Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to
defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.

Neither of us mentioned Kuwait, we said Iran.

What is the relevance of who started a war when
the idea of saving servicemens lives is an issue. Besides, it was a war
where the US actively assisted Iraq.

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
not have been a need to
defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
uses considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.

Neither of us mentioned Kuwait, we said Iran.

What is the relevance of who started a war when
the idea of saving servicemens lives is an issue.
Besides, it was a war
where the US actively assisted Iraq.


At a time when Iran was considered by Americans as Public Enemy #1. The feeling
was that the more Iranians the Iraqis kill, the fewer we'll have to kill
when and if we ever go after them ourselves.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fe70ded$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
not have been a need to
defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
uses considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.

Neither of us mentioned Kuwait, we said Iran.

What is the relevance of who started a war when
the idea of saving servicemens lives is an issue.
Besides, it was a war
where the US actively assisted Iraq.


At a time when Iran was considered by Americans as Public Enemy #1. The
feeling
was that the more Iranians the Iraqis kill, the fewer we'll have to kill
when and if we ever go after them ourselves.

Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its
servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK
if their side does it but bad if the other side does it.

"weary" wrote in message
...
Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its
servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK
if their side does it but bad if the other side does it.



From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force
Magazine".

THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
"THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

Tex Houston

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
not have been a need to defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses
considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there was no
military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
targets within the cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists in the
WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating two,
three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so
be it." He made no mention of
destroying military assets. His choice of words
clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender,
not destruction of
military
assets.




For weary: I'm the one who stated that however many cities had to be destroyed
by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE located in said cities. Hiroshima
had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line and depot, a airfield and port
facility, and a division's worth of troops garrisoned there. Nagasaki: Mistubushi
aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities and related infrastructure,
an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit on 9 Aug if not for weather)had
a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.
With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary.
If that meant destroying cities to prevent two invasions of the Japanese
Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather risk: several B-29 aircrews
on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines in the U.S. 6th Army hitting
the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November? Not to mention the American
and British aircrews and sailors directly supporting the invasion. Al-Queda
started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre. They may have started
the war, but we'll finish it.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fe49de1$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
not have been a need to defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses
considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there was no
military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
targets within the cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists in the
WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating two,
three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so
be it." He made no mention of
destroying military assets. His choice of words
clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender,
not destruction of
military
assets.




For weary: I'm the one who stated that however many cities had to be
destroyed
by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE located in said cities.
Hiroshima
had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line and depot, a airfield and
port
facility, and a division's worth of troops garrisoned there. Nagasaki:
Mistubushi
aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities and related
infrastructure,
an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit on 9 Aug if not for
weather)had
a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.

With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.

If that meant destroying cities to prevent two invasions of the Japanese
Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather risk: several B-29 aircrews
on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines in the U.S. 6th Army
hitting
the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November? Not to mention the American
and British aircrews and sailors directly supporting the invasion.
Al-Queda
started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre.

No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL in 1995, IIRC.

They may have started
the war, but we'll finish it.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" wrote:


a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.


greg
--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" wrote:


a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing
mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so
on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

No. Do try to follow the thread. Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets
in the city. However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
area and the assets were only lightly damaged. The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.


With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working, if we are to believe the number
of heightened terror alerts. Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.

From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for all
countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
grave markers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" wrote:


All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

No. Do try to follow the thread.

Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted. You claimed that

"All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."

I am asking you to tell us how.

Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets
in the city.

He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima were
well documented.

I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
area and the assets were only lightly damaged.

ROFLMAO! Like all those who blindly regurgitate indoctrination, I bet you
cannot name a single one.


The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.

It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.

If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of that.


With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working,

The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count. Especially those who claim
that military targets in hiroshima managed to escape unscathed.


greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.