Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

If preemptive strikes are justified....Follow

#102 Oct 02 2004 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Dropping the Atom Bombs on Japan was the means to end a war that cost too many lives around the globe. Where dropping the bombs justified? Looking at all the variables involved we where not just showing the Japanese that we had the weapons to wipe two cities of the face of the earth, but we showed the Soviet Union that we had the weapons as well. Don't you think Truman and his advisors where looking at not only the immediate end to WWII but also a way to show the Soviets that we where now the most powerful nation and thus establishing the containment of the Soviets. Again, what are all the variables that played into the use of the A-bombs.

My question to you supposed subject matter experts is this: Do you believe that the American people had the resolve to take the war to mainland Japan? Smash says that there was no planned invasion of Japan to take Tokyo. If no planned assault how where we going to end the war Smash?
#103 Oct 02 2004 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Stok, my little bum-chum.

We were right to go to war with Iraq.

But we did it too soon (another 3 weeks and Dubya would have gotten close to his Dad's achievement of forming a bigger coalition that included Muslim states), used a shi[i][/i]t
set of reasons (WMD) and had no plan for dealing with the post-war chaos.

Ever play pool? Seriously.
We all know great players at the local pool-hall, but they're never champions. Why?

Because Pro Pool playerss know to 'line up the next shot'

Bush Senior didn't need Egypt, Syria, Lebanon to defeat Saddam in'91. But he knew they were his insurance policy against Muslim extremists when the job was done.

Dubya potted the ball, but left the table wide open.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#104 Oct 02 2004 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Fair enough Stok, I even accept the fact the American government couldn't let Saddam control a country with that much wealth/oil.

I just hate when some of you Bush-boys don't tell the truth, call a spade a spade, we can't let those savages control that amount of power/money/oil.

Look at what is happening in Turkey right now, they are trying to get into the EU so they are trying to become a tolerant government, but islam just won't let them. Poor bastards.

Islam is peaceful my ***.

They are the most intolerant bunch of bastards on the planet bar none.
#106 Oct 02 2004 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
We where not going to get Muslim countries to side with us when we invaded Iraq. Do you not study the culture and understand the ramifications of one muslim nation siding with infidels in the invasion of a brother muslim nation. That is completely unethical in the middle east. Bush SR got the coalition because Saddam invaded Kuwait a soveriegn muslim nation solely for Kuwaits oil and a larger sea port for Iraq. When Iraq annexed Kuwait and had they kept, Saddam would have been much more powerful than he was before he invaded Kuwait and the rest of the Muslim world knew that and needed the US and coalition to push him back.
#107 Oct 02 2004 at 7:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Yea Canadians, you are a bit fu[b][/b]cking thick aren't you Proof.

There is only one thing we canadians can't tolerate, and that is intolerant people. It is crucial in a multi-cultural society such as ours.

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Had you bombed them again after they surrendered, that would have been un-ethical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



the radiaton @#%^ed up japan for a long time after the war.


I read everything, what is your point?
#108 Oct 02 2004 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Ever play pool? Seriously.
Yes. Up until just after I got married when my wife got tired of me playing and gambling. I understood the fact you have to set up your next shot.

And I'm not your Bum-chum, I'll let you keep Drac for that purpose.
#110 Oct 02 2004 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Quote:
Do you not study the culture and understand the ramifications of one muslim nation siding with infidels in the invasion of a brother muslim nation.
So explain to me how Bush Senior had Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese support for Gulf 1, and (Muslim) ground forces from those countries actively participating in the war against Iraq.

That's why they avoided having radicals from Jordan and Palestine beheading westerners in Baghdad in 91 like they are now. Like I said, Bush got 'em on board (with advice from peeps like Brent Scowcroft) so when the war was won, the defeated armies stayed defeated.

As for why Saddam wasn't taken out then, well ask Colin Powell.

The fundamentalists didn't have any defense back then because they'd be betraying the muslim mid-east axis so they had to butt out.

Now, it's a whole different ball-game.

You really don't have a f[i][/i]ucking clue do you?
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#111 Oct 02 2004 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
it was like another bomb *****


My a[b][/b]ss is a bit like a bomb sometimes, what is your point?
#112 Oct 02 2004 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

/nominate Nobby's for "Best Avatar" in the end-of-the-year Asylum Awards.



#116 Oct 02 2004 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
My *** is a bit like a bomb sometimes, what is your point?
#118 Oct 02 2004 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
So explain to me how Bush Senior had Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese support for Gulf 1, and (Muslim) ground forces from those countries actively participating in the war against Iraq.


No middle eastern country had the ability to defend itself from Iraq at the time of the Kuwait invasion except Iran. Many of the weaker countries feared being the next Kuwait and so they sided with the U.S. led coallition.

#119 Oct 02 2004 at 7:52 PM Rating: Good
Now, it's a whole different ball-game. Agreed.
#120 Oct 02 2004 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Justified?

How, moraly? Strategically? Tactically? Ethically? Legally?


Choose one and bang away with an answer.
#121 Oct 02 2004 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
My *** is a bit like a bomb sometimes, what is your point?


Proof, just because the US used a bomb that kept killing, they did so in an act of war and it was justified as it saved hundreds of thousand of US lives.

Those bombs are also, I believe, responsible for no other bombs being used since then. Had the US not dropped those bombs, and show the devastating killing power of them, maybe the cold war would have escalated. Becasue there may not have been the same stigma surrounding their use.

So stop saying such idiotic fu[b][/b]cking statements.

When you turn 15 you will understand.
#123 Oct 02 2004 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Point one: There was no gurantee that invasion would not still be required. The first weapon didn't preclude an invasion. What if the second didn't? I assume we keep dropping nuclear weapons no people untill incasion is precluded?

Point two: There is no indication that a technical demonstration of a weapon would not have accomplished the same goal with no loss of civillian life.

Point three: There is no indication the same goal couldn't have been accomplished using conventional weapons which would not have left a legacy of ill health for generations.

Point four: There is no indication that the force depletion and project to kill numbers were anywhere near accurate, based as they were on various erronious assumptions including the likes of "The *** will use his children as weapons to protect his land"

Point five: Why does it become morrally correct to kill a single innnocent person to spare the lives of those who's work is killing and maiming


Response to point 1: At what point do you stop calling up innocent Americans to put on a uniform and go kill the enemy?

I belive it is a reasonable assumption that the Atomic weapons saved many innocent soon to be soldiers lives.

Do we keep dropping bombs? No, sooner or later we would have hit the capital, killed the current leadership and a less hard headed person would have seen the error of Japans way of not giving up.

Response to point 2:
I belive out tests in the Nevada desert pretty much alerted anyone with the capability to detect radiation and radio waves that we had a deadly weapon on a massive scale.

Response to point 3: Our conventional weapons had not caused Germany to give up, and it was isolated and under attack from 3 directions and not a island which is harder to invade.

Response to point 4: Show me stats where a credible source claims there would have been less than 2.5 million total casualties.

Response to point 5: The day that innocent persons government took it upon themselves to not only intiate an attack on another soveriegn state, but that persons government did horrible things to civilians and prisoners all over the conqored terrortories. If the Japanese people had risen up and said they were against the policies of the Japanese government they would not have had to worry about U.S. repercussions for the war.
#124 Oct 02 2004 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Friar Reinman wrote

Quote:

it was justified as it saved hundreds of thousand of US lives.




so americans are the only people who deserve to live


It also saved countless Japanese, Chinese, Korean, British, S.E. asian, pacific Island, Australian and Indian lives.
#125 Oct 02 2004 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
so americans are the only people who deserve to live.


Didn't I tell you to stop saying idiotic things?

All nations have the right to defend themselves, even Americans.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 241 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (241)