Iraq and weapons inspectors

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Nov 12, 2002.

  1. apex -

    Which euro-pacificits were you thinking of dying in WW2 before the US joined the battle?

    The Brits? Yep, bunch of them unfortunately died before the US was able to jump in to help. Although, let's not forget that Chamberland's "let Hitler take Austria and Poland and he'll leave the rest of us alone" policy played a big role there.

    The French? They just laid down their weapons and rolled over - they'd be eating bratwurst flavored croissants right now if others hadn't come to bail their butts out but they've been obstructionists ever since.

    The Italian? They joined forces with Germany.


    As far as nuking Japan - you're absolutely right. After Japan refused to terminate hostilities, the least damaging yet effective demonstrations were done and potentially millions of lives were saved in the process. They could have nuked the Emperor's palaces in Kyoto and Tokyo instead - but that would certainly have been overkill.

    Note however that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not merely civilian targets as suggested - Hiroshima for instance was a major military production center and headquarters for the Japanese Marine (Akatsuki) Corps and other military infrastructure.

    In addition, Japan clearly understood the danger to civilians of placing these military complexes where they did. For example, in March 1945, Hiroshima City implemented evacuation procedures for much of the civilian population (especially children) in case the military complexes were attacked. Even so, the bombing of Hiroshima caused approximately 140K injuries/fatalities and about 74K at Nagasaki.

    Whether you think it a justification or not - clearly many times fewer lives lost than would have been lost on both sides had the war proceeded to what would most likely have had to be near destruction of most of Japan before they would have surrendered otherwise.

    By the way - the WW2 nukes had only comparatively small nuclear blasts, not thermonuclear - which is the term used for fusion-based nukes (i.e., Hydrogen bombs).

    If the bombs had been thermos, everything would have been completely vaporized - which in hindsight might have been better, since there wouldn't have been any survivors slowly suffering from radiation poisoning.
    #41     Nov 13, 2002
  2. Ever see what the Germans and the Japanese did to their POW's and how they treated Jews and others in their concentration camps?

    If you have a cancer, you cut it out....otherwise it spreads.

    That the Japanese people had to suffer because of the aggression of their leadership is tragic, but the history of mankind is full of such tragedies.

    There is this fallacy that you can reason with people like Hitler, Tojo, Hussein, Khadafi, etc. Fact is that these people are unreasonable to begin with, so a calm discourse in which you can get them to see the light just doesn't work.

    Lord knows, just look at yourself. People on this Forum have been trying to help you and talk some sense into you, but you are too damn stubborn and full of yourself to listen. You think egomaniac dictators would be more receptive to reason than you?

    Sometimes you have to take some pain to save lives, it is just one of those realities of life you conveniently avoid.

    The use of the bombs in Japan saved more lives than they took. The display of force by the US kept Russia from further aggression in Europe. It was the right action to take, and many years of peace in Japan, Germany, the United States and Western Europe are the proof.
    #42     Nov 13, 2002
  3. vvv



    but that only applies when you actually have a cancer.

    saddam is fully aware of the fact that full scale retaliation would immediately ensue should he engage in any acts of aggression against others, and a suicidal maniac he is not, just your typical nasty run-of-the mill dictator probably enjoying life in his palaces to the hilt, a dictator who, along with numerous of his colleagues, we have nevertheless strongly supported in the past. full scale retaliation being a given, and saddam not having any suicidal tendencies we are aware of, he in no way poses a realistic danger to his neighbors, and even less to the usa.

    what should be our top priority, apart from our pressing national problems, is international terrorism and it's causes, a task that has unfortunately been sacrificed at the altar of political fabrication, lies and dissembling.

    what is happening instead is a classic wag-the-dog scenario. repeat an alleged fact often enough, add in the weight of your office, and lo and behold, a new make believe reality is created that unfortunately carries no factual veracity in the real world.

    dubya is, or, was, until the intl community stepped in, earnestly contemplating a silly, pointless but highly expensive adventure that would have been highly detrimental and counterproductive to what should be the real priority, tackling terrorism and it's causes, while simultaneously carrying the potential of creating a multitude of new additional problems to the existing unsolved ones.

    all those costs with no benefits just to detract from national problems, attempt to gain new access to oil, and get some simple revenge for dubya's family.

    happily the international community wasn't falling for bush's instrumentalized propaganda and downright lies, so it currently looks like we may have averted an other totally pointless war like vietnam that sadly trashed an entire generation of americans to no effect and for no purpose.

    President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.,12271,807286,00.html


    brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
    Don't Attack Saddam
    It would undermine our antiterror efforts
    #43     Nov 13, 2002
  4. A unanimous decision by the UN? Why would they agree to the terms we proposed if they didn't think it was the right thing to do?
    #44     Nov 13, 2002
  5. they might if their perceived benefits exceed their perceived costs.

    in any case, I'd bet that what's "right," in the moral/ethical sense, had no part in the analysis.
    #45     Nov 13, 2002
  6. When does "right" in the moral/ethical sense ever enter into the mind of politicians and world leaders?
    #46     Nov 13, 2002
  7. exactly my point :D
    #47     Nov 13, 2002
  8. On this basis, nuking Washington is justified, since the elimination of its insane policymakers will save countless of lives worldwide... there is some credibility in such a policy, since it has utilitarianism built into it... yes, many innocent Americans will die but, fortunately, countless potenitial victims of US aggression will be spared... as a utilitarian committed to world peace and opposed to hegemonisitc terror, I would support such a policy, since humanity would be a net beneficiary...
    #48     Nov 13, 2002
  9. you have a very "black and whitish" simplistic view of things ... almost childlike.
    #49     Nov 13, 2002
  10. Glad you picked up on this... it is simply a mirror image of the justification previously given for nuking Japan.... it simpy provides fuel to the assertion that the civilised world must try everything conceivable to contain the terrorism of American foreign policy...
    #50     Nov 13, 2002