War on Iraq?

[Wobbo]

What? Are people actually taking this seriously?

1. War with Iraq is against the U.N. Charter - Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... ''

2. So what if its a tyrrany or a dicatorship? There are many countries just like it all over the planet, many SUPPORTED by the US (Saudi Arabia for example). Yes the Regime attempted Genocide, but the us was in FULL SUPPORT of it when it did. Turkey killed many Kurds as well using Us Weapons!

3. Yeah theyve invaded Kuwait, but the US has done the same in Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Panama.

4. Theyre probably creating weapons of mass destruction including nuclear bombs... so now HAVING weapons justifies war? If so Isreal India and Pakisatn deserve to have war launched on them as well

Its so funny how the american goverment is THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD TO ACTUALLY USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND HAS KILLED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH THEM, IN ADDITION TO HAVING THE LARGEST STORE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN THE WORLD *RIGHT NOW*- but yet they think they should be the ones to fight terrorism and inspect other countries stores.

Lots of this is summarised from the howard Zinn Article "the Case against War on Iraq"

[Ichor]

The difference is that Iraq is threatening us with those weapons, and has been for a long time.

By the way, what do you think would have happened in Japan had we not dropped those two bombs?

[gatewatcher]

Xian said:

Its so funny how the american goverment is THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD TO ACTUALLY USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND HAS KILLED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH THEM

Yes, crazy Japanese people with guns and other weapons hellbent on killing Americans, Brits, Ausies, etc, are innocent indeed.

Hey, you know what? I think sacrificing hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers to take Japan wasn't a bad idea at all. Yes, that option is by far the better of the two. I mean, why just kill the enemy when we can kill ourselves too?

[fodders]

The 40,000 children were a real threat to the USA.

[S|aVe.3rN.]

we droped the bomb on japan because truman would rather save thousands of american lives , yes , because his only other choice was to do a land invaision of japan wich was estimated to be 5x more death rate then the whole d-day operation itself, so we decided to take innocent lives, war is hell, people will die, but he thought for his side, what kept the men that he had under his command alive , he would take it,frankly i belive the invention of the damn bomb was the biggest mistake in the first place...

[fodders]

Ichor said:

The difference is that Iraq is threatening us with those weapons, and has been for a long time.

Iraq is threatening nobody, it's all about oil, you learned nothing?

[gatewatcher]

I agree that the 40,000 children was bad. But, our casualties would have been worse.

[S|aVe.3rN.]

fodders said:

it's all about oil, you learned nothing?

yup and americas simple salution *read this on a bumper sticker*

"nuke their ass n take the gas"

[fodders]

gatewatcher said:

I agree that the 40,000 children was bad. But, our casualties would have been worse.

You think the bombing was neccessary? Fool.
Regarding claims that the atomic bombings saved lives, Gar Alperovitz has noted, "It has been argued in this connection that using the atomic bomb was less costly in human life than the continuation of conventional bombing would have been. Apart from the fact that accounts which urge such a view commonly leave aside questions concerning [modifying the unconditional] surrender formula and the impact of the Russian attack, by early August 1945 very few significant Japanese civilian targets remained to be bombed. Moreover, on July 25 a new targeting directive had been issued which altered bombing priorities." "Attacks on urban centers became only the fourth priority, after railway targets, aircraft production, and ammunition depots." "...the new directive (as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey noted) 'was about to be implemented when the war ended.'". (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 342).

It didn't take long after the atomic bombings for questions to arise as to their necessity for ending the war and Japan's threat to peace. One of the earliest dissents came from a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war. Their report, The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, was issued in July 1946. It declared, "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 31 December 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." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56).


The messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".

July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".

July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).

July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).

July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53). In passing up this possible opportunity for an earlier and less deadly peace, Truman was not deliberately trying to prolong the war so the atomic bomb could be used on Japan to intimidate the Soviets. Briefly stated, it is likely that Truman believed the use of atomic bombs on Japan was necessary primarily for the reasons he always gave: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans" (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212).

[Wobbo]

Total stupidity. I shouldnt even BOTHER to answer this racist shit.

The atomic bombs were NOT DROPPED ON MILITARY BASES. THEY WERE NOT DIRECTED AT JAPANESE SOLDIERS. and the japanese WERE NOT SUBHUMAN SCUM BENT ON KILLING US ALL ANYMORE THAN WE WERE TO THEM. I dont care what the results might have been if we had not dropped the bombs, Mass murder cannot be justified.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the argument, the fact is america is the only country to ACTUALLY USE nuclear weapons (in what arguably are two of the worst terrorist attacks of all time)- JUSTIFIED OR NOT- thus has no moral authority to tell other countries shit

We are threating about 10 countries right now with the "war on Terror"... are they justified in launching war because we have weapons of mass destruction? Of course not

[Sharessa]

Xian is right. This whole war is crap, just another pointless massacre like Vietnam though this time we probably will (unfortunately) win. Yay. I hope this ends quickly and painlessly. That dumbfuck Bush will most likely weasel us into the damn war.

[Naked Snake]

War is good for the economy!

[dsm]

bigbadgangsta said:

War is good for the economy!

O_o
Are you crazy? A war is a damn costly affair - it costs human lives, fuel for vehicles (both ground, sea and flying vehicles), ammunition, weapons (and weapons are expensive as fuck).
Not to mention the aftermaths of a war.

[Naked Snake]

dsm said:

O_o
Are you crazy? A war is a damn costly affair - it costs human lives, fuel for vehicles (both ground, sea and flying vehicles), ammunition, weapons (and weapons are expensive as fuck).
Not to mention the aftermaths of a war.

Yes but people buy a lot of crap so the government and the nation itself gets a lot of cash.

[GooberMan]

dsm said:

Are you crazy?

Yep, it's all that, but the American economy has historically been better whilst the country has been involved in a large-scale war.

[Sharessa]

bigbadgangsta said:

Yes but people buy a lot of crap so the government and the nation itself gets a lot of cash.

Statistics show the economy actualy drops at the end of the war to lower than it was before the war. At least I think that was the deal...

[Captain Red]

the_Danarchist said:
Xian is right. This whole war is crap, just another pointless massacre like Vietnam though this time we probably will (unfortunately) win. Yay. I hope this ends quickly and painlessly. That dumbfuck Bush will most likely weasel us into the damn war.

We did not loose Vietnam! It was a tie! :P

[m0l0t0v]

gatewatcher:
I agree that the 40,000 children was bad. But, our casualties would have been worse.

"your casualties" would have been american soldiers; people that gave up their freedom to die and kill in the name of whatever they were told was right.
The people killed in the nuke-holocaust were 99.9% civilians; workers, women, children, elderly; the innocent. They were targetted because they were easy to hit not because they were a threat.

Hiroshima,
a city with a population of 343,969. The resulting casualties were 78,150 dead, 37,425 injured, and 13,983 missing.
Nagasaki,
with a population of 252,630, was bombed three days later. A commission on the bombing released a report showing 73,884 died as a result of that holocaust.
And lets not forget Tokyo,
Tokyo,
had been especially hit hard with one raid alone causing 100,000 casualties (BURNED to death), one million homeless and nearly 250,000 destroyed buildings. Civilian bombing raids became so frequent and effective, that Secretary of War Henry Stimson expressed two concerns to Truman: "First, because I did not want to have the U.S. get the reputation for outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready, the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atomic bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength." What compassion!

IMO soldiers may kill eachother, that`s what they`re for. It`s not pretty but they choose to do that. Killing the innocent is a totally different matter. They don`t get to choose.
Even if the alternative is to "allow" tens of thousands of soldiers to die, I still think it`s better than killing 1 child!

[S|aVe.3rN.]

war is hell , people will die , nothing you can do to change it so why continue to bitch about it ...

[Silverwyvern]

Im only alarmed that so many americans are proud of their bombs. They feel all mighty so that if anything doesnt go their way they can just nuke it and win that way.

Frankly I'm alittle frightened to be on the same continent as the US.
Sure the twin towers was a big loss and all, but now America is baring their teeth at everyone who shows a backbone.

I think Bush must feel like a real gallant knight too... the sole protector of america.

And if you're gonna drop bombs, don't MISS for gods sake.

[gatewatcher]

One thing that bothers me about this Iraq thing is Bush doesn't need to have Congress back him when he begins the attack. That's stupid. If congress says no, then it's no war. Bush shouldn't be allowed to just go start wars when the American people aren't ready to make a full commitment to it.

[SyntherAugustus]

THIS IS WHAT I SAID IN THE OTHER THREAD.
The war is pointless and i knew he was going to start one.

Fucking bush.

[gatewatcher]

Railgunner, you're a tool. I didn't even say that. Congress probaly WOULD approve a war on Iraq, and it would not be pointless imo. But, only when the time is right, not when Bush says so.

[GS-1719]

America has never needed any encouragement to go into war, and that has not changed. Wars are good economically, boost popularity, and increase American power and influence. Add to this the fact that junior can finish off his father's work, I think it is only a matter of time (for the propoganda machine to reach full capacity) before Bush and America goes on another rampage, with its stupid citizens supporting it all the way.

Ethics is not a word in America's dictionary.

[IMJack]

Allied commanders in the Pcific war had to choose between the atomic bomb (which they didn't know if it would work or not) or the invasion of Japan by ground troops. The information they had suggested that the Japanese would fight to every last man, woman, and child if invaded on their home ground. They predicted that an invasion would require the death of every human being that lived on or near Japan, plus an estimated one million Allied invaders.

So:
Actual human casulaties from bomb attacks on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo: 300 thousand
Estimated human casualties from proposed invasion: 73 million

As for the proposed attack on Iraq? Shrub is losing momentum from 9/11, and wants to get some of that public support secured before 2004 rolls around and people realize he's an idiot and throw him out of office.

[GS-1719]

IMJack said:

Estimated human casualties from proposed invasion: 73 million

Are you sure about that? Roughly half the population of Japan as it is today?

[IMJack]

GS-1719 said:

Are you sure about that? Roughly half the population of Japan as it is today?

Population of Japan. I used the numbers for 1945, because the wartime years have no numbers.

[fodders]

IMJack said:

Allied commanders in the Pcific war had to choose between the atomic bomb (which they didn't know if it would work or not) or the invasion of Japan by ground troops. The information they had suggested that the Japanese would fight to every last man, woman, and child if invaded on their home ground. They predicted that an invasion would require the death of every human being that lived on or near Japan, plus an estimated one million Allied invaders.

You are wrong, read my post earlier:
Apart from the fact that accounts which urge such a view commonly leave aside questions concerning [modifying the unconditional] surrender formula and the impact of the Russian attack, by early August 1945 very few significant Japanese civilian targets remained to be bombed. Moreover, on July 25 a new targeting directive had been issued which altered bombing priorities." "Attacks on urban centers became only the fourth priority, after railway targets, aircraft production, and ammunition depots." "...the new directive (as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey noted) 'was about to be implemented when the war ended.'".
Japan was sueing for peace, a fact Trueman knew of, proven by his personal papers
... noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53).

[m0l0t0v]

IMJack:
The information they had suggested that the Japanese would fight to every last man, woman, and child if invaded on their home ground. They predicted that an invasion would require the death of every human being that lived on or near Japan, plus an estimated one million Allied invaders.

Where the fuck did they get that information from and where the fuck did they get the morons from who believed it!? Sounds like propaganda-BS to me, even you can`t take this seriously! What better way to excuse a holocaust than claiming "they were going to die anyway!" or "Now they are just innocent children but they`ll grow up to be killers; lets kill them now when the can`t defend themselfs!"

[GS-1719]

IMJack said:

Population of Japan. I used the numbers for 1945, because the wartime years have no numbers.

What I meant was that there is not realistically going to be 73 million casualties is there?