The Atomic bombs

[M14 Shooter]

In your stupid irrational opinion.
(I assume you weren't even alive at the time. I WAS and old enough to understand what was going on.)

And yet, you thought the "unconsitional surrender" position didn't come about until a point late enough in the war to make it relevant in a discssion regarding the atomic bomb.

 

[Shogun]

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio



8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.


Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:31 P.M. EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Indeed... It's so CRAZY to imagine how America would INSIST on "unconditional" (translated: let us hang your emperor) stipulations.... I guess hiding behind the word is easier than admitting too much about viable options other than nuking the fuck out of a civilian population.. We fell for the same shit when the neocons were showing us pics with circles and arrows pointing at mobile weapons labs and hidden bunkers of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

 

[doniston]

Says he who refuses to answer a simple set of questions because he thinks the entire things was "unnecessary"


That;s right. They didnt, thusly meanaing that dropping the bomb, or invading Japan, or both, was necessary to win the war.


Our "unconditional surrender" term was set at the Cassablanca conference 14-24 JAN 1943, if not sooner.


Unless they were contemplating unconditional surrender, any such consideration is moot.

And so... what's your point?

-What do you suppose the cost in US and Japanese lives would have been, had there been an invasion?
-Given that cost, why was dropping the bomb NOT the right decision?

1. Not unnecessary, but quite irrelevant to the subject. it is and was about dropping the Atom Bomb, not fire bombs, not cluster bombs, not even the price of eggs in china.

2. that doesn't corelate

3. BS. we made a declaration. that is not an offer.

4. Your opinion, nothing more.

5. I made my points, you just don't like them- TOUGH!

 

[doniston]

And yet, you thought the "unconsitional surrender" position didn't come about until a point late enough in the war to make it relevant in a discssion regarding the atomic bomb.

That shows just how much you know anout the situation. there was no discussion of the bomb (except in secret within strict US bounds) we didn't consult with anyone about dropping the bomb. IT WAS A SECRET.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Not unnecessary, but quite irrelevant to the subject. it is and was about dropping the Atom Bomb, not fire bombs, not cluster bombs, not even the price of eggs in china.

What exactly do you thik the topic is here?

2. that doesn't corelate

OK... given that the Japanese were not going to unconditionally surrender unless forced to do so, what options were there for ending the war, and how are those options militarily and politically more viable than an invasion and/or dropping the bomb?

3.
BS. we made a declaration. that is not an offer.

We described our terms of an acceptable Japanes surrender. That's an offer.
The point,. however, is that it is impossible to argue that the Japanese did not know that we woudl only accept an unconditional surrender, as we made it clear -- several times -- that those were our terms.

4. Your opinion, nothing more.

If you dont agree with it, then please show how it is in error.

5. I made my points, you just don't like them- TOUGH!

You made them. They're unsupportable in incoherent, but you did make them.

 

[doniston]

What exactly do you thik the topic is here?


OK... given that they were not going to surrender unconditionally, what options were there for edning the war, and how are those options militarily and politically more viable that invasion or dropping the bomb?


We described our terms of an acceptable Japanes surrender. That's an offer.
The point,. however, is that it is impossible to argue that the Japanese did not know that we woudl only accept an unconditional surrender, as we made it clear -- several times -- that those were our terms.


If you dont agree with it, then please show how it is in error.


You made them. They're unsupportable in incoherent, but you did make them.

You are persistant in your arguements.----Too bad you have no facts or accurate knowlege with which to back them up.

I have answered all the "RELEVANT" questions you have put forth here. I will not repeat them. nor am I about to instruct you as to the issues of this thread. By now, you should know it.

You want to change the issues? Fine, then argue by yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are persistant in your arguements.----Too bad you have no facts or accurate knowlege with which to back them up.

Says the guy that didn't know that the "unconditional surrender" terms were laid out in Jan 1943 -- even though he was alive then and remembers it.

I have answered all "RELEVANT" questions you have put forth here. I will not repeat them.

No, you haven't. You haven't done anything but evade, obfuscate, misdirect, mischaraterize and avoid.

Heck -- You wont even describe what you think the topic of conversation is.

Are you THAT afraid of being proven wrong?

C'mon, son. You can do it. Just try a little harder.

 

[Shogun]

Hey M14..

can you understand how "unconditional surrender" amounts to our modern "saddam must disarm"? Saddam COULDNT disarm because he didnt have the supposed WMDs that bush insisted that he did. Likewise, Japan couldn't even HOPE to achieve "UNCONDITIONAL" surrender when they thought the US would hang their emperor. To say that this catch 22 validates the bomb is like saying phantom WMDs that are totally missing from the iraq picture VALIDATE the invasion. They dont. Neither does hiding behind the word "UNCONDITIONAL" validate using nukes on civilians. It doesn't. Just like ESTIMATES on a conventional skirmish don't. If you insist on raising the bar impossibly high don't be surprised when people figure out that you just want to use the latest bomb in the arsenal or carry a WMD grudge for a war that was sold to the American people on total bullshit.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then yoiu must be truely gratified with the way you have been acting.

No, there are two things I never do....
1. Claim I am the smartest person
2. Crow about "victory" in debate.

It just makes you look stupid. Which was my point. And which is backed up by your imbecelic post, which has no basis in fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey M14..
Can you understand how "unconditional surrender" amounts to our modern "saddam must disarm"?

No. The two arent remotely the same.

Saddam COULDNT disarm because he didnt have the supposed WMDs that bush insisted that he did.

Total disarmament wasnlt Bush's standard. That standard was laid out in 1991 as a condition of the cease-fire, and Saddam agreed to it -- to not just disarm, but to prove that he disarmed.
Both of which were completely in his power to do.

Likewise, Japan couldn't even HOPE to achieve "UNCONDITIONAL" surrender when they thought the US would hang their emperor.

Absolutely it could, especially if the Emperor demanded it, or if the military demanded it.

To say that this catch 22 validates the bomb is like saying phantom WMDs that are totally missing from the iraq picture VALIDATE the invasion.

Um... no. There's no catch-22 in either case.
The decision to drop the bomb was validated by the costs and benefots of the other military options available that would bring an end to the war. None of the other options produced the same effect with less cost.
if you want to disagree,then you need to present a better option and show how it was better in terms of cost/benefit.

Neither does hiding behind the word "UNCONDITIONAL" validate using nukes on civilians. It doesn't.

Nukes, conventional bombs, incendiaries, whatever -- you win wars by destroying your enemy's ability to make war against you. In WW2, this was done by attacking cities, as cities were centers of the military, indsustrial, economic, financial and population assets of the warring nation. It would have been nice to simply bomb the specific inanimite assets thatallowed Japan to make war, but that wasn't possible -- so the cities were razed.

Razing Hiroshima was in and of itself no different that razing Tokyo. You can argue that we should not have razed Tokyo, but that's necessarily arging that we should not have attacked the means for them to make war.

If you insist on raising the bar impossibly high...

That would be you doing that, and with rather unsound reasoning.

 

[Shogun]

Oh no, sir.. when comparing two IMPOSSIBLE STIPULATIONS they are quite the same.


Total disarmament wasnlt Bush's standard. That standard was laid out in 1991 as a condition of the cease-fire, and Saddam agreed to it -- to not just disarm, but to prove that he disarmed.


it's pretty hard to prove he didn't have WMDs since there were none around, eh? Pretty hard to prove ANYTHING with a war machine drumming in the whtie house, eh? Looks like the last 5 years of total lack of ANYTHING even remotley looking like the promised WMDs is pretty solid proof, eh? Saddam COULDNT prove Bush's requirements. THATS the point. Japan COULDNT abide by "unconditional" when such could mean the slaying of their emperor. Now, had bush taken an objective approach instead of insisting that saddam had WMDS... Likewise, had the US not insisted on UNCONDITIONAL then it may have been the case that Japan would have surrendered. But, of COURSE that refusal to budge on impossible criteria is JAPANS fault, right? Of course it's not about revenge by that point.. noooo... We should have also expected them to paint the moon blue.. you know.. unconditionally. Any hesitation to comply is probably grounds for immediate nuclear bombing.


Absolutely it could, especially if the Emperor demanded it, of if the military demanded it.


Yea. because it's generally a given that leaders of nations at war ROUTINELY ask to be hung by America for the sake of a military conflict! Yes... Happens ALL THE TIME! Now, had the Emporer and Japan been given a reason to not believe that the emporer would be drug out into the street and hung like saddam.... why consider THOSE estimations, eh?


Um... no. There's no catch-22 in either case.
The decision to drop the bomb was validated by the costs and benefots of the other military options available that would bring an end to the war. None of the other options produced the same effect with less cost.
if you want to disagree,then you need to present a better option and show how it was better in terms of cost/benefit.


this isnt a convenient utilitarian wet dream, dude. if your sum total strategy in deciding things relies totally on cost and benefit then there would have been no D day. But, I'll bite. You seem to think dropping nukes saved a bunch of lives... but you ignore the pandora's box that was opened the day WE validating using nukes to solve problems. Let's say you are right about the lives saved then.. Now that your rationalized actions is becoming standard for any major power who wants to "DEFEND" themselves why don't you add to the COST the next milllion or so civilians the next time it's used. You can't just use a fucking cannon on the field and expect your enemy NOT to look for their own cannon.. and then CRY about it when THEY use their cannon just like YOU USED YOURS.




Nukes, conventional bombs, incendiaries, whatever -- you win wars by destroying your enemy's ability to make war against you. In WW2, this was done by attacking cities, as cities were centers of the military, indsustrial, economic, financial and population assets of the warring nation. It would have been nice to simply bomb the specific inanimite assets thatallowed Japan to make war, but that wasn't possible -- so the cities were razed.

Razing Hiroshima was in and of itself no different that razing Tokyo. You can argue that we should not have razed Tokyo, but that's necessarily arging that we should not have attacked the means for them to make war.


NUKES, CHEMICAL WEAPONS and LANDMINES TOO, eh? hey, if you can rationalize the destruction of civilian populations just to win a war then you are no different than the 20 who flew planes into new york. Hell, is NEW FUCKING YORK not also an economic center? financial? Industrial? So, are you telling me that it's OK when WE do it but BAD when THEY do it?


Im feeling a little inter-thread posting coming up...

hey, they were just attacking OUR means to make war, right? New York.. Pentagon.... Fair play under your rules, right?


That would be you doing that, and with rather unsound reasoning.


riiiiiight... IM the one who insisted that Saddam had those PHANTOM WMDs... IM the one who insisted that he prove they were gone or we'd attack.. RIIIIIIIIIGHT...

Indeed, IM the one hiding behind "unconditional" as if Japan has any chance to achieve that criteria... just like Saddam had NO CHANCE to convince the war machine he was already unarmed...

RIIIIIIGHT...

 

[AllieBaba]

Maybe we could have proved there were no WMDs if he hadn't repeatedly ousted the inspectors.

Which was also against his agreement with the US.

You just like anyone else better than you like the US, don't you? Why don't you defend innocent men, women and children who were victimized by Saddam, instead of going after the people who removed him legally?

It must be because you identify with pigs yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh no, sir.. when comparing two IMPOSSIBLE STIPULATIONS they are quite the same.

Neither demand was impossible, and as such, your position is unsound.

it's pretty hard to prove he didn't have WMDs since there were none around, eh?

Its perfectly possible to prove you no longer have something you were known to have.

Japan COULDNT abide by "unconditional" when such could mean the slaying of their emperor.

TYhey certainly could. They might not have wanted to, they might not have like it, but they certainly could have done it.

Thus, your impossible demands arent impossible, and so your comnparison fails.

This isnt a convenient utilitarian wet dream, dude.

That's -exactly- what war is.

You seem to think dropping nukes saved a bunch of lives

Please provde for me a militaily and politically viable option that:
1- Would have forced the the surrender of Japan
2- Resulted in fewer casualties that dropping the bomb
If you cannot do this, then you must accept that dropping the bombs saved lives.

But you ignore the pandora's box that was opened the day WE validating using nukes to solve problems.

You're arguing from hindsight. That's might conveneoent, and totally fallacious. And you will note that your 'pandoras' box' hasnt caused the death of a single person since 1945.

If you can rationalize the destruction of civilian populations just to win a war...

There's no rationalization here, just a statement of fact. As I said you can argue that we should not have razed Tokyo, et al, but that's necessarily arging that we should not have attacked the means for them to make war.

Since you dont agree with that strategy, it is then encumbent upon you to suggest an altrenative. Rather than bomb their cities, inan effort to destory their means of making war, what should have we done to that end, and how woudl it have achieved the same resuly witl the same or lower cost?

then you are no different than the 20 who flew planes into new york. Hell, is NEW FUCKING YORK not also an economic center? financial? Industrial? So, are you telling me that it's OK when WE do it but BAD when THEY do it?

Killing civilians in the normal course of the prosecution of a declared war isn't remotely the same thing as deliberatly targeting civlians in a terrorist attack.

The relationship you describe between the two events doesn't exist, and your reliance on that relationship to support your argument neccitates that your argument isnt sound.

riiiiiight... IM the one who insisted that Saddam had those PHANTOM WMDs...
Indeed, IM the one hiding behind "unconditional" as if Japan has any chance to achieve that criteria

No. That was the entire western world, in both cases.
IN Saddam's case, at least, right up to the point that it was clear someone was actually going to do something about it.

The fallacy in your argument is that you argue that both Saddam and Japan were in impossible psotions, neither of which is supportable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe we could have proved there were no WMDs if he hadn't repeatedly ousted the inspectors.
Which was also against his agreement with the US.

It was up to Saddam to destroy the WMDs, dismantle his WMD programs, and prove that he did both.
He did not prove that he did either.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know. But apparently, we should have given him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Shogun]

I know. But apparently, we should have given him the benefit of the doubt.

when this hindsight fiasco remains the pie in your conservative warpig face?

indeed, perhaps you SHOULD have been a little less easy to herd into the fucking barn of disastrous foreign policy...


I know, I know... too many yellow car magnets make it hard to do anything but follow the stream, eh?

 

[Shogun]

It was up to Saddam to destroy the WMDs, dismantle his WMD programs, and prove that he did both.
He did not prove that he did either.

AND it was up to Bush to make a case for war that was actually TRUE in correlation with his insistance of the presence of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, eh?

kinda hard to prove that wasn't there, eh? BEFORE OR AFTER declaring war and invading?

 

[AllieBaba]

I knew what we went to war for. It was because Saddam was out of compliance, AGAIN.

Sorry if the libs were too stupid to understand that, and when they finally did, blamed their own stupidity upon "lies" told to them.

Nobody told me any lies. Must be your own inconsistent ability to actually understand what's being said.

 

[Shogun]

Neither demand was impossible, and as such, your position is unsound.


Yea, im afraid it IS pretty impossible to prove he had no phantom WMDs... watch how this works... PROVE to me that you don't like sicking cock. Keep in mind, I probably wont give much credit to your attempt to convince me since I really don't want to believe you anyway. Pretty impossible, eh?


Its perfectly possible to prove you no longer have something you were known to have.

Really? why don't you elaborate and play the devils advocate here so I can show you how the bush admin would have responded.. Here's your chance to show me how easy it is to prove you don't have what your numerous little sat pics with circles and arrows thought were mobile chem labs...


TYhey certainly could. They might not have wanted to, they might not have like it, but they certainly could have done it.
Thus, your impossible demands arent impossible, and so your comnparison fails.

Bullshit. NO more than this entire nation would give up our president to be HUNG by a percived enemy. NO more than WE could prove to someone to someone that simply doesn't want to believe in order to green light an invasion.


That's -exactly- what war is.
Please provde for me a militaily and politically viable option that:
1- Would have forced the the surrender of Japan
2- Resulted in fewer casualties that dropping the bomb
If you cannot do this, then you must accept that dropping the bombs saved lives.


Had we guaranteed the life of the emperor and given them an HONORABLE way out they would have taken it. You forget, this honor bound society wasn't some mere ruthless bunch of killers. We made no attempt to appeal to the civilian population while looking for cold revenge. Japan is a bunch of fucking islands, for christs sakes. WE COULD HAVE locked down their entire tiny fucking island nation with our navy. Indeed, we didn't even have to engage the ground at all. Engage any Air, and Navy, contain each island group in patrolled sectors, starve them a little and then give their emperor the HONORABLE option of surrender in order to alleviate the embargo.

There you go. less fatalities and the same result. Thanks for playing.




You're arguing from hindsight. That's might conveneoent, and totally fallacious. And you will note that your 'pandoras' box' hasnt caused the death of a single person since 1945.

Yet.. and how fucking frantic are we now trying to keep that very thing from happening? ooohhh 60 fucking years. sure is a MONUMENTAL TIME in history, isnt it? How many times has it been NEARLY the case during the cold war? Ponder why in the hell you want to keep nukes out of the hands of Iran while I laugh at you.


There's no rationalization here, just a statement of fact. As I said you can argue that we should not have razed Tokyo, et al, but that's necessarily arging that we should not have attacked the means for them to make war.

Attacking means is not attacking civilians. This is why you were silent when i brought up Dresden. Firebombing Tokyo is as much of a viable solution as is breaking your kids arm because he took an extra cookie. Bottom line. If YOU can wantonly kill civilians then don't bitch when your civilians die in a hostile effort by our enemies trying to disable THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND THE FUCKING PENTAGON.


Since you dont agree with that strategy, it is then encumbent upon you to suggest an altrenative. Rather than bomb their cities, inan effort to destory their means of making war, what should have we done to that end, and how woudl it have achieved the same resuly witl the same or lower cost?

See above. It's what handicapped city-states like Rome and Sparta. But, Neither the enemies of Rome and Sparta had a brand new shiney toy to explode, did they?


Killing civilians in the normal course of the prosecution of a declared war isn't remotely the same thing as deliberatly targeting civlians in a terrorist attack.


of COURSE it isn't! Because in YOUR world the civilians don't die the same death! It really matters to the dead population the motives of the attackers! REALLY! polish your turd, buddy. I bet you felt the same way last summer when Israel was busy targeting civilian neighborhoods with cluster bombs.. Yes, it's funny how this standard jumps around to fit the circumstance, isnt it?

The relationship you describe between the two events doesn't exist, and your reliance on that relationship to support your argument neccitates that your argument isnt sound.

Doesn't exhist in your narrow minded world, perhaps... I'll remind you that hiroshima wasn't without controversy then just like it's not now. Indeed, Invading Iraq on the premise of bullshit WMD accusations is similarly contentious NOW as it will be decades later. Hey, some people insisted that the sun rotates around the Earth too..


No. That was the entire western world, in both cases.
IN Saddam's case, at least, right up to the point that it was clear someone was actually going to do something about it.

Entire western world my ass.. Which is why your side boycotted FRANCE for so long, eh? Perhaps insomuch as the playground bully accumulates a gang by cohersion and intimidation.. Yes, it was clear who that SOMEONE would be considering the neocon sabre rattling. Actually going to do something about it... Indeed, how imparative it was to DO SOMETHING about phantom WMDs...

I sure do hate PHANTOM mushroom clouds.


The fallacy in your argument is that you argue that both Saddam and Japan were in impossible psotions, neither of which is supportable.


Sure it is. the PHANTOM WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION punchline this far out of finding jack shit proves it for Iraq and the FACT that you hide behind the word "unconditional" proves Japan.

 

[Shogun]

Maybe we could have proved there were no WMDs if he hadn't repeatedly ousted the inspectors.
Which was also against his agreement with the US.
You just like anyone else better than you like the US, don't you? Why don't you defend innocent men, women and children who were victimized by Saddam, instead of going after the people who removed him legally?
It must be because you identify with pigs yourself.

blah blah blah BLAH BLAH blah blah blah.


he could have given you access to every square inch of sand in his entire fucking nation and you'd have insisted that he hid them in syria or iran or up his ass. THATS how far you would go to insist upon what has proven to be a bunch of shit spread by the bush admin.

watch out for this pie im about to throw at your face...


PHANTOM WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!


Indeed, keep showing me what a good christian acts like, Allie..