Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.
Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?
Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.
I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

Wow, what a stretch. The Iranian govt is much more centralized.
Removing the top along with strikes on troop concentrations...combined
with the threat of more strikes...is quite different than a single
blow.

So you are saying all the US government does not live in DC when Congress is in
session? There goes the top if nuking on a Wednesday.

Troop concentrations only work for the standing army, not reserves and only if
they are far from the blast radius of cities. Kill people in the cities nad you
motivate the troops who have lost family. Maybe you would not be motivated but I
would be.

As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
just move in for a guerrilla war.

Dispersion creates its own problems. The small units are very
vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal. Command, control, and
coordination are very difficult. US recon can spot concentrations and
destroy them.

There are always problems with any tactic but equally there is a problem with
matching attacks as US forces would have to be dispersed also. But Iran can
field a million against the US 140,000 so it would be difficult to find small
enough dispersed Iranian groups to win one on one. 7:1 sort of usually wins
regardless of firepower.

Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.
I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.
And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world.

Why? Because they're morally reprehensible? Please.

Because the real world since September 1945 has realized all the basic
ramifications of nukes and has worked to deal with them.

I know how to pacify Iraq. It is very simple. It has worked throughout all
history. Carry away all the able bodied people into slavery or decimate the
population. It has always worked. But it is a matter of what will sell these days.

And I can tell you how to make nukes work. Destroy civilian population centers
so all available manpower is engaged in returning life to normal. But if you do
not do that you only make enemies who are armed and trained and ready to fight.

In 1945 Japan
had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
either a threat or total destruction.

Bull. You're stuck in the Cold War. MAD only works if both sides can
destroy the other...when one side has all of the cards, nukes can be
very useful.

As this has NEVER been tried please tell me how you can predict the future so
confidently. "It stands to reason." is bull****. Please tell me exactly how it
works in terms of the US being the non-nuclear victim. Tell me how Americans
would respond.

There really no intermediate use for them.

Of course there is. This is a totally absurd argument.

Please describe in detail the intermediate use of nukes.

In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
resolution to fight has increased.

Yep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure galvanized the Japanese.

Together they were less than the Tokyo firebombing in terms of immediate deaths
and square miles destroyed. Please explain the difference if it was not just one
plane doing it.

That should have been learned in WWII but
those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
happened.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As anyone who has gone beyond what they were taught in gradeschool will tell
you there were many more reasons and the only thing that one plane bombing
accomplished was dropping the conditions of the surrender than had been on the
table for at least nine months before.

Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.
Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

Did you read my post? Why are you assuming the US forces will just
sit there and starve? What is to stop them from heading south? Have you
ever read about Chosin?

Let them head south through the Shia south supported by Shia Iran. But remember
they are doing it with the food and fuel they can bring with them. Can they
carry enough fuel to get everyone a minimum of 400 miles to Kuwait? You tell me
as you are the pretend expert. I recite my experience but then only ask
questions so lets stick to the issues.

So lets see 146,000 soon 21,500 more are going to be in Baghdad and point north
because the Shia region is by definition to the south of Baghdad. So tell me
where 167,500 troops have enough equipment to carry food and fuel to get to
Baghdad and then the additional 400 miles back to Kuwait. I am interested in
hearing all about these hidden assets in Iraq.

Please tell me how they would make the trip with no resistance at all.

Tell me how they are going to make it even if the only attacks are destroying
the pavement. The slower the travel the more food and water needed.

--
American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
who hate them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

--
A certain thing in this world is if you say Jews are inconsequential then
Jews will start making claims of Jewish power they would call antisemitic if
a non-Jew had said them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3713
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

wrote:

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.


So Nuke LA or New York and the US Armed Forces will simply lose
interest in fighting?
So Nuke Rome and Vatican and the Catholic population will simply accept
it?



Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.
Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.

Cutting supply lines in the South would be relatively easy. Of course
US could take control back but it would put up the cost of the
operation and tie up large numbers of troops defending the length of
the supply lines.
For most of the time since the invasion in 2003 the supply lines from
the South have been relatively peaceful, they were defended by the non
US parts of the Coalition most of which have since gone home and handed
over to Iraqi troops. The South is full of Iraqi Army which may no
longer be reliable after a major strike, nuclear or otherwise on Iran,
it has 2 competing major Shiite Militias the Iranian aligned Badr
Brigades and the Iraqi nationalist Mahdi Army, neither are actively
attacking US forces now, they are attacking the Sunni population much
further North and have clashed with each other, a decision by them to
disrupt US supply lines would be initially successful and to reclaim
that territory and population you are talking about a need for at least
1 and maybe 2 additional Divisions, and that is before you factor in
active Iranian Invasion.

The US could do that if it was committed to but it may mean the end to
the concept of "tours in Iraq". The Army goes to War and gets to come
home when the War is won. The reason an army of 500,000 plus is
struggling to maintain 150,000 plus in Iraq at present is the
assumption you have a third recovering from deployment, 1/3 deployed
and 1/3 training for the next deployment with a deployment tour of 12
months. With in addition a rule that the National Guard can only be
mobilised for 1 year in any 5, and they have already done recent tours
in Iraq. So will not be available to return till 2009.

The US is the most powerful nation on the planet by a long way with the
worlds largest economy, a united US population to that makes a decision
to do something and is willing to accept casualties to do it can do it.
If that is invade and occupy Iran that is possible.

But that is not the point, the debate is the present position with a
politically dis-united US, a US population which thinks 3,000 fatal
casualties in 3 years is high, and US armed forces as of today.

Dan wrote:


Japan had did not only surrender because of THE BOMB.
US had total air superiority was bombing Japan on a daily basis with
conventional weapons,
more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo a few weeks before than
in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

The BOMB got the Emporer's attention -- finally.

All of the conventional bombings did not compel the Emp to command a
surrender.

Even so, there was an attempted coup to prevent the Emporers surrender
order from being made public. It failed.

Bob Kolker

Dan wrote:
The US is the most powerful nation on the planet by a long way with the
worlds largest economy, a united US population to that makes a decision
to do something and is willing to accept casualties to do it can do it.
If that is invade and occupy Iran that is possible.

How about killing all the Iranians with weapons of mass destruction.
Faster, better, cheaper, more thorough.

Anyone who sends a man to do a job that can be best done with a machine
is criminally mistaken.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.
Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?
Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.
I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

Wow, what a stretch. The Iranian govt is much more centralized.
Removing the top along with strikes on troop concentrations...combined
with the threat of more strikes...is quite different than a single
blow.

So you are saying all the US government does not live in DC when Congress is in
session? There goes the top if nuking on a Wednesday.

Where did I say that? I said the Iranian govt is more
centralized. A strike on DC would seriously hurt the uS, but DC is much
less important to the uS than Tehran is to Iran. Taking out Tehran
would be like taking out DC, NY, and probably LA.


Troop concentrations only work for the standing army, not reserves and only if
they are far from the blast radius of cities.

Reserves have to be brought up....they're going to be concentrated
when doing this.

Kill people in the cities nad you
motivate the troops who have lost family.

There would be a lot of opportunities.


Maybe you would not be motivated but I
would be.

Straw man.


As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
just move in for a guerrilla war.

Dispersion creates its own problems. The small units are very
vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal. Command, control, and
coordination are very difficult. US recon can spot concentrations and
destroy them.

There are always problems with any tactic but equally there is a problem with
matching attacks as US forces would have to be dispersed also.

Why? If US troops are kept together, the Iranians couldn't seriously
threaten them. If the Iranians massed to be a threat, they'd become
vulnerable to superior firepower.

But Iran can
field a million against the US 140,000 so it would be difficult to find small
enough dispersed Iranian groups to win one on one. 7:1 sort of usually wins
regardless of firepower.

The Iranians couldn't bring anywhere near 1 million. That number
would only come into play if the US invades Iran.


Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.
I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.
And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world.

Why? Because they're morally reprehensible? Please.

Because the real world since September 1945 has realized all the basic
ramifications of nukes and has worked to deal with them.

Nukes have not been used because of the threat from nuclear armed
adversaries. The ramifications are that if one side uses them, the
other will retaliate and both will lose.


I know how to pacify Iraq. It is very simple. It has worked throughout all
history. Carry away all the able bodied people into slavery or decimate the
population. It has always worked. But it is a matter of what will sell these days.

And I can tell you how to make nukes work. Destroy civilian population centers
so all available manpower is engaged in returning life to normal. But if you do
not do that you only make enemies who are armed and trained and ready to fight.

In 1945 Japan
had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
either a threat or total destruction.

Bull. You're stuck in the Cold War. MAD only works if both sides can
destroy the other...when one side has all of the cards, nukes can be
very useful.

As this has NEVER been tried please tell me how you can predict the future so
confidently.

Are you better at predicting the future? Your opinion is no better
than mine. And I have common sense on my side.

"It stands to reason." is bull****. Please tell me exactly how it
works in terms of the US being the non-nuclear victim. Tell me how Americans
would respond.

I'm not advocating the use of nukes. I'm disagreeing with your
blanket "nukes are useless".


There really no intermediate use for them.

Of course there is. This is a totally absurd argument.

Please describe in detail the intermediate use of nukes.

Tactical nukes can be used to destroy troop concentrations, deny
supply lines, destroy infrastructure...their military use is not a lot
different from any other type of weapon.


In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
resolution to fight has increased.

Yep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure galvanized the Japanese.

Together they were less than the Tokyo firebombing in terms of immediate deaths
and square miles destroyed. Please explain the difference if it was not just one
plane doing it.

You have just stated a major difference and then tried to discount
it.


That should have been learned in WWII but
those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
happened.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As anyone who has gone beyond what they were taught in gradeschool will tell
you there were many more reasons and the only thing that one plane bombing
accomplished was dropping the conditions of the surrender than had been on the
table for at least nine months before.

Once again, you are contradicting your argument.


Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.
Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

Did you read my post? Why are you assuming the US forces will just
sit there and starve? What is to stop them from heading south? Have you
ever read about Chosin?

Let them head south through the Shia south supported by Shia Iran. But remember
they are doing it with the food and fuel they can bring with them.

And what can be delivered by air....which is quite substantial.

Can they
carry enough fuel to get everyone a minimum of 400 miles to Kuwait? You tell me
as you are the pretend expert. I recite my experience but then only ask
questions so lets stick to the issues.

I must've missed your experience. Please enlighten me.


So lets see 146,000 soon 21,500 more are going to be in Baghdad and point north
because the Shia region is by definition to the south of Baghdad. So tell me
where 167,500 troops have enough equipment to carry food and fuel to get to
Baghdad and then the additional 400 miles back to Kuwait. I am interested in
hearing all about these hidden assets in Iraq.

You are the one saying they can't do it. I haven't seen any
evidence that you know what you're talking about.


Please tell me how they would make the trip with no resistance at all.

Where did that come from?


Tell me how they are going to make it even if the only attacks are destroying
the pavement. The slower the travel the more food and water needed.

Why are you assuming they'll have no resupply?


--
American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
who hate them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

--
A certain thing in this world is if you say Jews are inconsequential then
Jews will start making claims of Jewish power they would call antisemitic if
a non-Jew had said them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3713
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

Dan wrote:
george wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
to resist" which has NEVER happened.

Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.

Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.

Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with

Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
stopped clock is right twice a day).

Japan had did not only surrender because of THE BOMB.

Where has anyone claimed that? The bombs brought about the immediate
surrender. Japan was going down one way or the other, but it was the
bombs which caused the surrender at that moment.
were the bombs the only reason? Of course not...they were the immediate
reason.

US had total air superiority was bombing Japan on a daily basis with
conventional weapons,
more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo a few weeks before than
in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Japan was dependant on imports for Food and Fuel, and US Submarines had
sunk the vast majority of the Japanese Merchant Fleet and most of the
Japanese Navy was also at the bottom of the Pacific by this time. Total
Naval blockade was already condemning Japan to starvation and a
simultaneous Oil embargo.

On land Stalin's forces were taking Manchuria that week, heading into
Korea and before the end of the year would be preparing for invasion of
the Home Islands.

UK was moving forces freed up from Europe so was in the process of
taking back SE Asia, and had a Pacific Fleet again for the first time
in 4 years.

US had a real plan to invade and occupy the Home Islands and Japan knew
it. The UK and Empire by mid 46 would be in a position to provide
sufficient troops to be arguing for an occupation zone of Japan, the US
neither needed the troops nor wanted the future political complications
of a joint occupation and that's before you think about the Red Army.

Oh and of course in 1945 something like 90% plus of the nations on the
planet were in a declared state of War with Japan.

An unprovoked Nuclear attack on Iran by either the US or Israel with
the support of no other nation on the planet except each other would
provoke the reaction from Iran that 9/11 provoked in the US "how do we
hit back". The rest of the Muslim world would support Iran against what
would be seen as Genocidal monsters, most of the rest of the planet
would initially be sympathetic to Iran. 24/7 pictures on CNN,
Al-Jazeera, Star, Sky, etc etc pictures of Iranian corpses and
irradiated children.
Major risk is a coup in Pakistan which puts existing Nuclear weapons
into the hands of hard line Islamic regime.
Other risk is reaction in Iraq, last summer the elected Iraqi
government backed Hezbullah in the war with Lebanon much to the shock
of US politicians, it is possible that you would end up with direct
fighting between US and Iraqi Army as well as mass revolt in Shia
south, attacks from both major Shia militias Badr Brigades, and Mahdi
Army which at present are not attacking US troops.

I've never claimed nuking Iran was a good idea. I'm only arguing
with Giver's bull**** that nukes are useless.

Matt Giwer wrote:
Dan wrote:
george wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
to resist" which has NEVER happened.
Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.
Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with

Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
stopped clock is right twice a day).

Disagreeing with WWII propaganda is the easiest way to be right. If you
actually look at it when it is available without comment you have to ask why
your parents/grandparents were stupid enough to fight that war.

Because the US was attacked.


"Why we fight" couldn't sell air conditioning to Floridians it is so primitive
and stupid. And yet every reason today is based upon making that propaganda
sound sophisticated. No one today would fight WWII in Europe for any reason
given at the time. Of course we can assume our parents were idiots but that does
not explain how their children are suddenly so smart.

Would you join with the communists to fight the Nazis? Would you join with the
colonial masters of a billion people to fight the Nazis? A modern person would
join the Nazis to free a billion people from colonial domination and end communism.

Good God, you are an idiot. No rational, modern person would join
the Nazis for anything.


Or at least stay out of it and let them destroy each other for the fun of it.

The US only got into the war in Europe because Germany declared war on the US
for legitimate cause according to international law at the time. That cause only
existed because the US was attacking German U-Boats as cited in Germany's DoW on
the US from an FDR fireside chat announcement.

Germany declared war on the US to back up Japan. If Pearl Harbor
hadn't happened, do you think the germans would've declared war?


--
Bush's reason for staying in Iraq is the disaster he caused by invading.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3715
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
other than slaughter prisoners?
Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
defeat the army, defeat the civillians.
That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
fact did nothing to end the war.

Wrong.

And as the South never surrendered your position is what?

I guess the CSA is alive and well. Damn, I live in it. Where do I
pay my taxes? I sure don't want the CSA revenuers coming after me.


Lee's surrender of
the Army of Virginia was not a surrender of the South. But you know that.

It was Grant willing to throw men to the
slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio

Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?

The Irish Grant was throwing at Lee.

Are you claiming that Grant sufferd 5 times the casualties that
Lee did, or are you claiming that Grant had 5 times the troops?


with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
replacement troops.

Oh, I see...you really don't know what you're talking about.

Rather I do. What war are you talking about? Please cite the CSA surrender if
you think there was one.

I see that you are delusional.


The Star Trek TNG writers adopted Johnson's
declaration, Further resistance is futile.

But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
not like he was sending real Americans.

Wrong again. You should really read some history on the Overland
Campaign....it was, overall, a masterful campaign. (Now's your chance
to say "Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor!")

Why? The South did not surrender. What is the point?

Since the South was never a real nation, any surrender was
meaningless. All that matters was that the rebel armies laid down their
arms. Do you want examples of that?


--
If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
the fun of it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

--
The total failure in Iraq is not the execution of the post war strategy but
the war itself. There was never a way it could win. No people have ever
accepted foreigners ruling them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3718
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
other than slaughter prisoners?
Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
defeat the army, defeat the civillians.
That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
fact did nothing to end the war.
Wrong.
And as the South never surrendered your position is what?

I guess the CSA is alive and well. Damn, I live in it. Where do I
pay my taxes? I sure don't want the CSA revenuers coming after me.

I ask you for a URL to the surrender treaty of the CSA. You must have read it
in your studies of the war.

Lee's surrender of
the Army of Virginia was not a surrender of the South. But you know that.

It was Grant willing to throw men to the
slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio
Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?
The Irish Grant was throwing at Lee.

Are you claiming that Grant sufferd 5 times the casualties that
Lee did, or are you claiming that Grant had 5 times the troops?

I am talking about the Irish and other immigrants who did not become citizens
of any state who were recruited right off the boats and sent into the army.
There were no states to include them among their dead.

with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
replacement troops.
Oh, I see...you really don't know what you're talking about.
Rather I do. What war are you talking about? Please cite the CSA surrender if
you think there was one.

I see that you are delusional.

Please cite the surrender treaty.

The Star Trek TNG writers adopted Johnson's
declaration, Further resistance is futile.

But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
not like he was sending real Americans.
Wrong again. You should really read some history on the Overland
Campaign....it was, overall, a masterful campaign. (Now's your chance
to say "Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor!")
Why? The South did not surrender. What is the point?

Since the South was never a real nation, any surrender was
meaningless. All that matters was that the rebel armies laid down their
arms. Do you want examples of that?

Independence exists from the moment of declaration. See July 4, 1776 for
details on the precedent for independence from the moment of declaration or just
wait for the speeches on the 4th of July this year.

They formed a Confederation using some 95+% of the USA constitution and
voluntarily signed it. To me that says there was no difference.
http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/confeder.html and
http://www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/confcomm.html for details.

The USA constitution, unlike the CSA constitution was silent on secession.
However four states (New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the other) ratified
the USA constitution on condition of the right to secede. As those conditional
ratifications were accepted one has to conclude there was no objection to the
conditions.

What do you mean by not a real nation?

I am aware the armies trying to repel the Yankees and defend their independence
quit fighting. But there was no surrender. If you think there was you certainly
can provide a proper citation.

--
If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
the fun of it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12
--
The total failure in Iraq is not the execution of the post war strategy but
the war itself. There was never a way it could win. No people have ever
accepted foreigners ruling them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3718
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

--
The damage done by counterfeiting is negligible compared to inflation but
only the former is illegal.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3734
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Dan wrote:
george wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
to resist" which has NEVER happened.
Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.
Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.
Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with
Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
stopped clock is right twice a day).
Disagreeing with WWII propaganda is the easiest way to be right. If you
actually look at it when it is available without comment you have to ask why
your parents/grandparents were stupid enough to fight that war.

Because the US was attacked.

"Why we Fight" had little to do with being attacked. Pearl Harbor was obvious
and that was war with Japan not Germany.

"Why we fight" couldn't sell air conditioning to Floridians it is so primitive
and stupid. And yet every reason today is based upon making that propaganda
sound sophisticated. No one today would fight WWII in Europe for any reason
given at the time. Of course we can assume our parents were idiots but that does
not explain how their children are suddenly so smart.

Would you join with the communists to fight the Nazis? Would you join with the
colonial masters of a billion people to fight the Nazis? A modern person would
join the Nazis to free a billion people from colonial domination and end communism.

Good God, you are an idiot. No rational, modern person would join
the Nazis for anything.

The communists were worse than the Nazis by every measure. At the time the US
joined the war against the Nazis they were accused of nothing Russia had not
done in invading Poland. Today Eastern European countries refuse to support EU
laws about Nazis unless the same laws apply to communists and communism in all
its forms.

Rational people would look at the greatest evil in 1941 and damn the Brits and
the French and the Communists and never support them.

You really have no grasp of the times.

Or at least stay out of it and let them destroy each other for the fun of it.

The US only got into the war in Europe because Germany declared war on the US
for legitimate cause according to international law at the time. That cause only
existed because the US was attacking German U-Boats as cited in Germany's DoW on
the US from an FDR fireside chat announcement.

Germany declared war on the US to back up Japan. If Pearl Harbor
hadn't happened, do you think the germans would've declared war?

I have no idea. I said Germany's DOW on the US was lawful under international
law at the time. There is really no escaping that. It is right in the Von
Ribbentrop DOW.

--
Bush's reason for staying in Iraq is the disaster he caused by invading.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3715
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

--
Senior military in Iraq against the troop increase are replaced. Consensus
building Neocon style.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3742
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8