How physically big are weapons of mass destruction?

Would you consider one barrel full of Anthrax a WMD?

And if yes, seeing as the US Army discovered a complete Mig-29 burried in the sand in the end of November don't you think it is likely that they are still there?

Is the FACT that Saddam Hussein had a program for WMD ANY factor in your thought processes?

How big are WMDs?
Well, which kind? Nuclear? Biological? Chemical?

In all three cases, though, the weapons in their deliverable form are the smallest part of the system. The problem is that they have to be stored. And storing chemical, biological or nuclear material so it remains usable as a weapon is difficult and dangerous and requires a lot of equipment.

Besides which, the quantities quoted by Bush in the State of the Union speech are so large in and of themselves that you would need large tanks to store them all, and the kind of support infrastructure needed would be impossible to hide. These aren't bullets we're talking about, with a shelf life of decades with no facilities needed. These are complex agents with a very limited shelf life demanding exacting conditions and a lot of associated plumbing and containment facilities, all of which were destroyed in the first gulf invasion in '91. And the lifespan of the agents means that had they existed (which we know they did as the US supplied them), they would have become unviable around '97 or so - and that's only the ones that they managed to secrete from the UN inspectors and protect from US bombing raids.

(And for the record - Saddam had no development plan for WMDs - he had a program to use them. Not development, which is a different kettle of fish. Besides, why would he bother developing what the US had already given him freely? )

Iraq is a greater threat to Americans now and in the future, than it was at any time before the invasion. The Bush administration took off running foreign policy like they were writing a Tom Clancy novel. Now they can't finish the story because reality is intruding, and there will be hell to pay.

A b52 loaded and ready to carpet bomb and nice little area into oblivion would be a WMD, since it is a weapon which causes mass destruction.

Questions for Liberals on this board.

btw , what has your question to do with political orientation :confused:

gregoftheweb perhaps you can answer this, why can some nation have WMD's and futher develop there WMD's (all kinds, also those claimed as for defence¿) while other many not?

A lot of questions.

With regards to what kinds, it doesn't really matter, but I would probably list biological first although he was in pursuit of nuclear capabilities including purchasing long range missiles from North Korea up until the coalition's invasion scuttled said plans. North Korea in fact has some of Iraq's down payment money for the missiles (should they reimburse the new government)?

To say Iraq is a greater threat now is so far from the truth I wonder where you are getting your information, oh yeah the media. Well their agenda is to paint the whole thing as a failure so that is what they are trying to do as hard as they can. As one example among many; were you aware that a demonstration happened on Dec. 10th in Baghdad opposing terrorism and supporting (in large measure) the coalitions efforts to bring peace to Iraq? There were approximately 10,000 people there? Did you see ANY coverage? Of course not, but a group of 200 or so fanatics marching against the Infidels (americans) gets front page coverage. Nice balance.

A B52 doesn't get sold to Al Quieda members to go into the heart of YOUR home town and detonate a bomb that could kill THOUSANDS of Americans. Sheesh.

Regarding Political orientation, sorry about the slight to clear thinking liberals out there, but it tends to be the thinking process of liberals that 1) It's the USA's fault that we are under attack from terrorists and 2) If we were just nicer, like France, all the bad things in the world would just go away. That does not work, that's what led up to the 911 tragedy, the reverse of that is what has PREVENTED another attack on US soil since then.

And we can and do have WMD's because we aren't a country led by a Sociopath that did kill hundred's of thousands of his own people. Many with those same agents we don't want him to have.

(BTW if you try and bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki I'll laugh, you can't paint that in the same light at all. It was a different time and on a objective balance sheet definitely saved many thousands of American lives and likely also led to less Japanese deaths as well.)

Originally posted by gregoftheweb


A B52 doesn't get sold to Al Quieda members to go into the heart of YOUR home town and detonate a bomb that could kill THOUSANDS of Americans. Sheesh.

Saddam, being a secular leader was a major target of Al-Qaeda. The only way that Al-Qaeda would get weapons from Iraq would be if, for example, the regime was destryoed and there was mass looting.

Originally posted by Kunax
gregoftheweb perhaps you can answer this, why can some nation have WMD's and futher develop there WMD's (all kinds, also those claimed as for defence¿) while other many not?

We, and other countries, have been proven to be trusted with these weapons. We've never really even used them (Except WWII when they were first came around).

Plus we don't hide ours, and we're all about arms reduction. We even let other nations know how many we have, where they're at, and what their yield power is. Internal organizations regulate our arms and keep track of them.

Originally posted by gregoftheweb
With regards to what kinds, it doesn't really matter
Yes it does. You might be able to hide small amounts of deliverable biological or chemical agents, assuming they were new, but you could not hide radiological agents because they're so easily detectable remotely.
Further, the kind of agent determines the kind of storage/support/delivery infrastructure required - and if you don't know what you're looking for, how do you find it?

To say Iraq is a greater threat now is so far from the truth
Actually it's not. You killed 10,000 innocent civilians during the invasion. Do you think their families will have any sympathy for US forces? Do you not think that you've given them a motive to see harm come to US forces and citizens?

As one example among many; were you aware that a demonstration happened on Dec. 10th in Baghdad opposing terrorism and supporting (in large measure) the coalitions efforts to bring peace to Iraq?
Yes, it received widespread coverage here on both mainstream news and Sky news (the european version of Fox).

There were approximately 10,000 people there?
Sorry, I don't buy that. I saw the video footage and if there were a thousand people, I'd be surprised. I'm afraid this was another statue-toppling piece of news (i.e. a small crowd photographed to appear to be a very large crowd.)

A B52 doesn't get sold to Al Quieda members to go into the heart of YOUR home town and detonate a bomb that could kill THOUSANDS of Americans. Sheesh.
No, it gets used to bomb Iraqi towns and kill thousands of Iraqis, thus giving the survivors a motive to cause harm to any US target they have the ability to reach.


Regarding Political orientation, sorry about the slight to clear thinking liberals out there, but it tends to be the thinking process of liberals that 1) It's the USA's fault that we are under attack from terrorists
Your fault? Well, I hate to tell you, but it is. Certainly the majority of these people aren't rational - but they do have genuine motivation based on US foreign policy.

and 2) If we were just nicer, like France, all the bad things in the world would just go away.
That's not the idea. The idea is that if you behave ethically to begin with, you don't cause more terrorists to join the cause. Fighting terrorism by killing innocent civilians (and that is what you have done, regardless of what intentions you may have had - there are 13,500 dead innocent civilians acknowleged between Iraq and Afghanistan) does not work - it promotes terrorism instead. That is the point that liberal thinking is trying to get you to understand. Existing terrorism isn't stopped by "playing nice" when you're dealing with suicide bombers - but on the other hand, it's the one and only method that's been proven to work to end long-term terrorism as seen in Palestine or Northern Ireland.


And we can and do have WMD's because we aren't a country led by a Sociopath that did kill hundred's of thousands of his own people. Many with those same agents we don't want him to have.
I wouldn't go around saying that. Bush's total isn't in the hundreds of thousands yet, but he's personally ordered the deaths of over a hundred individuals, and collectively he's responsible for the deaths of 13500 innocent civilians. So he's not up there with Hussein - yet.


(BTW if you try and bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki I'll laugh, you can't paint that in the same light at all. It was a different time and on a objective balance sheet definitely saved many thousands of American lives and likely also led to less Japanese deaths as well.)
Bullshit. You might be able to argue that for Hiroshima - but Nagasaki was simply a test for a second type of bomb, and a display to the Russians that they'd better toe whatever line the US dictated. The cold war, let's not forget, started long before the 1950s.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
We, and other countries, have been proven to be trusted with these weapons. We've never really even used them (Except WWII when they were first came around).
So random nuclear testing far too close to civilian areas, including on the then-inhabited Bikini atolls, wasn't "really" using them?
:rolleyes:

Plus we don't hide ours, and we're all about arms reduction.
That's sarcasm over Bush's recent announcement of the restarting of the tactical nuclear weapons research program, right?

We even let other nations know how many we have, where they're at, and what their yield power is. Internal organizations regulate our arms and keep track of them.
Okay, that's just bullshit. You might say how many you have - but so did Saddam. Without independent verification, those numbers are as accurate as a Tom Clancy novel, and worth about as much.
When random inspections with no interference is permitted for UN weapons inspectors, I'll believe it.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Actually it's not. You killed 10,000 innocent civilians during the invasion. Do you think their families will have any sympathy for US forces? Do you not think that you've given them a motive to see harm come to US forces and citizens?

Do you think American families have sympathy for anyone in the Middle East? Especially the ones victimized by Sept. 11? Or the soldiers that get shot dead even after combat operations have ended?

Sorry, I don't buy that. I saw the video footage and if there were a thousand people, I'd be surprised. I'm afraid this was another statue-toppling piece of news (i.e. a small crowd photographed to appear to be a very large crowd.)

Bull crap, Sparks. You don't know that for sure.

No, it gets used to bomb Iraqi towns and kill thousands of Iraqis, thus giving the survivors a motive to cause harm to any US target they have the ability to reach.

Air operations have ended.

Your fault? Well, I hate to tell you, but it is. Certainly the majority of these people aren't rational - but they do have genuine motivation based on US foreign policy.

Agreed. Except the "our fault" part.

That's not the idea. The idea is that if you behave ethically to begin with, you don't cause more terrorists to join the cause. (Reduece quote length)

You don't know that for sure either, Sparks. Has this war made more terrorists? I could say no as easily as you say yes. So really neither of us know the long term outcome.

So he's not up there with Hussein - yet.

Yeah, he's only up there with any other world leader/past president thats been in power and has gone to war.

Note: There are a few things that I did not comment on, like the cold war and the bombing of Japanese cities.

So you totally discount Wahabi'ism?

It's disregard for the value of human life? It's wish to return to a dream time of Muslim perfection? It's blatant luddite stance?

The long range goal of the invasion of Iraq is now to create a democratic society that will be an example for the rest of the region how GOOD a liberal democratic society can be. This will undermine the islamic fundamentalists and allow the entire region to move out of its political rut.

Do you doubt that intention?

Do you doubt the Bush administrations will?

What are you going to say in a year when things are looking very good over there? I believe they will be, I believe it is INEVITABLE.

America has done it before. It will do it this time as well.

And regarding the Nagasaki bomb, you believe whatever leftist agenda you want to. The fact remains that Japan only surrendered AFTER the bomb on Nagasaki. You can try and twist history to suit your wishes but your way is not the way it happened.

I guess you could say the cold war started either with Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech or with the USSR detonating its own Nuclear bomb. But to imply it started with the second atom bomb is ludicrous.

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Do you think American families have sympathy for anyone in the Middle East? Especially the ones victimized by Sept. 11? Or the soldiers that get shot dead even after combat operations have ended?
It's not about sympathy you fool. It's about ethical behavioural ideals and pragmatic survival in a world where 19 men with boxcutters can kill 2700 people and traumatise a nation into giving up their hard-earned civil rights.
The simple fact is that in this world, one man can do so much damage that the best defence is not to screw him over in the first place.

Bull crap, Sparks. You don't know that for sure.
I saw the footage. The crowd wasn't dense enough to have that many people in it. And yes, I've been in protests with that many people in it, from 100,000 people to 3,000 people. So I know what they look like from the ground - and this was not a protest of 10,000 people.

Air operations have ended.
No they haven't. And it wouldn't matter if they had - the fact is B52s were used and civilian targets were bombed, so the damage is already done.

Agreed. Except the "our fault" part.
And how do you decide that it's not your fault when the government you elected carried out the actions that motivate them?

You don't know that for sure either, Sparks. Has this war made more terrorists? I could say no as easily as you say yes. So really neither of us know the long term outcome.
Wrong. I've grown up with terrorism - I'm Irish. The "troubles" in Northern Ireland have grown beyond the initial civil rights problems there - they now are sustained on the basis that "your dad killed my dad". (And the basis that the biggest gang sells the most drugs - idealists these ain't). And most of the time, the people they're talking about were shot by the RUC or SAS. And other unethical practises like internment without trial, Guantanamo-bay style, led to the motivation of these terrorists. And that's a direct quote from the leader of the Sinn Fein / IRA group himself.

Yeah, he's only up there with any other world leader/past president thats been in power and has gone to war.
Yup. Ever wonder what it takes to order a war on false pretences?

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
So random nuclear testing far too close to civilian areas, including on the then-inhabited Bikini atolls, wasn't "really" using them?
:rolleyes:

Did we drop them directly on the island? Yes and no, the islands of the Bikini Atoll were used primarily as recreation and instrumentation sites during those experiments. A few were bombed but they were evacuated to other islands within the Atoll. Now about that no, some targets were actually 90 ships, if I recall some of them were captured German ships, and most of them old American war ships. As I recall those same ships were so lightly sprayed with radilogical material, that they were actually manned and driven back to Pearl Harbor.

That's sarcasm over Bush's recent announcement of the restarting of the tactical nuclear weapons research program, right?

Bingo was his name-o
.
Okay, that's just bullshit. You might say how many you have - but so did Saddam. Without independent verification, those numbers are as accurate as a Tom Clancy novel, and worth about as much.

That was my point.

When random inspections with no interference is permitted for UN weapons inspectors, I'll believe it.

Are you talking about Iraq or America? What about the EPA?

Originally posted by gregoftheweb
So you totally discount Wahabi'ism?
It's disregard for the value of human life? It's wish to return to a dream time of Muslim perfection?
In comparison to the effect of killing a child's parents for no reason, or a person's family? Yes. Without hesitation. To do otherwise would be to blame a stomach upset for a person's death instead of the heart attack they were having.

It's blatant luddite stance?
I wouldn't say that after yesterday's Kitty Hawk speech pal. Not when you have three man-rated Saturn V boosters sitting in front of NASA buildings as fucking lawn ornaments, with the dies, tools, jigs and blueprints and notes on their construction destroyed by government order.

The long range goal of the invasion of Iraq is now to create a democratic society that will be an example for the rest of the region how GOOD a liberal democratic society can be. This will undermine the islamic fundamentalists and allow the entire region to move out of its political rut.
How you can say that when the PNAC's plan for "A new american century" is available on the web is beyond me...

Do you doubt that intention?
<cross-checks the list of companies earning billions through the war in Iraq with the list of companies that were major donators to the Bush administration's campaign or who acutally pay salaries to Bush administration officals>
Yes, I most certainly do - and you're an idiot if you don't.

Do you doubt the Bush administrations will?
What will? What difficult task have they faced up to so far? Toppling a 3rd world nation that's been torn apart by war with Russia and then civil war for over 30 years? Toppling a 3rd world nation whose military was destroyed ten years ago and which was prevented from rearming while their arsenal was systematically destroyed by the UN? Destroying your civil rights?

I've yet to see them address a real problem in a constructive manner. And frankly, I've seen no evidence of any will whatsoever from them, except in pursuing illegal ends for monetary gain.

What are you going to say in a year when things are looking very good over there? I believe they will be, I believe it is INEVITABLE.
See, I remember the promises made when Afghanistan was invaded. It's now two years on and it's in worse shape than ever. So I don't think it's going to get better in Iraq, for at least five to ten years.

America has done it before. It will do it this time as well.
When, exactly?

And regarding the Nagasaki bomb, you believe whatever leftist agenda you want to. The fact remains that Japan only surrendered AFTER the bomb on Nagasaki. You can try and twist history to suit your wishes but your way is not the way it happened.
Actually, history records that the Japanese ambassador to Moscow presented a request for a conditional surrender before hiroshima. The condition was that the emperor was to be left in position. The deal was nixed, an unconditional surrender demanded after nagasaki, and the emperor left in place anyway. That's recorded history. And yes, the peace deal was known about by Truman - it's noted in his personal diaries from that time.

I guess you could say the cold war started either with Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech or with the USSR detonating its own Nuclear bomb. But to imply it started with the second atom bomb is ludicrous.
It certainly is - it began before Hiroshima, let alone Nagasaki. Patton is famous for having pointed out in Berlin that he ought to keep marching east because he'd have to fight the Russians soon anyway and he might as well get it over with. The cold war was well underway at that point..

This liberal thinks a dictator should have no weapons. They should be defenseless to minimize loss of life during their capture.

How physically big are weapons of mass destruction?

Size doesn't matter.

And if yes, seeing as the US Army discovered a complete Mig-29 burried in the sand in the end of November don't you think it is likely that they are still there?

How does useless Mig-29=WMD? As I recall the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Is the FACT that Saddam Hussein had a program for WMD ANY factor in your thought processes?

Facts certainly are relative these days aren't they? Have you got a source? I don't know why he'd want to have a program of his own, I mean, I think we gave him enough to tie him over for at least a little while.

In any case, doesthis (http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg) picture mean anything to you?

With regards to what kinds, it doesn't really matter, but I would probably list biological first although he was in pursuit of nuclear capabilities including purchasing long range missiles from North Korea up until the coalition's invasion scuttled said plans. North Korea in fact has some of Iraq's down payment money for the missiles (should they reimburse the new government)?

Why wasn't any of this mentioned in Bush's speeches? They could have replaced the lies about the uranium from Africa with some actual truth! That is, if it is actually truth. Got a source?

To say Iraq is a greater threat now is so far from the truth I wonder where you are getting your information, oh yeah the media.

The media only follows the money. The media could have kept the war from happening at all if it had really wanted to, if they had an hour of Chomsky on CNN or something.

It's the USA's fault that we are under attack from terrorists

We funded Saddam. We funded bin Laden. I'd say we had a hand in the terrorism, yeah.

If we were just nicer, like France, all the bad things in the world would just go away.

Call me crazy, but killing everyone doesn't seem to be working too well either. And of course it's the French at fault for practically everything:bugeye:

And we can and do have WMD's because we aren't a country led by a Sociopath that did kill hundred's of thousands of his own people.

With an uncertain population figure, the death toll could only be estimated. According to data submitted to the United Nations by Hiroshima City in 1976, the death count reached 140,000 (plus or minus 10,000) by the end of December, 1945.

The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki exploded at 11:02 A.M. on August 9. Using plutonium with an explosive power of 20 kilotons of TNT-equivalent, it left an estimated 70,000 dead by the end of 1945

Source (http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html)

Somehow people seem to convienently forget the deaths of over two hundred thousand people. Not to mention that the Japanese had been for months attempting to negotiate a conditional surrender, on the one term that the Japanese Emperor maintain a ceremonial position in the government. Plus, Saddam killed his own people with our bullets, with French, British, and Russian bullets. We gave a knife to a crazy man.

(BTW if you try and bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki I'll laugh, you can't paint that in the same light at all. It was a different time and on a objective balance sheet definitely saved many thousands of American lives and likely also led to less Japanese deaths as well.)

Bullshit. Prove it, asshole. The Japanese were ready to surrender long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Source (http://www.coursework.info/i/19340.html)

David Lawrence, the conservative editor of U.S. News & World Report, wrote within days of the Hiroshima bombing that Japanese surrender had appeared inevitable for weeks. The claim of "military necessity," he argued, rang hollow. Official justifications would "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."

Source (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3433)

...the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 had not really been necessary to make Japan surrender, and that then US President Harry Truman had lied in order to justify the dropping of the bombs.

Source (http://www.sumeria.net/politics/a-bombs.html)

Ultimate Source--Plenty of links to examine (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=japanese+surrender+before+atomic+bomb)

Enjoy.

Questions for Liberals on this board. I consider myself a liberal...
How physically big are weapons of mass destruction? Could be as small as a tiny vial 1 inch long.
Would you consider one barrel full of Anthrax a WMD? Yes.
And if yes, seeing as the US Army discovered a complete Mig-29 burried in the sand in the end of November don't you think it is likely that they are still there? What's a Mig-29? An Airplane?... and yes, I think WMD's are still buried in Iraq.
Is the FACT that Saddam Hussein had a program for WMD ANY factor in your thought processes?
Sure. The problem many liberals make is that because Bush is a moron, they think that any decision he makes must therefore be wrong. My objection isn't that he was wrong about WMD's, but that Bush has not adequately predicted what will happen AFTER the invasion, his misjudgement of the Iraqi people who don't share our idealistic love of freedom. We would say, give me liberty, or give me death. The Iraqis would say, give me liberty, as long as I don't lose my job, and the gas station is full, and the power works, and daily life isn't interrupted too much....

You can’t know what the Iraqis feel about freedom. They haven’t been polled yet. I don’t expect Bush to predict so well. I fault Bush and the military in general for killing people for low-value opportunities, like the 2 neighborhoods destroyed on the off-chance Saddam hadn’t yet got off the elevator in his bunker. And for attacking for pretense and theft rather than for the grander purpose of helping the oppressed.

http://www.healingiraq.com

This should be on everyone's daily reading list.

CounslerCoffee said:
Do you think American families have sympathy for anyone in the Middle East? Especially the ones victimized by Sept. 11? Or the soldiers that get shot dead even after combat operations have ended?

Do you think Middle Eastern families have sympathy for anyone in America? Especially the ones killed in the War on Terror? Or the children who are still being shot and crushed under collapsing buildings now that the War on Terror has been won?

Do you really think the dead Iraqi civilians had anything to do with 9/11?

Do you really think it's okay for 10,000 of them to die for doing nothing, but the whole world is supposed to weep and gnash its teeth when 3000 Americans die for doing nothing?

Do you really think that killing them is fixing anything?

I'm glad that you can write off an entire geographic region as being full of people who deserve to die... maybe that's how they think of the USA.

I heard enough of Bush saying "This was an attack on the American way of life." If I'm not mistaken, what I'm hearing here is that it's okay to make attacks on the Iraqi way of life because - what? Their leader abused them? Their lives sucked anyway so it's okay when you kill them? How exactly do you view other human beings?

Originally posted by Pollux V
Size doesn't matter.



How does useless Mig-29=WMD? As I recall the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The point being that it took them months to discover a JET FIGHTER in the desert (it's working condition is inconsequential). A Jet Fighter is the size of a BUS. This implies (clearly in my mind) that there could be ANYTHING hidden in Iraq.




Facts certainly are relative these days aren't they? Have you got a source? I don't know why he'd want to have a program of his own, I mean, I think we gave him enough to tie him over for at least a little while.

In any case, doesthis (http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg) picture mean anything to you?


Boy I haven't seen that picture yet, nice relevance from a 20 year old picture, nice originality. How does that have true bearing on the current situation. Everyone knows the US allied themselves with Iraq against Iran. Iran was basically the No. 2 enemy of the US at the time (behind the USSR).



Why wasn't any of this mentioned in Bush's speeches? They could have replaced the lies about the uranium from Africa with some actual truth! That is, if it is actually truth. Got a source?



The media only follows the money. The media could have kept the war from happening at all if it had really wanted to, if they had an hour of Chomsky on CNN or something.


Chomsky? Give me a break.


We funded Saddam. We funded bin Laden. I'd say we had a hand in the terrorism, yeah.


We funded them for completely different purposes.



Call me crazy, but killing everyone doesn't seem to be working too well either. And of course it's the French at fault for practically everything:bugeye:



Appeasment has never worked.





Source (http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html)

Somehow people seem to convienently forget the deaths of over two hundred thousand people. Not to mention that the Japanese had been for months attempting to negotiate a conditional surrender, on the one term that the Japanese Emperor maintain a ceremonial position in the government. Plus, Saddam killed his own people with our bullets, with French, British, and Russian bullets. We gave a knife to a crazy man.


Nobody forgets the deaths.

Look this was WWII. 30 MILLION people died. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, invaded China the Phillipines and the whole of South East Asia. To imply the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was for any other purpose than to END THE WAR is absolutely ridiculous.


Bullshit. Prove it, asshole. The Japanese were ready to surrender long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Nice expletive, why am I an asshole?

No they weren't. They were preparing for a defense of the homeland, preparing and training their civillians to die in waves.

from your own google search (http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/curr_content/history20/unit3/sec2/sec2_10.html)

A Jet Fighter is the size of a BUS. This implies (clearly in my mind) that there could be ANYTHING hidden in Iraq.

The Mig doesn't mean a damn thing. Of course there could be anything hidden there. They could have hidden a sperm whale's skeleton in Iraq's deserts and we wouldn't know about it. But, you know, it's also possible that they didn't.

How does that have true bearing on the current situation.

You answer your own question...

Everyone knows the US allied themselves with Iraq against Iran.

What, and you think that alliance was only for show? That we didn't support Saddam Hussein with money, bullets, and nerve gas? Nerve gas he would use against the Iranians, nerve gas strangely enough they would use back against the Iraqis (where did THAT come from?) and later on, nerve gas he would use to take care of the kurds.

Chomsky? Give me a break.

From The Chomsky Reader--

"On the rare occasions in which I have an opportunity to discuss these issues, whether in print or in person with people in the media or the academic professions, I often find not so much disagreement as an inability to hear."

What have you read/seen/heard of Chomsky? I mean, directly from Chomsky, and not from one of his critics?

We funded them for completely different purposes.

But we still funded them. At least you acknowledge that. Al Qaeda used money from the American taxpayer to destroy the World Trade Center and a part of the Pentagon. It doesn't matter what we gave them the money for, we knew they were nuts, how could we not have?

Appeasment has never worked.

Explain to me how "not killing" equals "appeasement."

Nobody forgets the deaths

Except for you, apparently.

30 MILLION people died.

Most historians agree that the death toll [in World War Two] was about 50 million

Source (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm)

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, invaded China the Phillipines and the whole of South East Asia.

Don't tell me the Japanese weren't coaxed by the U.S to invade the U.S in the months prior to our involvement in World War Two.

To imply the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was for any other purpose than to END THE WAR is absolutely ridiculous.

The enormous amount of evidence seems to speak otherwise. As I said and proved, the Japanese were read to surrender.

From your website--

The United States understood that Japanese government was preparing to sacrifice the whole nation to stop their invasion

If this is true, why didn't the Japanese continue to fight on after the Atomic bombs were dropped? They still surrendered and still lost their honor, they only lost a few hundred thousand people, hell, most of THEM died in the days and weeks after the bombs were dropped. It's poppycock. I've heard about these preparations before, from that vein of truth known as the Discovery Channel. It's completely untrue. Hirohito was not the only person in his government that wanted to surrender, he was the emperor and he was in charge. Why ask the U.S for a surrender while at the same time prepare your civilian population for a hopeless resistance? He knew he had lost the war, no honor could be gained in sacrificing the people of his nation, brainwashed as they were.

Hey, greg, I'm waiting. It'd be more honorable for you to just say that you forfeit instead of avoiding further involvement in the debate.

This thread is full of lols.

I find it equally disgusting and hilarious that some still argue to this day that the ~3 million human lives taken in a military invasion of Japan would be more palatable than the 250,000 (including subsequent years) deaths caused by the terminating nuclear strikes.

It's especially amusing when juxtaposed with the lack of outrage over the incindiary bombing of Tokyo, which inflicted casualties equal to Hiroshima. Only Tokyo wasn't even a legitimate military target.

And they have the audacity to call themselves humanitarians.

The so-called lovers of humanity always seem to have completely missed that section of the library/bookstore where they sell the history books. To suggest that the Japanese were ready to surrender is assinine and shows a complete lack of research. Tell me this: If they were so ready to surrender why were they committing suicide rather than be captured by American Marines?

Just because some delusional jerk says it on a website don't make it fact.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
The so-called lovers of humanity always seem to have completely missed that section of the library/bookstore where they sell the history books. To suggest that the Japanese were ready to surrender is assinine and shows a complete lack of research. Tell me this: If they were so ready to surrender why were they committing suicide rather than be captured by American Marines?

Just because some delusional jerk says it on a website don't make it fact. Yeah. But it's an easy process, so it's obvious why so many people buy into that school of thinking: Take a historical event out of context by ascribing modern knowledge to it. Cast aspersions on the decisions of leadership at the time, willfully ignoring that they did not know what we have learned since, as well as the aspects of the period that made their decision justified. When confronted by established historical recounts, decry them as propaganda and lies, while providing no proof that your own assertions are indeed true. Avoid such trivial nonsense as "history", "logic", and "rationality" Continue raging against the machine.

This is so off thread, but goddammit Stokes & 15: Just because brainwashed Japanese soldiers were sacrificing themselves on easily bypassed (or nuked- more "ethicly" than cities) islands, does not have anything to do with the fact that Japan was entirely on her knees at that point, empire gone, non-functional as a developed nation, and no longer a serious threat to anyone anymore. I am speaking of 1944-45. Surrender was assured with nothing more vindictive than a blockade. An ultimatum to Hirohito, clarifying the reality that he would certainly and soon surrender either to Macarthur or Stalin would have been quite sufficient: The Emporer was not a stupid man.

If you're going to accuse others of revisionism, you had better do some more study.

Originally posted by spidergoat
I consider myself a liberal...

The problem many liberals make is that because Bush is a moron, they think that any decision he makes must therefore be wrong.

Exactly.

In many ways, the traditional political definitions have not only become blurred in recent days, but simply are not applicable to the events that are unfolding in the Middle East.

I think many people maintain a tidy political viewpoint because it provides a comfy framework from which they are better able to deal with the unpredictability of human behavior, and the terrifying consequences.

I consider myself a liberal on some issues, a moderate on others; even conservative in some cases. The point being that I view any political "platform" as being far too confining. Of course this tends to infuriate idealogues who insist that everyone toe their party's line. The reasons for such blind adherence are usually psychological rather than rational, IMO.

Anyway, spidergoat echoed my thoughts with his reference to Bush moronism. As with many American presidents, simply becuase the man has moronic tendencies (Bush) or he is a philanderer and a liar at times (Clinton), this does not mean that he cannot make good decisions, and it does not mean that every action he takes is flawed.

We also need to realize that it is not only the President who makes decisions regarding foreign policy (or even his Cabinet). It is is the combined efforts of hundreds (thousands) of statesmen and military leaders. So when I read commentary about the "Bush" agenda in the Middle East, it really says something about an oversimplified view of the world.

How DO we deal with the nasty reality - a terrorist ready and eager to die as he deploys a WMD in a modern city, for example? Especially when we consider that the terrorist may have no homeland, and may have no concrete political aim. Especially when we consider that the motivations of the terrorist are often supernatural (irrational)...

Many people, especially the typical American suburban mushbrain, deal with it by forcing all events to fit within their traditional political frameworks. That way it is much easier to identify the monsters and the heroes.

Maybe to keep the lights on and the engines of commerce running smoothly, we NEED these simplified world views. I'm not sure... what do you think?

Originally posted by gregoftheweb

A B52 doesn't get sold to Al Quieda members to go into the heart of YOUR home town and detonate a bomb that could kill THOUSANDS of Americans. Sheesh.


it is only a WMD if it can be sold to Al Quieda members?

Sorry, I didn't know we are using this kind of this flexible definition of WMD.

WMD:

Must meet 2 of the following 3 Criteria:

1) not "made in America"

2) potentially damages economical interest of certain large
American companies

3) used for a bad cause by the evil villain with the black hat


SURGICAL STRIKE:

1) "made in America"

2) liberates the people by killing the local closed sheeptrading economy by means of creating instant landing zones to fly in coca-cola and hamburgers and bring free market and prosperity (for all?)

3) used for a just cause by the God appointed good guy with the white hat.

SHOCK & AWE:

Watching the guy with the white hat on television trying to sell his use of WMD as a surgical strike...

I find it equally disgusting and hilarious that some still argue to this day that the ~3 million human lives taken in a military invasion of Japan would be more palatable than the 250,000 (including subsequent years) deaths caused by the terminating nuclear strikes.

Did you read my post at all? Would you like me to post even more evidence? I had three separate sources saying the same thing, and over ten pages of google results. It's really no skin off my back to post more here. As opposed to your argument, which so far has only one bit of proof from a "history for dummies" website.

It's especially amusing when juxtaposed with the lack of outrage over the incindiary bombing of Tokyo, which inflicted casualties equal to Hiroshima. Only Tokyo wasn't even a legitimate military target.

If the tables were turned somehow and the Japanese were winning they'd be doing the same thing to San Fransisco.

And they have the audacity to call themselves humanitarians.

Are you referring to me? I'm the one who wants to bring back real Gladiators!

suggest that the Japanese were ready to surrender is assinine and shows a complete lack of research.

Okay, so I guess my first post, and the evidence thereof, is completely invalid then?

Take a historical event out of context by ascribing modern knowledge to it.

I can remember that at least one of my sources was written days after the bombings took place. Please check my post.

When confronted by established historical recounts, decry them as propaganda and lies, while providing no proof that your own assertions are indeed true.

The amount of hypocrisy in this quote is easily larger and more visible than your penis when you say this. There is no evidence from you. You have provided only hubris.

I think many people maintain a tidy political viewpoint because it provides a comfy framework from which they are better able to deal with the unpredictability of human behavior, and the terrifying consequences.

Yes, yes! I love it!

Maybe to keep the lights on and the engines of commerce running smoothly, we NEED these simplified world views. I'm not sure... what do you think?

The meat of the populace has only had a real say in world affairs for a few hundred years at best, and more often than not it seems as if there is a certain stubborness that this meat tends to follow. I saw a special on TV, "Children in War" or something, which compared and contrasted kids my age and younger killing each other around the world, from Israel to Rwanda to the Philipines to the Balkans. The common pattern among them was the complete dehumanization of their enemies, primarily from filial inspirations--they killed my father, how could they do such a thing? They Jewish kids in Israel seemed completely oblivious to the idea that their Palestinian cousins were even remotely human, and the same vice-versa. From what I've seen through the eye of the television, and unfortunately not my own eyes, it truly is a cycle of killing that I think neither side really wants to continue. But both sides are so stubborn and so stalwart for victory that they're desperate to keep on fighting for something that cannot be won.

Sec. of War Henry Stimson wondered "whether anyone in the administration ever acted without 'having a word with McCloy'."

McCloy said that "everyone was so intent on winning the war by military means that the introduction of political considerations was almost accidental."

To the end of his life, McCloy felt "we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs." The use of nuclear weapons on Japan "was not given the thoroughness of consideration and the depth of thought that the president of the United States was entitled to have before a decision of this importance was taken."

Source (http://www.doug-long.com/mccloy.htm)

Some suggest that Truman, fearing a Soviet attempt to dominate the postwar Asian order as it had the Eastern European, ordered the bombing to force Japan's surrender before Russia had the chance to enter the fray (and thus earn the right to affect the peace settlement). Truman may also have wanted to intimidate his potential rival Stalin with the United States' new destructive capability.

Source (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html)

Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. A New York Times military analyst wrote, shortly after the war:

“The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26.”

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Source (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/HiroshimaNagasaki.html)

Gotta love it. Just capitulate damnit!

To the best of my knowledge the Japanese had a peace treaty in Moscow much before the atomic bomb blasts. But it was ignored, because the US wanted nothing less but a un-conditional surrender. If the US just went to Moscow to at least discuss the terms, countless American, and Japanese lives would have been saved. Also I never bought the premise of actually invading Japan, if the US really wanted to get rid of the Japanese, and not waste up to 300,000 American lives, they could have done what the British did in WWI, blockade vital Japanese ports. Remember Japan had nothing of her own, she depended on her colonies. Then the allies should have bombed the remaining industrial complex's and military bases. They would be severly damaged, and literally beyond repair. Then diplomatic overtures could have been started with the emperor. If that was done in 1945 it would have ended the war with less bloodsheed, obviously the Japanese weren't so "fatalistic" as they protrayed themselves to be at the end.

Originally posted by BigBlueHead
CounslerCoffee said:


Do you think Middle Eastern families have sympathy for anyone in America? Especially the ones killed in the War on Terror? Or the children who are still being shot and crushed under collapsing buildings now that the War on Terror has been won?

You missed my entire point. If you had read the quote above the text that I had written, then you would have seen this.

The Counsler said:
You missed my entire point. If you had read the quote above the text that I had written, then you would have seen this.

I did not miss your point at all. If the US really went to "the Middle East" (which I assume means Iraq, unless you blame everyone in that part of the world) for revenge over 9/11 then your president has been seriously misrepresenting your reasons for being there.

First, you are supporting the pretty tenuous line of logic that lets the US invade Iraq on the basis that they might become hostile.

Second, you "excused" the killing of these people on the basis that you don't give a shit about them, and that they should die so that you can feel better. The US is still all whiny about 9/11, as if this kind of thing only ever happens to them. I am impressed that you can imply so easily that Americans are the only people who deserve to be happy, but don't expect me to believe that you're better than anyone else.

Nope, you still missed it. Try again... No, that's just cruel. Here, let me explain:

The Americans that were victimized by Sept. 11th, will not hold any sympathy for Iraq or anyone in the Middle East (Some will though). The Iraqi's victimized by the war will not hold any sympathy for Americans (But some of them will). So really, my point is, that they're both similar.

Somebody is going to come out of this war hating somebody and vice versa. The only thing that heals old wounds is time.

Apologies! I misunderstood - but it still doesn't explain why Americans blame "the Middle East" for 9/11.

No, it doesn't make much sense, does it? But some still will; that's my point. A Middle Eastern man killed someones dad or if a black guy killed some white guys dad, the result would be the same. That person might hate Black/Middle Eastern people. Am I being clear enough on this?

With the increasing clarity of hindsight, most people are going to come to a common understanding of what has happened in this conflict, and 9-11 will not justify what is happening now at US initiative, and the turmoil likely to follow soon.

Looking back on the period from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Fall of Saigon, both sides of the conflict, who confronted each other Vietnam, and who battled politically in the US, can now agree on the highlights of what transpired. Apologists are few now for those who deceptively manipulated American fears at the time, and mislead the American people into precipitating a catastrophe that had a foremost pricetag of more than 3 million lives, but also severe damage to US prestige and credibility.

Those of you who would like to point to a rosier comparison, go ahead. Regardless, down the road, the truth is found.

Yes Counsler! That was clear enough.

Hype: When you're a big country that solves problems by Blitzkrieg, a conscience with a 30 year lag time may not be good enough.

Very true, BBH. Straighten up or get a thrashing, America.

Hey, guys involved in the Japan debate, there's no shame in admitting defeat.