Hillary "obliterating" Iran

[kuzadd]

name='August1991.

Mackenzie King deliberately waited one week after Chamberlain to declare war on Germany. King wanted to show that Canada had an "independent" foreign policy. Such was King, such are the Liberals, even today. All flash, no cash.

I agree with your all flash no cash comment, but I do not limit it to Liberals, but to Canada in general.

There is no independant policy, cause it was Britians' before and it is the USs' now.

Or follow the empire, to be flippant.

same old. same old

Good point Kuzadd; Truman approved two bombs.

The usual argument, noted above, is that the A-bomb on Hiroshima avoided the massacre of a land invasion. So, why a second bomb on Nagasaki? Some argue that it was a way to show that this was not a freak occurrence.

I concur with the show of strength, though IMO the show was aimed towards USSR.

[kuzadd]

'Regulus de Leo'

I guess you don't know your history. Canada had control of its own foreign policy in 1939 and Canada declared war on Germany before Great Britain did.

other posters here would dispute that.

But I suppose you think German racism, aggression, totalitariansim, treaty breaking and attempt to dominate Europe were nothing to be concerned about.

as opposed to western racism, totalitarianism, treaty-breaking and attempts to dominate the ME and Asia??

hilarious!

[kuzadd]

for dop:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/...gic/index.shtml

archived at this site, it's interactive or you can use the flash version.

Despite Israel's refusal to acknowledge its nuclear weapons status, its secret arsenal is an open secret that Israeli policy makers don't go out of their way to deny. From its beginnings in the mid-1960s, Israel's program has developed into one that rivals those of larger powers like France and Britain. Here, based on interviews with U.S. intelligence officials and nuclear experts, is a portrait of Israel's strategic weapons programs.

[White Doors]

A pink ass a ding dang doo. Says it all. It is awfully hard not to associate Hillary's foreign policy stance with her (New York based) election funding... Sort of like trying to figure out why a Texan loves SUVs.

Ahhh.. nicely veiled shot at the jews! nice!

[Wilber]

morality in war is utter nonsense.

I have to ask you why on earth do you seriously believe that?

seriously?

So it would have been "moral" to just let Hitler have his way? Do you seriously believe that? Seriously?

[DogOnPorch]

DogOnPorch, you don't get it.

Truman was showing the world: "We are serious. We can and will do this. Twice."

Every US president since Truman (excepting perhaps Carter) has benefited from this credible threat. Reagan most of all and for the benefit of most. JFK helped Reagan. JFK said:

America's best angels defend my freedom - and I'm not even American.

I don't get it?? You didn't read my post, then. There was more than Truman's will behind the A-Bomb. He may have said 'do it' but he had little to nothing to do with building the bombs and picking targets. Those blasts were field experiments just as much as they were weapons of war.

1] The Japanese didn't surrender after Little Boy. They kept on fighting...their home air defence made up of both Navy and Army air units in particular. Japanese ace Saburo Saki and his commrades kept fighting on for a few days after Fat Man, even. Only after two bombs and a promise to be allowed to keep the emperor did the Japanese agree to surrender. Lucky for both the US and Japan, as it was mentioned in several sources that the US planned to back-up Operation Olympic and Coronet with up to seven fission weapons. Combine this with orders for the Allied troops not to enter 'affected areas' for forty-eight hours...both sides would have been toasted. Forty-eight hours isn't anywhere near enough time for things to 'cool off'. They knew so very little about fallout and radiation at the time...

2] Two different kinds of bombs both which needed to be proven in combat...and indeed as you mention...not a freak occurance. One was an enriched uranium shot plug type while the other was a compressed plutonium type weapon. The plutonium weapon...Fat Man...was more complex by several degrees.

3] Different kinds of terrain involved. Both were picked for being more or less undamaged targets but having fairly different terrain...rough compared to smooth. What would the effects be? Would terrain block all the effects, etc?

4] The US wanted the war over NOW before the Soviets took over any more ground in China and Japan's northern islands. After the first bomb failed to bring capitulation...

-----------------------------------------

The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.

---President Harry S Truman

[DogOnPorch]

Despite Israel's refusal to acknowledge its nuclear weapons status, its secret arsenal is an open secret that Israeli policy makers don't go out of their way to deny. From its beginnings in the mid-1960s, Israel's program has developed into one that rivals those of larger powers like France and Britain. Here, based on interviews with U.S. intelligence officials and nuclear experts, is a portrait of Israel's strategic weapons programs.

That's all very well and I agree that the probability of Israel having 'something' is high. But, the fact remains that they've never been tested...something that doesn't work so well in the development of nuclear weapons. Even Pakistan and N Korea have conducted test blasts of their weapon systems. Nukes are very tricky things and everything has to work perfectly otherwise you get a big dirty fizz rather than a big powerful kaboom. Thermonuclear weapons are even more complex and require even more testing, which is why fewer nations possess them.

In that light, one has to give an outside chance to Israel's nuclear program just being a well engineered bluff. Unlikely...but a Vegas bookie could probably give you the odds.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The way to win an atomic war is to make certain it never starts.

---General Omar N. Bradley

[kuzadd]

So it would have been "moral" to just let Hitler have his way? Do you seriously believe that? Seriously?

Stop thinking of war in a moral light, it's irrational.

I'll note that you thought it was perfectly "moral" to obliterate the Japanese with nukes and it was perfectly moral to kill hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Germans in firebombings in their homes, was that "moral"???

well was it wilber, was it moral???

Do you seriously believe that?

Or was it targetting civilians as a demoralizing warfare tactic?

Or was Hitler killing communists, socialists, mentally handicapped , homosexuals and Jews , as a tactic of scapegoating others??? Having a bad boogey man to blame for the ills of the country? It helps to divide and distract the population, sound familiar at all??

It should. think about it????

Edited April 28, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

having "something" is a hell of a lot better then having nothing isn't it?

In otherwords, like so many posters here, the mere thought of something possibly happening is enough to keep them in a perpetual state of fear.

I don't think the issue of the weapons being tested is relevant, they gott'em and major major damage will ensue, it's enough.

[M.Dancer]

Stop thinking of war in a moral light, it's irrational.

I'll note that you thought it was perfectly "moral" to obliterate the Japanese with nukes and it was perfectly moral to kill hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Germans in firebombings in their homes, was that "moral"???

well was it wilber, was it moral???

Of course it was. It helped end the war which was the root cause of so many deaths.

If you need help with that simple concept, ask yourself, is it moral to allow your children to die?

[DogOnPorch]

I don't think the issue of the weapons being tested is relevant, they gott'em and major major damage will ensue, it's enough.

Proves you really know nothing on the subject. Read and understand the basics as to how atomic and hydrogen weapons work, then comment again. This isn't building a car bomb in uncle Fred's garage.

--------------------------------------------

...bed goes up...bed goes down...bed goes up...bed goes down...

---Homer Simpson

[DogOnPorch]

Wiki has a great section on the basics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

---------------------------------------

Garden shadows disappeared. The view where a moment before had been so bright and sunny was now dark and hazy. Through swirling dust I could barely discern a wooden column that had supported one comer of my house. It was leaning crazily and the roof sagged dangerously.

---Dr. Michihiko Hachiya

[BC_chick]

Ahhh.. nicely veiled shot at the jews! nice!

Politicians make statements to get the votes of all groups of people - blacks, middle-class, latino, you name it. Why is it that you feel they would never do so for the "Jewish" vote (if that is, indeed, what HisSelf was saying)? And if they do, why do you feel it's an attack on Jews to point this out?

Is it an attack on the middle-class to point out that Hillary is milking her middle-class credentials? Of course not. That's politics.

Edited April 28, 2008 by BC_chick

[Wilber]

Stop thinking of war in a moral light, it's irrational.

Who said war was rational. Answer the question, do you think it would have been moral to let Hitler have his way? It was he who made an unprovoked attack on Poland. It was he who invaded the neutral countries of Denmark, Norway, Holland and Belgium, not to mention the Balkans and Greece. It was he who displaced and outright murdered major segments of Europe's population.

I'll note that you thought it was perfectly "moral" to obliterate the Japanese with nukes and it was perfectly moral to kill hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Germans in firebombings in their homes, was that "moral"???

Destroying an enemies ability to wage war is a necessity and armies are not able to wage war without a civilian population behind them. One can question the necessity of some actions in hindsight but we have to understand that their countries were involved in a life and death struggle with the worst threat the world had seen in centuries and we have no business criticizing their morality from our comfortable position. If you think it was such a cowardly and immoral act, bear in mind that of all the young men who saw action in Bomber Command, 55% of them were killed.

Just for the record, they started it. Guernica, Warsaw, Antwerp, London, Coventry, Nanking, the list goes on. Have you ever thought for a second what might have happened if the Germans and Japanese had nukes, or even if the Russians had got them first?

This was a war that had lasted six years and killed an estimated 50 million. Another hundred thousand or so to bring it to a speedy end doesn't seem like such a bad deal in that light, especially when you consider that just as many or even more may have died anyway over the next year if they hadn't used them.

Or was it targetting civilians as a demoralizing warfare tactic?

Of course it was, refer to the above. If you prevent the civilians from building the engines of war or supplying the armies, there are no armies

Or was Hitler killing communists, socialists, mentally handicapped , homosexuals and Jews , as a tactic of scapegoating others??? Having a bad boogey man to blame for the ills of the country? It helps to divide and distract the population, sound familiar at all??

It should. think about it????

You lost me there. Are you saying that what he did was understandable or that what he did was our fault? Either way you seem to think nothing should have been done about it.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Wilber

[kuzadd]

dop: read the first two sentences again.

having "something" is a hell of a lot better then having nothing isn't it?

In otherwords, like so many posters here, the mere thought of something possibly happening is enough to keep them in a perpetual state of fear.

[BC_chick]

Stop thinking of war in a moral light, it's irrational.

I'll note that you thought it was perfectly "moral" to obliterate the Japanese with nukes and it was perfectly moral to kill hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Germans in firebombings in their homes, was that "moral"???

well was it wilber, was it moral???

Do you seriously believe that?

Or was it targetting civilians as a demoralizing warfare tactic?

Or was Hitler killing communists, socialists, mentally handicapped , homosexuals and Jews , as a tactic of scapegoating others??? Having a bad boogey man to blame for the ills of the country? It helps to divide and distract the population, sound familiar at all??

It should. think about it????

I agree with you kuzadd (as I do on most issues). Morality of wars only surface after the fact when history is written by the winner. Had Germany won the war, we'd be believing that Hitler saved the world and that the killing (he inflicted) was morally just.

It's a way to justify the means, be it Hitler or Churchill. You're absolutely correct on that one.

[White Doors]

Politicians make statements to get the votes of all groups of people - blacks, middle-class, latino, you name it. Why is it that you feel they would never do so for the "Jewish" vote (if that is, indeed, what HisSelf was saying)? And if they do, why do you feel it's an attack on Jews to point this out?

Is it an attack on the middle-class to point out that Hillary is milking her middle-class credentials? Of course not. That's politics.

Interesting, so if there were no Jews in America you think the policies towards Iran would be different?

Or do you think that teh Jewish owned media would keep it on the front burner anyways?

[White Doors]

I agree with you kuzadd (as I do on most issues). Morality of wars only surface after the fact when history is written by the winner. Had Germany won the war, we'd be believing that Hitler saved the world and that the killing (he inflicted) was morally just.

It's a way to justify the means, be it Hitler or Churchill. You're absolutely correct on that one.

So you believe Hitler and Churchill were moral equivelants?

Please elaborate, thanks!

[White Doors]

dop: read the first two sentences again.

having "something" is a hell of a lot better then having nothing isn't it?

In otherwords, like so many posters here, the mere thought of something possibly happening is enough to keep them in a perpetual state of fear.

You and BC chick are the only one's who sound 'afraid' on this thread.

Often you are afraid of things that only you two can see. Not unlike a child with a fear of monsters in the closet.

[Wilber]

I agree with you kuzadd (as I do on most issues). Morality of wars only surface after the fact when history is written by the winner. Had Germany won the war, we'd be believing that Hitler saved the world and that the killing (he inflicted) was morally just.

It's a way to justify the means, be it Hitler or Churchill. You're absolutely correct on that one.

Really. How many genocides did Churchill initiate? Another bloody Holocaust denier.

I'm not surprised you agree with him. Soul mates who find solace in their ignorance.

[kuzadd]

Who said war was rational. Answer the question, do you think it would have been moral to let Hitler have his way? .

You think war is moral and that is irrational, actually war is irrational and immoral.

You continue to equate war with morality, and if you deem it as acceptable morally, then apparently it is, according to you anyway.

But do you think the Japanese people think it was a moral decision, to kill so many civilians?

Imagine the Japanese after Hiroshima or Nagasaki or the firebombings, "well ya know , morally it was the right thing to do to end the war" Ya think they said that? Really?

How about the survivors of Dresden, do you think they thought the US had a moral right to obliterate them?

How about Iranians, do you think someone from another country has a moral right to obliterate numerous innocents?

How about the Iraqis?

How about all the Afghans?

Do you think they see the morality in all their deaths?

The necessity, the justification??

Yet you do, right?

wilber, I don't condone the killing of anyone. I am not saying what hitler did acceptable, but if it was wrong for him to kill, so many , how is it ok for others to do just that?

War is not about that kind of stuff, it is not about good and bad, that is for your benefit, to make you accept the killing of "others".

That is how Hitler did what he did , by portraying his victims as "others" and the good germans went along with it, cause it was not them. Just like now.

It is the same old, same old, all through history.

War as I said is about geopolitical strategy, resources, land, power.

But morality , good and bad??? nothing to do with it.

Edited April 28, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

I agree with you kuzadd (as I do on most issues). Morality of wars only surface after the fact when history is written by the winner. Had Germany won the war, we'd be believing that Hitler saved the world and that the killing (he inflicted) was morally just.

It's a way to justify the means, be it Hitler or Churchill. You're absolutely correct on that one.

Yes, because when the population has to face up to the fact that millions died in their names, then morality has to come into play. It has to be used, to justify, all the killing.

[Wilber]

You think war is moral and that is irrational, actually war is irrational and immoral.

You continue to equate war with morality, and if you deem it as acceptable morally, then apparently it is, according to you anyway.

But do you think the Japanese people think it was a moral decision, to kill so many civilians?

Imagine the Japanese after Hiroshima or Nagasaki or the firebombings, "well ya know , morally it was the right thing to do to end the war" Ya think they said that? Really?

How about the survivors of Dresden, do you think they thought the US had a moral right to obliterate them?

How about Iranians, do you think someone from another country has a moral right to obliterate numerous innocents?

How about the Iraqis?

How about all the Afghans?

Do you think they see the morality in all their deaths?

The necessity, the justification??

Yet you do, right?

wilber, I don't condone the killing of anyone. I am not saying what hitler did acceptable, but if it was wrong for him to kill, so many , how is it ok for others to do just that?

War is not about that kind of stuff, it is not about good and bad, that is for your benefit, to make you accept the killing of "others".

That is how Hitler did what he did , by portraying his victims as "others" and the good germans went along with it, cause it was not them. Just like now.

It is the same old, same old, all through history.

War as I said is about geopolitical strategy, resources, land, power.

But morality , good and bad??? nothing to do with it.

Simple question, bullshit answer. Hitler killing millions in Europe, Japan killing millions in Korea and China. Kuzadd says, carry on.

[kuzadd]

Really. How many genocides did Churchill initiate? Another bloody Holocaust denier.

I'm not surprised you agree with him. Soul mates who find solace in their ignorance.

oh look a name caller, what's the matter can't face your own hypocrisy?

Actually it is persons such as yourself, who find solace in ignorance ,false morality manipulations by the state and the powerbrokers of the world. Until then you will find yourself a dutiful little non-thinking follower.

The biggest holocaust deniers are persons like yourself, who condone war and killing of civilians by calling them moral necessities, or "collateral damage" what the hell does that mean? You ever ask yourself , what that really means?

Edited April 28, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

Simple question, bullshit answer. Hitler killing millions in Europe, Japan killing millions in Korea and China. Kuzadd says, carry on.

no actually you say carry on, to killing many everywhere and you call it moral.

Not me. I am strenuously pro-peace, pro-humanity and hate bullshit, you on the other hand postively bath in false moralities, as long as you deem it "moral".

Edited April 28, 2008 by kuzadd