The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

I can't believe you people don't see the difference between this.

Let me spell this out so even a kindergartener could understand this.

terrorists - I will kill your civilians if you don't do as we say.

USA - surrender because this war is only costing everyone blood.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,03:51)</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 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."

<span id='postcolor'>

Your arguments are based on assumptions. There is no way you could expect this to happen on japaneese soil. Besides, I wouldn't say you are held accountable for the tradgedy you mention above.

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

Hmm....many on this forum talk about collateral damage as something acceptable......

Nevertheless, I'd say that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are possibly one of the worst crimes ever done in human history. Actually, I'd side it as just as bad as the concentration camps in Hitlers Germany/Poland and the british concentration-camps in south africa during the boer war, and the Bomber Commands order to bomb towns in Germany to weaken the german morale (like in Dresden). I cannot under no circumstances say that targeting civilians is a valid way of conducting war.

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

Why not learn from history. Just because many good men died during the war is not a reason to discourage you from learning that crime is a crime is a crime....

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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!<span id='postcolor'>

I do understand the fanatisism of the Japanese in WW2. However, a coupld of nuked military bases, and a message declaring that the next targets to suffer such a fate may be cities, would likely have had the same result. Why not bomb one base, send the message and wait? The second bomb could have been used if it didn't succeed, and the US would have at least tried to avoid nuking civilians

[FSPilot 0]

Tovarish. You've proved to me that you're too hard headed to talk to get a point through to. So I'm just going to stop.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,04:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can't believe you people don't see the difference between this.

Let me spell this out so even a kindergartener could understand this.

terrorists - I will kill your civilians if you don't do as we say.

USA - surrender because this war is only costing everyone blood.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought we were talking about Saddam and WMD's not terrorists? (And don't get me started on the "harbouring" stories, I have a few about Cuban exiles in the US as well)

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,04:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tovarish. You've proved to me that you're too hard headed to talk to get a point through to. So I'm just going to stop.<span id='postcolor'>

Kettle to Pot...ok

(funny, I seem to recall you saying that before, and I said the same to you around page 24 of this thread )

[bn880 5]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 14 2003,226)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can't believe you people don't see the difference between this.

Let me spell this out so even a kindergartener could understand this.

terrorists - I will kill your civilians if you don't do as we say.

USA - surrender because this war is only costing everyone blood.<span id='postcolor'>

USA - surrender because this war is only costing everyone blood.

followed shortly by

USA - Nuking civilians

, or are my facts messed up

[brgnorway 0]

Ok all, lets go back to the topic!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 15 2003,09:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(funny, I seem to recall you saying that before, and I said the same to you around page 24 of this thread )<span id='postcolor'>

And I'm going to quit smoking too.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 15 2003,04:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,045)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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!<span id='postcolor'>

I do understand the fanatisism of the Japanese in WW2. However, a coupld of nuked military bases, and a message declaring that the next targets to suffer such a fate may be cities, would likely have had the same result. Why not bomb one base, send the message and wait? The second bomb could have been used if it didn't succeed, and the US would have at least tried to avoid nuking civilians<span id='postcolor'>

Really? Is that what you think?

Well lets get this straight. If one nuked city didn't deter the Military, what the hell makes you think a nuked base would?

And again you fail to realize the realities of the war. There were TWO bombs. Not an arsenal. The US had to make a show that would be heard.

A base would NOT deter the Military, and this is clearly backed up by the fact one nuked city didn't.

And apparently you missed my previous post. The US warned the Military a number of times that they were in possession of a "devastating bomb." The warnings went unheeded. The US did try to avoid casualties. The Military refused to give up.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 14 2003,22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A base would NOT deter the Military, and this is clearly backed up by the fact one nuked city didn't.

And apparently you missed my previous post. The US warned the Military a number of times that they were in possession of a "devastating bomb." The warnings went unheeded. The US did try to avoid casualties. The Military refused to give up.<span id='postcolor'>

So terrorism was chosen. Get out of here, how can you not see the similarity between 2 757's and 2 nukes?

EDIT: 4 Airliners... forgot about the pentagon etc...

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,03:51)</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">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 id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that US should consider using nukes in Iraq if the conditiones are the same as in Japan during WWII?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nevertheless, I'd say that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are possibly one of the worst crimes ever done in human history. Actually, I'd side it as just as bad as the concentration camps in Hitlers Germany/Poland and the british concentration-camps in south africa during the boer war, and the Bomber Commands order to bomb towns in Germany to weaken the german morale (like in Dresden). I cannot under no circumstances say that targeting civilians is a valid way of conducting war.<span id='postcolor'>

Then you need to investigate the Rape of Nanking. More civilians were killed there than the two bombs together.

Of course the US didn't do that so I'm sure it is forgivable.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,03:51)</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">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 id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that US should consider using nukes in Iraq if the conditiones are the same as in Japan during WWII?<span id='postcolor'>

Where the hell did that come from?

I wasn't even talking about Iraq. Not to mention that as FSPilot stated, times change, weapons change, political doctorine changes, and the realities of war change.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,049)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nevertheless, I'd say that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are possibly one of the worst crimes ever done in human history. Actually, I'd side it as just as bad as the concentration camps in Hitlers Germany/Poland and the british concentration-camps in south africa during the boer war, and the Bomber Commands order to bomb towns in Germany to weaken the german morale (like in Dresden). I cannot under no circumstances say that targeting civilians is a valid way of conducting war.<span id='postcolor'>

Then you need to investigate the Rape of Nanking. More civilians were killed there than the two bombs together.

Of course the US didn't do that so I'm sure it is forgivable.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd say the rape of Nanking had the effect of terrorizing the civilians. So did the A-bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima! None of the actions taken are excusable as far as I'm concerned.

On a note aside - maybe we shouldn't concentrate so much on the word terrorism as we should on the verb terrorize. Perhaps we should abolish terrorism for terribilism?

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well lets get this straight. If one nuked city didn't deter the Military, what the hell makes you think a nuked base would?<span id='postcolor'>

The threat that the next target would be a city. Dropping the first bomb I think just hardened the determination of the Japanese. The troops knew that civilians had been targeted by this horrible weapon and had no reason to believe anything better would happen with a surrender. Now if you nuked a major military target, it would show that mercy would be shown after a surrender. Like I said before It would also show the world that the US avoided using it against innocents. As it happened, after the second bomb, the Japanese felt that not surrendering would mean the anhialation of their entire population, since the US was ruthlessly targetting large cities with it, they thought they were screwed either way but had a small chance of survival as a people if they surrendered

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,03:51)</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">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 id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that US should consider using nukes in Iraq if the conditiones are the same as in Japan during WWII?<span id='postcolor'>

Where the hell did that come from?

I wasn't even talking about Iraq. Not to mention that as FSPilot stated, times change, weapons change, political doctorine changes, and the realities of war change.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, following your logic it makes sence. After all, many lives could be saved  

After all, you said earlier that you wouldn't be the judge of what took place 50 years ago?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 15 2003,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 14 2003,22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A base would NOT deter the Military, and this is clearly backed up by the fact one nuked city didn't.

And apparently you missed my previous post. The US warned the Military a number of times that they were in possession of a "devastating bomb." The warnings went unheeded. The US did try to avoid casualties. The Military refused to give up.<span id='postcolor'>

So terrorism was chosen. Get out of here, how can you not see the similarity between 2 757's and 2 nukes?

EDIT: 4 Airliners... forgot about the pentagon etc...<span id='postcolor'>

One was specifically designed to end a war and save lives (lives on ALL sides).

One was designed to take lives and start a war.

No...I don't see a similarity at all.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,03:51)</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">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 id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that US should consider using nukes in Iraq if the conditiones are the same as in Japan during WWII?<span id='postcolor'>

Where the hell did that come from?

I wasn't even talking about Iraq. Not to mention that as FSPilot stated, times change, weapons change, political doctorine changes, and the realities of war change.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, following your logic it makes sence. After all, many lives could be saved

After all, you said earlier that you wouldn't be the judge of what took place 50 years ago?<span id='postcolor'>

There is no logic in your statement. Nor does mine require it to be applied to present day.

Saying conditions in 1945 and in 2003 are the same is ludicrous.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 14 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 15 2003,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 14 2003,22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A base would NOT deter the Military, and this is clearly backed up by the fact one nuked city didn't.

And apparently you missed my previous post. The US warned the Military a number of times that they were in possession of a "devastating bomb." The warnings went unheeded. The US did try to avoid casualties. The Military refused to give up.<span id='postcolor'>

So terrorism was chosen. Get out of here, how can you not see the similarity between 2 757's and 2 nukes?

EDIT: 4 Airliners... forgot about the pentagon etc...<span id='postcolor'>

One was specifically designed to end a war and save lives (lives on ALL sides).

One was designed to take lives and start a war.

No...I don't see a similarity at all.<span id='postcolor'>

The similarity is they are both terrorism.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 15 2003,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 14 2003,22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A base would NOT deter the Military, and this is clearly backed up by the fact one nuked city didn't.

And apparently you missed my previous post. The US warned the Military a number of times that they were in possession of a "devastating bomb." The warnings went unheeded. The US did try to avoid casualties. The Military refused to give up.<span id='postcolor'>

So terrorism was chosen.  Get out of here, how can you not see the similarity between 2 757's and 2 nukes?  

EDIT: 4 Airliners... forgot about the pentagon etc...<span id='postcolor'>

One was specifically designed to end a war and save lives (lives on ALL sides).

One was designed to take lives and start a war.

No...I don't see a similarity at all.<span id='postcolor'>

I believe targeting civilians is quite a similarity. No matter what excuse you possibly have, it is simply not excusable!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nevertheless, I'd say that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are possibly one of the worst crimes ever done in human history. Actually, I'd side it as just as bad as the concentration camps in Hitlers Germany/Poland and the british concentration-camps in south africa during the boer war, and the Bomber Commands order to bomb towns in Germany to weaken the german morale (like in Dresden). I cannot under no circumstances say that targeting civilians is a valid way of conducting war.<span id='postcolor'>

Then you need to investigate the Rape of Nanking. More civilians were killed there than the two bombs together.

Of course the US didn't do that so I'm sure it is forgivable.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd say the rape of Nanking had the effect of terrorizing the civilians. So did the A-bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima! None of the actions taken are excusable as far as I'm concerned.

On a note aside - maybe we shouldn't concentrate so much on the word terrorism as we should on the verb terrorize. Perhaps we should abolish terrorism for terribilism?<span id='postcolor'>

Then let me ask this.

Given that you were fighting a 4 year long war against a tenacious enemy.

You have these choices.

1-Invade mainland Japan.

2-Drop the bomb.

3-Try to settle it diplomatically. Japan is demanding the Emporer stay as head, retention of China and Korea, and teh re-establishment of resource shipments.

What is your choice?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,04:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,03:51)</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">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 id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that US should consider using nukes in Iraq if the conditiones are the same as in Japan during WWII?<span id='postcolor'>

Where the hell did that come from?

I wasn't even talking about Iraq. Not to mention that as FSPilot stated, times change, weapons change, political doctorine changes, and the realities of war change.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, following your logic it makes sence. After all, many lives could be saved  

After all, you said earlier that you wouldn't be the judge of what took place 50 years ago?<span id='postcolor'>

There is no logic in your statement. Nor does mine require it to be applied to present day.

Saying conditions in 1945 and in 2003 are the same is ludicrous.<span id='postcolor'>

I still don't see why not. If hundreds of thousands of lives could be spared wouldn't you find using the a-bomb acceptable. That IS the logic you use as an excuse for what others call terrorism when you bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, isn't it?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then let me ask this.

Given that you were fighting a 4 year long war against a tenacious enemy.

You have these choices.

1-Invade mainland Japan.

2-Drop the bomb.

3-Try to settle it diplomatically. Japan is demanding the Emporer stay as head, retention of China and Korea, and teh re-establishment of resource shipments.

What is your choice?<span id='postcolor'>

I'd go for number 2. Yes, many civilians could be caught in crossfire or possibly died as refugees. Nevertheless, I would not target civilians. Not in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden or any other place. You are supposed to fight a war against soldiers - not civilians. No matter what!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I still don't see why not. If hundreds of thousands of lives could be spared wouldn't you find using the a-bomb acceptable. That IS the logic you use as an excuse for what others call terrorism when you bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, isn't it?<span id='postcolor'>

Nothing is like it is in 1945. Your attempt to lump WW2 with Iraq is ridiculous.

Politics is different. Tha nature of the very "war" is different. The international climate is different. The weapons used are different.

My opinion of the bombings is salted with a heavy dose of history, not hindsight.