Here we go again...

come on dave, you know you want to join us, remember woodstock? (guess not, how about the movie?)

 

We aren't the only proosperous country, but about theonly one receiving so much hate

I HOPE they're threats, but I'm afraid the boy's serious

 

Man, Woodstock had it all. Rain, mud, filthy hippies copulating everywhere, the Brown acid...... All it was lacking was an A bomb blast.



"Bring on Shanana..."

 

We just fought to enforce U.N. sanction violations put in place to keep Iraq from developing offensive weapons that would allow him to once again threaten neighboring countries. WMD's fall under this catagory even though they are largely independent of a delivery device which the original U.N. document more specifically addressed.

Desert Storm was precipitated by Iraq invading a sovereign country (Kuwait) and was intended to liberate that country. That's it.

I think my above reply accurately states why we went back. It wasn't to clean up a job that wasn't finished - it was a different job (liberation of Kuwait vs. upholding U.N. sanctions). The comment was pointed at your hindsight view of the original conflict. Sure, if we'd known the U.N. would pull the inspectors out for years without more action I think we'd have pursued our own agenda a little more. But that's all hindsight talking and I believe the decisions made at the time were the right ones, taken in context. Some conflict can't be avoided, and though I disagree with the timing, negotiations with Saddam were sure to come to this.

 

We aren't the only prosperous country, but we are #1.

EVERYONE wants to knock the champion off his pedestal.

 

I disagree! We've told Syria that they are to stop aiding our combatant (should've been clearly communicated by political envoy before the start of military conflict) and we've cited the same criteria used to justify military action in Iraq. I think that's a helluva threat! C'mon, I'm not taking up Syria's defense, I'm just saying this isn't an effective way of using political influence. Military action is fine with me when its justified but we can't rely on that to solve all conflicts. This is some little piddly stuff that needs some behind the scene's threats. Public threats, especially those that show up the leader of a fairly radical country, are sure to make the issue more difficult to deal with.

And I'm telling granny what you said!

 

Did not some one say something along the lines of Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

 

Name one nation that is more generous with aide to other countries, strives to make the world a better place for everyone and/or has a higher set of morals than America. Whenever catastrophe strikes other countries, America is there to help out. We are hated because we are the biggest and the best.

 

Has anyone else noticed...

... that North Korea has backed off its stance of meeting with the US one-on-one regarding its nuclear program. They now say they are willing to meet with the US on this topic in any setting.

Could it be that Kim Jong-Il has taken notice of what happened in Iraq and is afraid on being next on the list of deposed dictatorial regimes

Just wondering......

 

Slow said:

"1. There were very few (if any) "innocents" in Japan. The civilian population, including women and children, was training en masse to repulse an invasion force. The calculation was that fewer people would ultimately die on both sides if the A-bombs were dropped than if they were not. That calculation was correct. "

Slow my friend, you are truly a revisionist!!

Before we dropped the bombs the Japs had pled for several days to negotiate terms of surrender. we said no terms, must be unconditional. Hence tens of thousands died b/c we refused to negotiate.

The notion that the tens of thousnads of children under 10 years of age killed by our nukes in 1945 were not innocent is to deny reality. Please come up with some documentation that this was: 1) a US consideration and 2) documented by the military prior to July 1945. Take your time. i will be patient. We could make this another tread if you like.


The whole plan was clearly terroistic: the message was "we will kill all your civilians if you don't give up." Indeed, Truman lied about the whole thing from the begining. Tried to justify it by calling Hiroshima a "military base". the rest of this is from historical documentation:

In a radio speech to the nation on August 9, 1945, President Truman called Hiroshima "a military base." It seems likely, considering his July 25 diary entry, that he was not aware that Hiroshima was a city. Otherwise, he was being untruthful about the nature of the target.

Truman delivered his speech from the White House at 10 P.M. Washington time on August 9, 1945. By this time, a second atomic bomb already had destroyed the city of Nagasaki. Because of the great length of the speech, most of which dealt with Germany, only the relevant paragraph is quoted here.

Truman: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction."

Rodger

 

Truman was merely being the prototypical Democrat!

 

Slow,

That is indeed very ironic!

But I'm still wating. . . waiting.. you are not getting off the hook. . . waiting. . .

Rodger




































































Waiting. . .
















































Waiting. . .

 

The timing issue is simply that this is a conflict of convenience. We began placing time limits where none existed and I think we ultimately painted ourselves in a corner where even prudent inaction would make us lose face. Saddam began violating U.N. sanctions when he threw the inspectors out so why call him out now? This looks to the world like we're on a witch hunt following 9/11 and the snipe hunt in Afganistan. We're setting a perceived trend of taking over countries and changing their leadership at our whim and that's not going to make our War on Terrorism any easier.

Danggit Mongo, your drivin' me to drink. See ya'll tomorrow!

 

Re: Has anyone else noticed...

During Desert Storm, North Korea continued to make "unusual troop movements" that occupied forces in the Pacific theater for the duration of the conflict. I've taken this nuclear program issue the same way. Like its some passive-aggressive form of helping our enemies.

 

Rodger - Unconditional surrender was the only option. Japan's mouthings about terms were widely considered to be a feint.

Hiroshima was most definitely a military target. Hiroshima housed heavy industry, which previous bombings with conventional bombs had failed to knock out. If the goal was, as you suggest, to go for maximum kill, why didn't we just drop both bombs on Tokyo or Osaka?

The bombing of Nagasaki seems, with hindsight, to have been possibly unecessary. Given the communications systems of the time and the inability to get consistently good military intelligence from Japan, it's doubtful that the War Dept could have seen then what we think we see so clearly now. I've always thought of Monday-morning quarterbacking as being rather pathetic.

The "message" wasn't even close to what you say - again, if it were, why not go for a big civilian population center? The REAL message was, we will not risk our troops to make you surrender. We don't have to use them to hurt you - we have other means. We are tired of fighting you and we WILL make this stop. Give up now before it goes worse for you.

What would you have done? Killed 250,000 our own troops and and millions of Japanese with an invasion? Continued conventional bombing until the entire country was a wasteland, thus killing millions anyway? Or acceded to the Japanese "terms," allowing them to keep their conquered lands and other ill-gotten gains, and giving them permission to kill millions of their captives?

"Terroristic," indeed! Such foolishness they teach kids today.