posted
*sigh* yet more clarification the only times we have done that is during war, last time I knew, there was no formal delcartion of war. It's pointless though, no one will change their minds.
-------------------- It takes 42 muscles in your face to frown. It only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and smack someone upside the head.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Jesus Christ. We haven't declared war since World War II, are you saying Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, aren't WAR?
Rob, the Civil War and Vietnam were brought up because you defined terrorists as those who attacked civilians, and thus not entitled to protection by the Geneva Convention. We were pointing out flaws in your illogic (of course, now you've decided that doing that is a bad tactic, so who knows what next ...)
posted
No, I never defined a terrorist as only that. That's PART of the definition, but not all of it.
quote:The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter MAY fall down to who attacks first. (They did)
If you're invaded, you're a freedom fighter. If you're fighting a war with the intent of creating greater freedom, you're a freedom fighter. (They weren't on either count)
They aren't attacking targets within their own borders or territorial extent, and they're attacking people who have nothing to do with the policies and practices on EITHER side (Or have you conveniently forgotten that LOTS of non-US people were in the WTC and the embassies?)
Its guilt by preponderance at the evidence, and its accusation by SEVERAL nations' intelligence agencies, including ours, the UK's, and Israel's. (In other words, we're not the only people who consider them terrorists... in fact, just about everybody besides the Muslim Fundies and the Liberal Fundies like you thinks they are)
And isn't it funny that these U.S. wartime 'atrocities,' From Dresden to My Lai, all occurred under the aegis of Democratic Party leadership? Hm...
[ January 25, 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:And isn't it funny that these U.S. wartime 'atrocities,' From Dresden to My Lai, all occurred under the aegis of Democratic Party leadership? Hm...
I can only think of the classic line from Duckman "I'm a diversion, I'm a diversion"
You never quite argue point but send it off in other directions when you can't answer a question.
[ January 25, 2002, 12:24: Message edited by: Grokca ]
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
And, because it's fun to disprove diversions, one word: Kissinger. OK, a few more: Southeast Asia. Latin America. Africa.
[ January 25, 2002, 12:26: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I DID answer the question. Didn't you read anything before the last paragraph? I just added a little parting shot.
As it so happens, nobody'd mentioned Africa (Every president since Roosevelt) Southeast Asia (Johnson) and Latin America (Every president since "The Halls of Montezuma") before. The validity of the original statement still stands.
And since those were all US/USSR proxy wars, where both sides used roughly identical tactics you should be suggesting bombing Russia as well.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Not to go off topic, but let's grant that Hiroshima was a massive army headquarters. And let's grant that a massive show of strength was needed to stop the Japanese. And lets also grant that in this case, the civilian casualities were acceptable to make the point that the US makes fucking big bombs. Granting all that, what was the point of Nagasaki?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There are numerous conflicting theories about why Nagasaki, including:
The U.S. had to prove (to the USSR, mostly) that they could make more than one of these things.
The Japanese announcement that they would "consider" the American surrender demands was mistranslated by the Japanese translator as "reject" the demands.
I even heard one anecdote, long ago, that the bombing of Nagasaki was caused (in a long, 'for want of a nail' chain of events) by one of the Japanese higher-ups having hemmorhoids.
I have occasionally wondered whether 40-odd years of Cold War might have been averted if we'd managed to build a couple more at the same time and dropped them on Moscow and Leningrad. Wiped out the Soviet leadership, and rebuilt all of Europe Russia under the Marshall Plan as well.
Probably not.
[ January 26, 2002, 06:24: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If you're gonna criticize the concept, at least give a salient reason.
A subjugated, then democraticized and reindustrialized Russia could have led to a stronger UN, no large-scale nuclear arms race, no Cold War, likely no Korea or 'Nam, No Communist Cuba, no brush wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and who knows what else.
The left-wing hate-the-US-for-the-sheer-self-loathing-joy-of-it mentality hadn't had time to fester yet, and without the fuel from the USSR-backed socialist propaganda machine of the 60's it likely wouldn't have. Conversely, No McCarthyism.
Of course, there's that old Russian xenophobia to contend with. That could have been an obstacle.
But it's not likely the Allies would have fallen apart if the US had attacked the USSR... most of them trusted them as little as we did.
Attack the Brits?? At least the Brits were fairly trustworthy allies, (the Montgomery / Patton ego conflict notwithstanding) while the Soviets siezed half of Europe after the war.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If one was dropped on Nagasaki to prove that the US could make two, why wasn't another one dropped to prove you could make 3?
And I think Jeff is baulking at the way you seem to seriously be considering wanton large-scale destruction. And what would have been the reasons for dropping one on the USSR? "Oh, Japan attacked one of our harbours, and you didn't send us any Vodka, so we bombed you"?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Always fun, playing the revisionist historian. "What if" this, "what if" that...
They should've tested the atomic bomb somewhere in Tenessee. Maybe, just maybe, we then wouldn't have to deal with the fruitcakes of today who claim that the total destruction of Hiroshima was "a necessity", and that the deaths of some 180,000 civilians were "acceptable".
OTOH... sometimes I think a radioactive cloud of dust did in fact reach that state.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Given that the loss of life that would have resulted from a non-atomic attack on Japan's home islands could have have reached 10 TIMES that many on their side ALONE, what would YOU have done, O' great Master of Warfare?
Liam: the reasons would have been the same reasons for which the Cold War was fought for 40 years: to destroy Leninist/Stalinist Communism. Just faster and more effectively, by cutting off its head rather than worrying at bits of its body and trying to stomp its eggs. And without the threat of the same destruction in response.
Oh, and I should have made this clearer... my concept was that after Communist Russia had been destroyed, the nuclear weapon/energy program could then have been put under the control of the UN, where it would take the agreement of the Security Council (or maybe even the General Assembly) to ever use them again. So that the U.S. wouldn't be the sole possessor, and, with the Veto power on the Security Council, wouldn't have to worry about the nukes being used against them, either.
(In fact, I think there were some scientists and others who proposed just this sort of thing back in the 1940's and later, but because of the continuing spectre of Communism, they were ignored. Without that spectre...)
[ January 26, 2002, 10:35: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
