Carter counts Israeli nukes

[GostHacked]

I don't decide who has nuclear weapons on this planet. But, I don't think certain nations led by religious theocracies with an eye on the afterlife are the best wards of these weapons, if you wish an honest answer. Do you?

That would about sum it up for me. Corrupt leading parties should not posess them as well. This is why Canada does not have nukes. We'd have blown ourselves up long before anyone else got a chance to. You know, beer, donuts, Tim Horton's coffee, maple syrop on snow n all. Quebec would have held the rest of the freakin country hostage. The Maritimes would have said, screw it. Formed their own nation. BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, NT would break off. Manitoba and Ontario would form. Who knows about Nunavut.

[DogOnPorch]

That would about sum it up for me. Corrupt leading parties should not posess them as well. This is why Canada does not have nukes. We'd have blown ourselves up long before anyone else got a chance to. You know, beer, donuts, Tim Horton's coffee, maple syrop on snow n all. Quebec would have held the rest of the freakin country hostage. The Maritimes would have said, screw it. Formed their own nation. BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, NT would break off. Manitoba and Ontario would form. Who knows about Nunavut.

Come again?

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

U.S. soldiers, with whom I now have more than a passing acquaintance, joke that they track my movements in order to know where they will be deployed next.

---Christiane Amanpour

[M.Dancer]

BC .. Dancer. Dogporch.

But if it is AOK for Israel to have nukes, then it is AOK for anyone else to have them. What? You don't like that you say? Wanna see my care face?? Wanna see their care faces?

No not at all. Regimes that are unstable should never be allowed to own nukes. Whether Israel actually has a weapon, or like Iraq towardss the end only let people think they have WMD is another question, but put it this way, it's far less worriesome for France to have nuclear weapons than Somalia, Less worrisome for the UK to have nuclear weapons than Serbia, less worrisome for Israel than Iran.

[Leafless]

No not at all. Regimes that are unstable should never be allowed to own nukes. Whether Israel actually has a weapon, or like Iraq towardss the end only let people think they have WMD is another question, but put it this way, it's far less worriesome for France to have nuclear weapons than Somalia, Less worrisome for the UK to have nuclear weapons than Serbia, less worrisome for Israel than Iran.

So according to you when it comes to Middle East Islamic countries vs. Jews and Israel, Israel is less nuke hostile than Middle East Islamic countries.

Answer one question.

Prove and on what basis that your nonsensical statement (it's far less worriesome for France to have nuclear weapons than Somalia, Less worrisome for the UK to have nuclear weapons than Serbia, less worrisome for Israel than Iran) is in fact correct.

So in your mind countries who already posses nukes are peace loving countries and would never use them in an aggressive manner against another country.

Why should any country keep nukes for defense, if in fact any country who already has them would never use them in an aggressive manner.

BTW-

Jews and Arabs are 'genetic brothers'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/742430.stm

Edited May 29, 2008 by Leafless

[DogOnPorch]

Prove and on what basis that your nonsensical statement (it's far less worriesome for France to have nuclear weapons than Somalia, Less worrisome for the UK to have nuclear weapons than Serbia, less worrisome for Israel than Iran) is in fact correct.

So in your mind countries who already posses nukes are peace loving countries and would never use them in an aggressive manner against another country.

Why should any country keep nukes for defense, if in fact any country who already has them would never use them in an aggressive manner.

I think what M.Dancer is saying is that these nations have proven themselves responsible with these weapons by not using them in monopoly situations. The others are a terrorist haven, the folks that brought us WW1 and religious loons with an eye on the afterlife. I agree with Mr Dancer.

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

An actor who is good at comedy can also be very good at drama, but not necessarily vice versa.

---Desi Arnaz

[Leafless]

I think what M.Dancer is saying is that these nations have proven themselves responsible with these weapons by not using them in monopoly situations. The others are a terrorist haven, the folks that brought us WW1 and religious loons with an eye on the afterlife. I agree with Mr Dancer.

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

An actor who is good at comedy can also be very good at drama, but not necessarily vice versa.

---Desi Arnaz

Your comparisons are silly.

In fact all the countries that currently have nukes are the 'HAVES' and NOT the 'HAVE NOTS'.

We will see who the terrorist really are when the 'HAVE' countries begin to suffer what the oppressed countries of the world have been suffering for years but cannot do sweet nothing about it.

[DogOnPorch]

Your comparisons are silly.

In fact all the countries that currently have nukes are the 'HAVES' and NOT the 'HAVE NOTS'.

We will see who the terrorist really are when the 'HAVE' countries begin to suffer what the oppressed countries of the world have been suffering for years but cannot do sweet nothing about it.

I see. So in otherwords,

(?) As well, these oppressed countries you refer to. Can you name a few? How did you and I oppress them? Why do some countries play the 'oppressed' card while others pull themselves up by the bootlaces? Canada for example. At first, we were just a bunch of 'smelly Europeans' with poor camping gear and a pack of 'savages' with a taste for imported goods; yet, look at us today!

I should point out that during the period betwen 1946 and 1952, the United States of America enjoyed a period of monopoly w/ nuclear weapons + delivery systems (the trusty

, the superb B-47 Stratojet and massive B-36 Peacemaker). They could have literally "nuked the Reds 'till they glowed". Didn't happen. This was during the McCarthy Era...so it wasn't like they were being soft on Communism. The Soviets got the bomb in 1949...but didn't manage to get a good strategic bomber until the appearance of the

and the Mya-4 Bison: 1952 and later. I'm not so sure we'd be having this conversation if it was the other way around and Stalin had the Bomb monopoly. What do you think, Leafless? Or anyone?

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

You have to have a certain persona to be a star, you know, and I don't have that. I'm a banana.

---Harvey Korman, February 15, 1927 – May 29, 2008

(the world is a little sadder)

Edited May 30, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Leafless]

I see. So in otherwords,

(?) As well, these oppressed countries you refer to. Can you name a few? How did you and I oppress them? Why do some countries play the 'oppressed' card while others pull themselves up by the bootlaces? Canada for example. At first, we were just a bunch of 'smelly Europeans' with poor camping gear and a pack of 'savages' with a taste for imported goods; yet, look at us today!

The only reason Canada succeeded and any other capitalistic country for that matter is because they allowed themselves to be exploited by being part of highly successful U.S. capitalism and their ideology. Canada would still be a small backward country if it was not for the U.S. intervention.

Canada is a small powerless country and basically has no say in oppressing any country, as Canada is simply part of U.S. capitalistism and their ideololgy.

The U.S. chooses who it wants to be part of the favoured nations for basic self gain and ignores the rest.

I should point out that during the period betwen 1946 and 1952, the United States of America enjoyed a period of monopoly w/ nuclear weapons + delivery systems (the trusty

, the superb B-47 Stratojet and massive B-36 Peacemaker). They could have literally "nuked the Reds 'till they glowed". Didn't happen. This was during the McCarthy Era...so it wasn't like they were being soft on Communism. The Soviets got the bomb in 1949...but didn't manage to get a good strategic bomber until the appearance of the

and the Mya-4 Bison: 1952 and later. I'm not so sure we'd be having this conversation if it was the other way around and Stalin had the Bomb monopoly. What do you think, Leafless? Or anyone?

You know very well the U.S. cannot do what it wants with nukes or it will suffer a serious world backlash like it did and still does to-day, from the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

Russia was never really a threat as most of their nuclear technology comes from stolen U.S. military documents and mostly they are another copy and clone country using inferior parts and materials.

U.S. is still first in the world when it comes to nuclear technology for aggression or defense.

But most of us are aware that an all out nuclear war would probably mean an end to civilization.

[DogOnPorch]

The only reason Canada succeeded and any other capitalistic country for that matter is because they allowed themselves to be exploited by being part of highly successful U.S. capitalism and their ideology. Canada would still be a small backward country if it was not for the U.S. intervention.

So a successful Canada is the creation of the Americans?

Canada is a small powerless country and basically has no say in oppressing any country, as Canada is simply part of U.S. capitalistism and their ideololgy.

At the end of WW2, Canada was the fourth largest military in the world just finishing-up "oppressing" Nazi Germany and their chums. Best review your history.

The U.S. chooses who it wants to be part of the favoured nations for basic self gain and ignores the rest.

Should it 'play fair' and give 'favoured' nation status to every country on Earth including the ones chanting 'Death to America'?

You know very well the U.S. cannot do what it wants with nukes or it will suffer a serious world backlash like it did and still does to-day, from the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

Yeah...the Japanese backlash over WW2 has been just horrible. You are aware they started the War in the Pacific...aren't you?

Russia was never really a threat as most of their nuclear technology comes from stolen U.S. military documents and mostly they are another copy and clone country using inferior parts and materials.

The vast nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union was never a threat? OK...I'll send you a money order and you can send me whatever it is you're smoking. Must be darn good stuff.

U.S. is still first in the world when it comes to nuclear technology for aggression or defense.

Can you give us a recent example?

But most of us are aware that an all out nuclear war would probably mean an end to civilization.

How can that be when the Soviets weren't a threat? Should have been as easy as saying 'hands-up'. Buncha pussies, afterall.

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

Do I know what a rhetorical question is??

---Homer Simpson

[GostHacked]

(Leafless @ May 30 2008, 05:51 AM)

U.S. is still first in the world when it comes to nuclear technology for aggression or defense.

DogonPorch replied..

Can you give us a recent example?

DUI shells used in A-10 Warthogs.

Bunker busters.

Tacital nukes (small ones not ICBMs)

Why would you need a recent example? The old examples are no longer valid?? The US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. And there are many different types of nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy This was the atomic/nuclear bomb that was dropped on Japan.

[M.Dancer]

DUI shells used in A-10 Warthogs.

It's a bit of a stretch to call a depleted uranium warhead, nuclear technology....I mean...it only has one technically moving part....

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a bit of a stretch to call a depleted uranium warhead, nuclear technology....I mean...it only has one technically moving part....

Agreed....DU munitions are kinetic energy weapons....and very effective!

It is also used for ballast in sailboats.

[HisSelf]

So the US gave Israel its nuclear weapons? Care to back that up with a source? What kind? When were they given...etc? Were they sold to Israel? Free gift? What?

It was the French who gave Israel nuclear technology back at the time of the Suez crisis. The Israelis have been building on it ever since.

[DogOnPorch]

DUI shells used in A-10 Warthogs.

Bunker busters.

Tacital nukes (small ones not ICBMs)

The first two aren't nuclear weapons and the last example is laughable as the US has never used one of its 'tactical nukes' in a war or to even threaten anyone. You could always provide an example, though...hah.

Why would you need a recent example? The old examples are no longer valid?? The US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. And there are many different types of nuclear weapons.

The 'old example' took place during WW2. The planet was a much different place. I'd like a more recent example...hah. Re: US having the largest nuclear stockpile. So what? I think even you might be able to guess as to how and why it got so large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy This was the atomic/nuclear bomb that was dropped on Japan.

Congrats on passing Nuclear Weapons Identification 101.

So the US was practicing terrorism when it dropped two atomic bombs on Japan? Were the Japanese practicing terrorism when they attacked Pearl Harbor?

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

Two things are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the Universe.

---Albert Einstein

[DogOnPorch]

It was the French who gave Israel nuclear technology back at the time of the Suez crisis. The Israelis have been building on it ever since.

See below...

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

Do I know what a rhetorical question is??

---Homer Simpson

[HisSelf]

See below...

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

Do I know what a rhetorical question is??

---Homer Simpson

There is a saying in the legal profession. Never ask a witness a question unless you can be sure of what they'll answer. Questions, rhetorical or not, provide an excellent opportunity to deflect a debate and make a point. Thanks for the opportunity, Homer.

Edited May 30, 2008 by HisSelf

[DogOnPorch]

There is a saying in the legal profession. Never ask a witness a question unless you can be sure of what they'll answer. Questions, rhetorical or not, provide an excellent opportunity to deflect a debate and make a point. Thanks for the opportunity, Homer.

When dealing with revisionist stupidity, one has to be rhetorical...Ned.

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

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

---Homer Simpson

[Leafless]

So the US was practicing terrorism when it dropped two atomic bombs on Japan? Were the Japanese practicing terrorism when they attacked Pearl Harbor?

The Japanese were being DISIPLINED by SIR U.S.A, for invading China, in the form of an U.S. embargo tha cut off that cut off 90% of Japan's resources which crippled both their economy and their military. This is why they attacked Pearl Harbour in an effort to keep the U.S. from sticking their nose in their buisness.

Anyways only convential weapons were used in this attack and cannot be considered a terrorist attack.

The only reason the U.S. nuked Japan is because after Pearl Harbour the allies were losing the Pacific war.

Yes sir, the U.S. really showed Japan who was boss.

This was a deplorable act:

Barbarism and Terrorism of the US in Atom Bombing Civilian Population

By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, Chairperson, ICC, ILPS

06 Aug 2005

In Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Atom Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The International League of Peoples' Struggle (ILPS) joins the Japanese people and all other peace-loving peoples in commemorating the 60th anniversary of the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We condemn these barbaric and terrorist acts of mass murder against civilian populations and the continuing policy of the US to use nuclear weapons as well as nuclear blackmail in carrying out imperialist plunder, wars of aggression and military intervention against the world's peoples.

On August 6, 1945, a single bomb dropped from an American plane exploded 600 meters above Hiroshima, creating a huge fireball that incinerated the city and massacring more than a hundred thousand innocent civilians.

Another bomb was detonated over Nagasaki three days later causing similar devastation and massacring tens of thousands of civilians. The immediate death toll in the two atom bombings came to nearly two hundred thousand. Tens of thousands more died later, after suffering excruciating pain due to the effects of radiation.

Without doubt, these atom bombings are among the most dastardly war crimes and crimes against humanity ever committed in history. These atrocities are all the more condemnable as they were absolutely unnecessary in terms of winning the war. The war in Europe had ended and Japan was already defeated and was negotiating surrender. The US and its apologists have given such cynical rationalizations as that the atom bombings were meant to preempt the Soviet invasion of Japan and to save American and Japanese lives.

Clearly, by these bombings the US meant to demonstrate its absolute military superiority over all other countries-allies and enemies alike--in the whole world -- and to establish itself as the preeminent and unrivalled postwar superpower. The bombings were also a "live experiment" to measure the actual devastating power of the atomic bomb, with the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki chosen as guinea pigs. They were special targets because supposedly they had been unscathed by previous allied bombings.

The US meant to intimidate and blackmail the whole world into submission to its wishes. But by producing its own atomic bombs, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) frustrated the US design and ended US monopoly of these weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear stalemate ensued and deterred the US from further using its atom bombs. Later, Britain, France and China were able to produce their own atomic weapons.

The US has produced some 70,000 nuclear warheads since 1945. It engaged the USSR in a strategic arms race even as it waged in nonnuclear wars of aggression and military intervention worldwide to expand and consolidate global hegemony. However, under the intimidating shadow of the US nuclear umbrella, hundreds of millions of people came under the oppression and exploitation of the US and local reactionaries. Tens of millions were killed in US wars of aggression and intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and elsewhere. Millions of people were also massacred in Indonesia and other countries under puppet regimes of terror directed by the US.

The US forces invaded Iraq in 2003 under the pretext of destroying mythical weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by the Saddam regime. But it is the US, which has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear. The US has nuclear weapons with no less than 10,600 nuclear warheads intact, 8,000 of which are considered active or operational and 3,000 ready to deploy from its "Enduring Stockpile".

The US has also used 320 tons of depleted uranium artillery in the 1990 Gulf war. This has accounted for the eventual illness and death of tens of thousands of US troops after the war. Depleted uranium has also been used in the US wars of aggression against Yugoslavia. It is still being used in the renewed US aggression and occupation of Iraq despite the deadly effects and numerous health risks to soldiers and civilians.

US imperialism has long been the top World Merchant of Death. It amassed immense profits from selling armaments to both sides in the two world wars of the 20th century before joining the fray and collecting further spoils. Since 1990, the US has exported USD 152B worth of weapons in the form of sales and assistance. In 2001, it exported war material to no less than 170 nations and has earned USD 13.1B in that year alone, under the aegis of the "war on terror".

The ILPS joins the world's peoples in resolutely and militantly condemning and opposing the US imperialists' continuing use of nuclear blackmail as the US escalates its wars of aggression and military intervention. Despite widespread global opposition and in contravention of international norms, treaties and laws, the US is going ahead with plans to build an anti-ballistic missile defense system and produce tactical nuclear weapons. The US Senate last July allocated USD 100M for research and production of a tactical nuclear weapon, the first of its kind, for use against underground bunkers. Plans for this "bunker buster" will be pursued despite thorough studies showing the immense danger and harm to the civilian population as a result of the radioactive fallout.

The US has no qualms in building the capacity to inflict barbarities more horrible and catastrophic than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even now it is feverishly pushing on with plans to secure military control over outer space and develop space-based and space-launched weapons systems. These include projects such as "Global Strike" with a space vehicle that could strike in 45 minutes from halfway around the world, carrying precision-guided weapons with the capability to destroy command centers or missile bases "anywhere in the world", and "Rods From God" which aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon.

Furthermore, the US has unilaterally rejected the Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention treaty and its protocols in 2001 on the grounds that inspections of facilities would jeopardize US national security. Since then, it has engaged in developing small weapons delivery devices for biological and chemical weapons as well as biodefense research activities. The Pentagon now considers bioweapons work acceptable as long as "non-lethal" is appended to its activities.

The US, which is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in war, has not minced any words about conducting preemptive strikes at "dedicated proliferators" that supposedly threaten US interests. The US threatens Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) with aggression, unless they give up any plan or project to produce their own nuclear weapons in self-defense. Since the end of the US war of aggression in Korea, the DPRK has continuously faced US economic blockade, military encirclement and nuclear threats. The US has shown that it is more aggressive and reckless towards countries that have no nuclear weapons while it is more cautious and more diffident toward those that have such weapons.

In at least two regions in the world today, the US and its allies are conspicuously using nuclear blackmail in order to get the political and economic results that they want. In the Middle East, the US and its European and Zionist allies are constantly threatening the Arab and other peoples with the ultimate use of nuclear weapons. ]. In East Asia, the US and Japan refer to the US nuclear umbrella under the US-Japan security treaty and the security guidelines as the ultimate weapon against those opposed to US imperialist hegemony and against the demands of China and DPRK for the return of Taiwan to its motherland and for the reunification of Korea.

But far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction are the people rising up against imperialism and its puppets. The ILPS calls on all the world's people to intensify their struggle against US imperialism and its barbaric and terrorist policy of producing, maintaining, using and threatening to use nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and to expose and oppose the "war on terror" as nothing but a pretext for expanding and consolidating US hegemony.

http://www.aprnet.org/index.php?a=show&t=issues&i=35

[DogOnPorch]

The Japanese were being DISIPLINED by SIR U.S.A, for invading China, in the form of an U.S. embargo tha cut off that cut off 90% of Japan's resources which crippled both their economy and their military. This is why they attacked Pearl Harbour in an effort to keep the U.S. from sticking their nose in their buisness.

Anyways only convential weapons were used in this attack and cannot be considered a terrorist attack.

The only reason the U.S. nuked Japan is because after Pearl Harbour the allies were losing the Pacific war.

Yes sir, the U.S. really showed Japan who was boss.

This was a deplorable act:

http://www.aprnet.org/index.php?a=show&t=issues&i=35

Ah...revisionism......

It's called "Pearl Harbor" No 'u' in the US version. That event was in Dec, 1941. The Bombs were used in Aug, 1945. The Allies weren't losing the war. Hadn't been losing since Midway and Guadalcanal in 1942. However, the Japanese were not going to surrender. Their plan was to make attacking so expensive that the US would seek a truce. Google Iwo Jima and Okinawa if you'd like an example of this cost.

The oil and rubber embargo was in response to Japan joining the Axis and invading French Indochina. It is also thought that Roosevelt was worried about the Soviet Union falling by Christmas 1941. He was also worried that the Japanese would use this as an opportunity to invade the failing Soviet Union via Manchuria. The war in China had been going on for years already without an American, British/Australian or Dutch response. Even the Flying Tigers AVG didn't actually fight until after Dec 1941...you'd better Google them, too.

The reasons the US used the A-Bombs are as follows...

1] To avoid Operation Olympic and beyond...the physical invasion of the Japanese Home Islands.

2] To justify the massive expense to the taxpayers. "You had the Bomb and you didn't use it???" Think about it...your son died in the invasion of Japan...and the Government had a weapon that could have prevented his death.

3] To impress upon Stalin that the happy fun times of being a brutal dictator are over.

4] To end WW2 immediately before Stalin ate up northern China and took anymore Japanese islands.

5] To field test the two very different weapons on two undamaged targets with different terrain.

The first A-Bomb didn't do the trick. The Japanese debated that it was probably the only A-Bomb and they should still hold out for a favorable truce...wrong move.

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

I am an airman, a pilot. In 1945, I was wearing the uniform of the U.S. military, following the orders of our commander-in-chief.

---Paul Tibbets

Edited May 30, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Barbarism and Terrorism of the US in Atom Bombing Civilian Population

By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, Chairperson, ICC, ILPS

06 Aug 2005

In Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Atom Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Long-winded article follows...

Jose Sison. The same Che Guevara, Chairman Mao lovin' Communist who supports real terrorism in the Philippines and is on the terror watch lists of the United States and the European Union?

Like him, do you?

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

The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.

--- Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

[Leafless]

Ah...revisionism......

It's called "Pearl Harbor" No 'u' in the US version. That event was in Dec, 1941. The Bombs were used in Aug, 1945. The Allies weren't losing the war. Hadn't been losing since Midway and Guadalcanal in 1942. However, the Japanese were not going to surrender. Their plan was to make attacking so expensive that the US would seek a truce. Google Iwo Jima and Okinawa if you'd like an example of this cost.

If you say so.

So COST equates to losing the war.

There is nothing illegal making it difficult for your opponent to win, is there.

No matter how you look at it the Allies were losing the war or they would not have nuked a civilian population.

Let's hear more on RESPONSIBILITY and the responsible countries that harbour nuclear arms.

Are they all like the U.S.?

[Leafless]

Jose Sison. The same Che Guevara, Chairman Mao lovin' Communist who supports real terrorism in the Philippines and is on the terror watch lists of the United States and the European Union?

Like him, do you?

Real terrorism cannot be defined as all countries are not like the U.S., where 300-million people are living in the 'Garden of Eden' in their own little fantasy land driven by elitism.

Who's business is it to decide what other form of political ideologies other countries utilize?

I am not a supporter of communist ideologies but I can agree with certain items in his publication "Barbarism and Terrorism of the U.S. in Atom Bombing of a Civilian Population".

But someone who is so much against communism, I never hear you being critical of Canada's totalitarian government that so badly lacks democratic policies.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Leafless

[DogOnPorch]

If you say so.

So COST equates to losing the war.

There is nothing illegal making it difficult for your opponent to win, is there.

No matter how you look at it the Allies were losing the war or they would not have nuked a civilian population.

Let's hear more on RESPONSIBILITY and the responsible countries that harbour nuclear arms.

Are they all like the U.S.?

Cost = the cost in human lives and wounded.

The Allies were not losing the war. Seriously...Wiki has a good section on WW2...you might think about reviewing the whole thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

After your review, you can let us all in on how YOU would have ended WW2. Surrender to the Japanese isn't advisable as their treatment of POWs is infamously poor.

WW2 was a Total War which means civilian populations were fair game. Ask Hong Kong...Rotterdam...Shanghai...Coventry...London...Berlin...Port Moresby...Leningrad...Smolensk...Kiev...Singapore...Warsaw...Manilla...Batavia..

Darwin...Tokyo...Pearl City...Nanking...Hamburg...Dresden...Bristol...etc, etc, etc.

As for countries that harbour (see...the British version) nuclear arms...what would you like to know other than that they haven't used their 'nukes'? Perhaps you should ask that question of

...and also didn't use them on anyone. But, it is known that MAD worked...and continues to work...because of folks like BC2004 doing his duty for the Free World.

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

It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.

---Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Edited June 4, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Real terrorism cannot be defined as all countries are not like the U.S., where 300-million people are living in the 'Garden of Eden' in their own little fantasy land driven by elitism.

Who's business is it to decide what other form of political ideologies other countries utilize?

I am not a supporter of communist ideologies but I can agree with certain items in his publication "Barbarism and Terrorism of the U.S. in Atom Bombing of a Civilian Population".

But someone who is so much against communism, I never hear you being critical of Canada's totalitarian government that so badly lacks democratic policies.

Pt. 1: Never been to the US, I gather?

Pt. 2: If they are aimed at us...it is our business...with good friend's help. Friends like America.

Pt. 3: That article was a distorted anti-American bash made by a known terror suspect. You posted it.

Pt. 4: Did I say I'm against Communism? Your attempts to place me on the right of the political spectrum will ultimately fail.

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

For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him.

---Karl Marx

Edited May 31, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Oh...and don't forget: How would you have ended WW2?

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

Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?