If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe325a4$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2.... "Sunny" wrote: "Polybus" wrote in message . com... Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University Kevin Martin Executive Director, Peace Action Daniel Ellsberg Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The Pentagon Papers Questions : 1. Do the three retards listed above, condone the cross posting to the groups listed ? 2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History (or only his version of it)? 3. Do any of the three realise that there was a World War on at the time? 4. What would you have suggested, at the time, as the means to subdue a fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate acts of barbarism that are still wondered at? They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese, they would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major invasion planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a viable option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it. 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? Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed. Saddam's use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed. You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. You still haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same right, given that ANY MEANS obviously encompasses both legal and illegal. As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war, The war had actually started at least some 6 years earlier. How was it different from bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres and wars by the US and its allies where the targets were residential or economic? (Apart from the obvious that it was them doing it to US rather than US doing it to them.) |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:42:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "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. Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted. That's what AQ thinks of the USA And it is clear that you think that they are right. They are not, and we will hunt them down. The barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing daily That's what AQ thinks of the USA. Once again, you think that they are right. You are either massively mis-informed or you simply hate the US. In either case, welcome to my kill file. Al Minyard |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"weary" wrote: 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. Indeed, and followed that up with multiple attacks, including the first WTC attack, the USS Cole in Yemen, attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, etc. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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? Actually, he did in the war against Iran; however, this absolute right was tempered by international treaties on the laws of war which restrict the use of poison gases in combat, to which Iraq was a signatory. He used mustard gas, a blister agent, against Iranian forces. However, the Hussein regime did not have the right to use nerve gas on civilians in rebellion. Firstly, there were other, less drastic means to suppress any demonstrations, as any competent army will use. The use of nerve gas on Shiites and Kurds was to spread terror. Secondly, under the 1954 Geneva conventions, internal wars and their combatants also fall under the same restrictions as international wars. The blanket prohibition against using poison as a weapon applies. Any tribunal will be right to try Saddam and his assistants for the use of this weapon. Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? No. Al-Queda is not a state and as such cannot declare war. Al-Queda is a combination of private persons united by ideology. They don't fall under the 1906 Hague Convention definition of legitimate combatants, nor under the 1954 Geneva Convention extension of these rules. The United States actions against al-Queda fall into the category of suppression of criminals or pirates, not warfare between states. The acts of September 11 were by international law murder, not warfare. Gregory Baker |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote: "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. You still haven't answered the question: drop the bomb or invade. As for conventional strikes: guess what the conventional strikes would be: B-29s at low level with M-47 and M-69 incindenary bombs. Remember: it's not just the destructive effect of 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki, it's the shock and suprise effect. Add to that the fear that ANY B-29 over Japan flying solo could be carrying an atomic bomb and that affects military and civilian morale very badly. Bottom line: Truman, based on the information he had, had two options: invade or use the bomb. He did what he had to do to END THE WAR and SAVE AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND JAPANESE LIVES. Estimated casualties for Kyushu for the Allies range from a low of 49,000 to 85,000. Japanese casualties would have been 5x to 10x that. Take your pick. End the war in August or September with the bombs, or January at least with Kyushu, or a year later if CORONET (the invasion of the Kanto) has to be launched, with higher casualties for all concerned. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote: "Alan Minyard" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "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. Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted. That's what AQ thinks of the USA The barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing daily That's what AQ thinks of the USA. in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every building in Japan would have ended the war, it would have been completely justified. The only thing that the US did that was "wrong" was not hanging the ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree. Al Minyard So why do you apologize for them? Dropping the bombs and 9-11 were two different events under vastly different circumstances. In case you forgot: Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9-11's treachery has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL reduced to a low-level insurgency. And OBL and his inner circle (those still alive and free) running for their worthless lives. AQ will be harder to kill. But killed they will be: no quarter given. They didn't give any to the airline passengers and crew on 9-11. So why should they expect any when they are found and given one chance to give up? If they do give up-military tribunal for violating the laws and customs of war, followed by either a needle or noose. If they don't... well, KIA works for me. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe325a4$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2.... "Sunny" wrote: "Polybus" wrote in message . com... Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University Kevin Martin Executive Director, Peace Action Daniel Ellsberg Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The Pentagon Papers Questions : 1. Do the three retards listed above, condone the cross posting to the groups listed ? 2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History (or only his version of it)? 3. Do any of the three realise that there was a World War on at the time? 4. What would you have suggested, at the time, as the means to subdue a fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate acts of barbarism that are still wondered at? They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese, they would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major invasion planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a viable option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it. 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? Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed. Saddam's use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed. You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. You still haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same right, given that ANY MEANS obviously encompasses both legal and illegal. As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war, The war had actually started at least some 6 years earlier. How was it different from bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres and wars by the US and its allies where the targets were residential or economic? (Apart from the obvious that it was them doing it to US rather than US doing it to them.) Saddam used CW in VIOLATION of a 1925 treaty signed at Geneva prohibiting use of CW/BW. Of course, the treaty (or any other) is useless paper w/o enforcement. I had a grandfather who was scheduled to ship out from England (USAAF) to Australia thru Suez and then on to the Marianas and finally Kyushu if the bomb hadn't been dropped. He felt that the bombs on Japan saved his life, and felt that way to his dying day. Now, as far as hitting as many Japanese cities as necessary: even after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been hit, the militarists in the Japanese Government wanted to keep fighting,despite what had happened and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Korea, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles. It took the Emperor voicing his wishes to force the militarists to accept the Potsdam Declaration. Before, the response was "mokasstu" or treat with silent contempt. "Japanese Spirit" would resist the bombing, blockade, and eventual invasion, despite shortages of weapons, fuel, ammuniton, lack of a navy and trained airmen. The bombs forced them to see reason and realize that the war was lost. Sure they wanted peace, but on their terms, not unconditional surrender. Some might say that was modified to keep the Emperor, but as long as the government answered to Douglas MacArthur as SCAP, it was as Sec. State Byrnes remarked: "It'll be one divinity answering to another." And postwar events vindicated the decision to keep the Emperor. But until the Emperor spoke up and expressed a desire to end the war on Aug. 10, it looked like Kokura would be next on Aug. 16th, and additional targets to be selected as circumstances permitted. All target cities had military targets in them: arms factories, road and rail nets, airfields, POL refining and storage, etc. Kyoto and the Emperor's Palace were off-limits.Everything else that met such criteria was fair game. Add to that a lot of Japanese industry was cottage industry, taking down cities was necessary. Answer this: what would you do: invade Kyushu (at least risking 766,000 Army and Marines plus all air and naval personnel American and British) or drop the bombs. Everything else learned postwar is hindsight. So use the info Truman had to him at the time. He had two choices: invade or the bomb. I choose the latter. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|