum. He gave you a reason for the warning, therefore, if there is a problem with the reasoning, you should challenge that, probably in PM.

Right?

If you have a problem with the rules, you should challange them, not the person enforcing.

Well, I'm not posting on this subject anymore since it's not the desired topic.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 16 2003,02:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,20:12)</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">Where exactly is the abuse of power? Did anyone get PR'd or banned?<span id='postcolor'>

He did threaten to ban us.<span id='postcolor'>

It's okay, he is letting you know the boundries acceptable in this forum. He gave you a reason for the warning, therefore, if there is a problem with the reasoning, you should challenge that, probably in PM.

Right?

If you have a problem with the rules, you should challange them, not the person enforcing.

Well, I'm not posting on this subject anymore since it's not the desired topic.<span id='postcolor'>

I am done as well. I was SUPPOSE to be done last night with it too....

I know what his "reason" were and the were highly erroneous and made in bad judgement. That was my problem. Calling me a rascist is unforgivable and inexcusable (and a few more un- and in- words).

So for the love of all that is holy Bn880....get us back on topic.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I remember correctly, Germany was discovered to not be developing nuclear weapons at the end of the war. I've got a documentary on the atomic bombs that says this, I can dig it up if you want (excellent soundtrack by the way).<span id='postcolor'>

You are VERY wrong here my friend.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> But like you said, they were (essentially, not literally) working in a grenade factory<span id='postcolor'>

It was an EXAMPLE. jeez

Yes I am sure there were military fac´tories or shops in the nuke zone, but hey that would justify to rub out a whole country... I mean bomb Zaire for EXAMPLE, bomb it totally..sure you will hit military installations...the point is that complete HUGE TOWNS were destroyed, not only military installations or factories. This would make WTC attack justified. Let´s say they only wanted to rub out the CIA office and besides dropped the whole building. See what I mean ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It seems some people are still clinging to the notion that I'm some blind patriot with no mind of my own<span id='postcolor'>

Not a blind patriotism, but a very poor informed sometimes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Japan suffers from the bombs till today and for a nation where managers kill themselves if they are not able to fulfill their role within a company it is the hugest assumeable shame to be beaten by NOT beating it´s military forces but killing it´s civilian population.

This is an example of Japans high importance placed on winning, on not losing. A good example of why they wouldn't of surrendered.

<span id='postcolor'>

I cant follow you here. Sorry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My boss had some things to add too, but I'm trying not to resort to insults to keep this a professional debate, not some name calling festival.<span id='postcolor'>

Is your boss a military high grade waiting for his general stars ?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 16 2003,07:28)</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">It's okay, he is letting you know the boundries acceptable in this forum. He gave you a reason for the warning, therefore, if there is a problem with the reasoning, you should challenge that, probably in PM. <span id='postcolor'>

The boundaries of this forum do not include disagreeing with moderators. As a matter of fact, they don't even include beign a nazi. And I'll address him in public as he threatened me in public.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I'm not posting on this subject anymore since it's not the desired topic.<span id='postcolor'>

It hasn't been the desired topic for a while, lol.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 16 2003,07:39)</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">You are VERY wrong here my friend.<span id='postcolor'>

Not according to this video I saw.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was an EXAMPLE. jeez

Yes I am sure there were military fac´tories or shops in the nuke zone, but hey that would justify to rub out a whole country... I mean bomb Zaire for EXAMPLE, bomb it totally..sure you will hit military installations...the point is that complete HUGE TOWNS were destroyed, not only military installations or factories. This would make WTC attack justified. Let´s say they only wanted to rub out the CIA office and besides dropped the whole building. See what I mean ?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but I don't agree with it.  The use of atomic weapons was more of a move to show Japan how desperate WE were to end the war without invading the mainland.  At least IMO.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not a blind patriotism, but a very poor informed sometimes.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, but IMO you're poorly informed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cant follow you here. Sorry.<span id='postcolor'>

Take a look at their culture.  Their society places a lot of importance on achieving.  Making your family proud, doing your job better than everyone else.  This is why they're such a productive nation.

The have the same concept in wartime.  "Don't surrender, fight and die for your emporer."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is your boss a military high grade waiting for his general stars ?  <span id='postcolor'>

He's a retired NCO.  NCO of the year once I believe.

edit - wooo, 100th page.

[Chill 0]

I have been accused of anti USA, so I will let this artlicel speak for us.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel....&page=2

[FSPilot 0]

Hmmm, http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/. That doesn't sound biased at all.

The reason I don't look at articles I think are biased is because they'll twist facts around to fit their needs. They'll lie and cheat just to get their point across. I only want to read the truth, not what some anti-US webmaster wants me to believe.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Jan. 16 2003,02:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have been accused of anti USA, so I will let this artlicel speak for us.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel....&page=2<span id='postcolor'>

Conspiracy planet!

lol

[USMC Sniper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Jan. 16 2003,02:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have been accused of anti USA, so I will let this artlicel speak for us.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel....&page=2<span id='postcolor'>

WTF is a conspiracy page without any UFO articles!!! I told you your sources are messed up!

[Renagade 0]

Interesting site

why is it whenever someone critises the US government or talks about the US forign policy in a negative way some ppl seem to think its an attack on their nationality or a personal insult.

Its like saying rap music sux then some idiot calls u racist

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Jan. 16 2003,08:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">why is it whenever someone critises the US government or talks about the US forign policy in a negative way  some ppl seem to think its an attack on their nationality or a personal insult.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said that.

And most of the time it turns out to be one anyway.

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Jan. 16 2003,02:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have been accused of anti USA, so I will let this artlicel speak for us.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel....&page=2<span id='postcolor'>

what is this? those silly tabloids w/ articles about UFO spotings and jesus sightings have more credibility than the utter crap you post. you go into topics that don't even discuss the U.S. or Isreal for that matter and post "your opinion". we all know your bitter opinions. quite cluttering up the forum w/ this crap.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 16 2003,02:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The boundaries of this forum do not include disagreeing with moderators.  As a matter of fact, they don't even include beign a nazi.  And I'll address him in public as he threatened me in public.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, they actually do, when it comes to questions of moderation. Read the forum rules. The only reason why I was willing to discuss it is because I understand that it is a controversial issue.

I did not make the threat in my role as a debating member, but as a moderator who sets the boundary rules. You may think that I'm wrong and that my reasons are wrong but that is irrelevant. You may find it unfair, but who ever said life was supposed to be fair.

I think you know me well enough to know that I do not ban or censor people because of personal disagreements.

You are welcome to debate with me and disagree with me on most topics. Moderation of the forum and the forum rules is however not one of those topics.

Now, perhaps we should leave the nuke discussion and return on the topic of Iraq.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 16 2003,03:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Jan. 16 2003,08:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">why is it whenever someone critises the US government or talks about the US forign policy in a negative way  some ppl seem to think its an attack on their nationality or a personal insult.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said that.

And most of the time it turns out to be one anyway. <span id='postcolor'>

well it was more a general statement than directed at u personally

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 16 2003,08:26)</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">Yes, they actually do, when it comes to questions of moderation. Read the forum rules. The only reason why I was willing to discuss it is because I understand that it is a controversial issue.<span id='postcolor'>

You didn't threaten to ban me because I questioned your authority.  You threatened to ban me because you think I'm a nazi, which is not against forum rules.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I did not make the threat in my role as a debating member, but as a moderator who sets the boundary rules. You may think that I'm wrong and that my reasons are wrong but that is irrelevant. You may find it unfair, but who ever said life was supposed to be fair.<span id='postcolor'>

You may not of threatened me directly for having a different opinion than you.  You threatened me because you think I'm a nazi, because I think the atomic attacks on Japan were justified, and you don't.  Because I have a different opinion than yours.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, perhaps we should leave the nuke discussion and return on the topic of Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Agreed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well it was more a general statement than directed at u personally <span id='postcolor'>

Yes but I like attention.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 16 2003,03:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, perhaps we should leave the nuke discussion and return on the topic of Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

My god I agree with you on that.

[Major Fubar 0]

Sauron?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Jan. 16 2003,09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sauron?<span id='postcolor'>

[theavonlady 2]

n/m

[Blake 0]

Look at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The Japanese virtually fought to the last man causing heavy casualties to the Americans. 150,000 Japanese died on Okinawa alone, civilians and soldiers. They showed no proof of surrendering and were willing to fight to the last man. Germans showed equal large-scale fanaticism in the Battle of Berlin but it was long ago evident that the Reich would collapse.

While chosen targets were definately very much non-military, I still do think that the nukes were the fastest way to crush Japanese morale and resistance. However the target should have been a military one, a big base or something.

Later on I think the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasagi are a living memorial of the horrors of nuclear war - maybe in that sence they has also helped to restrain the use of nuclear weapons in conflicts. If nukes would not have been used in WW2, the wider public wouldn't have a clue how terrible those weapons are. Sad but true.

[Longinius 1]

"England went on a night bombing campaign of civilian cities. Why? Because they were producing military assets."

There is a difference between carpet bombing a western city with stone buildings and air raid shelters and nuking a town built from wood and paper.

Atleast the European civilians had a chance of leaving the populated areas or getting into shelters. The people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima never had that option. The carpet bombings were aimed at infrastructure where atleast civilians had a chance. They had none what so ever with nukes, and the people who ordered this knew about it all along.

If you think that nuking two civilian population centers is OK if the excuse is the fact that a military assault would be to costly, how can you then complain about what Osama Bin Ladin did on the 11th of September. Clearly, trying to invade America would not succeed, so that makes it OK to kill civilians?

"You can't compare the same criteria here because they are two completely different subjects. The attacks on 9/11 were on CIVILIANS. The terrorists were actually using civilians as a weapon while killing them in the process. I don't see how you can compare bombing a military asset to this. And don't try to tell me it was taking civilians lives, they saved civilians by doing this."

So, then, atleast the Pentagon attack was OK since it is a military target? And since the WTC is an important economical center aiding the American economy and warmachine, doesnt that mean its a viable target just like any other military asset?

"If I remember correctly, Germany was discovered to not be developing nuclear weapons at the end of the war. I've got a documentary on the atomic bombs that says this, I can dig it up if you want (excellent soundtrack by the way)."

Then why did they need heavy water, and specifically the heavy water plant in Norway that both British and Norweigan people died trying to destroy?