Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"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.)

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.

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

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.

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

"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!

"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!

"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!

"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!

"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.