Iraq and weapons inspectors

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

  1. candletrader - interesting, albeit illogical and selective, leap. You must have missed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, not merely civilian centers?

    Not to mention, one should not forget that Japan launched the war with a Sunday morning raid on Pearl Harbor that killed thousands of civilians... that they brutalized prisoners and civilian populations in the areas they brought their aggression to...that they were prepared to fight to the last man (and take as many "enemy" with them) meaning that a protracted conventional war would not only have cost a lot of Allied lives but also millions of Japanese (including even more Japanese civilians) lives.

    Would fire bombing Tokyo (like Dresden) and flattening most of the country have been a better solution?

    Not that wiping out Capitol Hill would be a bad thing - but perhaps when you do it, you could use focused neutron shells so you could surgically remove as many of the politicians as possible without costly rebuilding :)
    #51     Nov 13, 2002
  2. Josh_B


    Speaking of Japan and atom bomb usage...

    ...Historian and former Naval officer Martin Sherwin has summarized the situation, stating, "The choice in the summer of 1945 was not between a conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare." (Sherwin, pg. xxiv)....

    ...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). ...

    Interesting read on what has happened back then


    Documents Relating to American Foreign Policy

    #52     Nov 13, 2002
  3. Josh_B


    Bard Memorandum, June 27, 1945 - Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard wrote that use of the bomb without warning was contrary to "the position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation," especially since Japan seemed close to surrender.

    Truman Diary, July 25, 1945 - President Truman told his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

    Official Bombing Order, July 25, 1945 - The bombing order issued to General Spaatz made no mention of targetting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities themselves were the targets.

    Source: U.S. National Archives,


    E.O. 11652, Secs 3(E) and 5(D) or (E)
    NND 730039
    By ERC NARS, Date 6-4-74....

    I just hope we learn from past experienses, and cool heads prevail.

    #53     Nov 13, 2002
  4. bronks


    Seeing situations in black and white forces you to action in a way that staring at grey cannot. While one is preoccupied on ways to shade their color of grey to a tint less intrusive (so as not offend), then reversing to something a little more bold (you know, more of a statement)... all the while some jackass is planting a "I'm with stupid" bumpersticker on your forehead. But you're (not you personally) to busy thinking that he's too much of a psycho so I better not say anything -OR- How innovative, he's just expressing his opinion!

    So you can think of a million grey ways to justify something and spend a good ping-pong match arguing the pro's and con's.

    If someone is plastering bumperstickers on the heads of people, the moment he's within reach, he should get popped. It should be so profound, and with so much force, he would not even think about doing it again. Neither would anybody else who witnessed the event.

    Simple... Isn't it?
    #54     Nov 14, 2002
  5. LOL... so why not take out the military installations with conventional bombs, rather than nuke entire cities? ... Osama could nuke the Pentagon and use precisely the same argument that you just used to justify America's nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!!

    Back to the present... Osama and US policy are two sides of the same dirty coin..

    A victim of US foreign policy with an iota of morality should make a clear distinction between legitimate and illegitimate targets..

    Morally legitimate targets: US policy makers in White House, Pentagon, CIA, worldwide and domestic US military installations and personnel...

    Morally illegitimate targets: mass gatherings of civilian populations in offices, shops, on aeroplanes etc...

    Although Osama did successfully liquidate personnel in the Pentagon, it wasn't morally legitimate, since he used a plane full of civilians to accomplish his mission... moreoever, he lost all credibility when his Al-Quaeda murdered those thousands of innocent civilians in the World Trade Center...

    ... on this basis, Osama and the US policy makers are simply two sides of the same dirty coin, since both sides partake in the murder of civilians... Osama and the US policy makers deserve to sit at the same table in the abyss of hell... the are made for eachother and should deservedly rot in hell together...

    May peace and commonsense prevail...
    #55     Nov 14, 2002
  6. LOL - right on schedule, planting the seed propaganda for the later disregard of any possible adverse inspection results. Thank God for those trusty, anonymous 'U.S. officials'.

    What a complete farce. This would be comical if it weren't war on the line.

    U.S. fears inspection whitewash, could press for Blix replacement

    Thursday, November 14, 2002

    As the United Nations prepares to send weapons inspectors to Iraq next week, U.S. officials are expressing concerns that the regime of President Saddam Hussein will be given a clean bill of health.

    Officials said a 24-member delegation will arrive on Monday in Baghdad. The delegation will be headed by UN weapons inspections chief Hans Blix and Atomic Energy Agency secretary-general Mohamed El Baradei.

    The first inspections could resume by the end of the month. Intrusive inspections are not expected to begin until next year and El Baradei said the effort could take up to a year. The first UN report on Iraqi weapons is scheduled to be submitted by the end of February.

    U.S. officials said they have serious doubts about the validity of the inspections process. They said the focus of their worry is Blix, who is regarded as vulnerable to Iraqi manipulation and might determine that Baghdad has cooperated with inspectors.
    The Bush administration could press for the replacement of Blix, an official said. The official said this would depend on the result of Blix's behavior during his trip to Baghdad next week.

    "This is not a matter of having to go play cat and mouse games with Iraq," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. "Iraq is required to demonstrate active cooperation and we should be able to see if they are truly that, we should be able to see that kind of pattern develop."
    #56     Nov 14, 2002
  7. Josh_B


    ..."This is not a matter of having to go play cat and mouse games with Iraq," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. "Iraq is required to demonstrate active cooperation and we should be able to see if they are truly that, we should be able to see that kind of pattern develop"...

    could easily read, Iraq is to just let us in to drill at will. Preferably after some excuse so we can drop few bombs, test some new weapons, save some face, and justify some more appropriation bills for the special interest groups.

    In the mean time we focus the people's attention on how bad saddam (substitute your favorite dictator here) who can destroy the US. (Our military is greater than the next 20 nations put together on conventional arms and nobody can touch us in technology).And while the public is scared and misdirected we can chip away at basic freedoms in the homeland. So next time the loot and control and power is even easier to get.

    also look at Madison's thread on big brother and

    not to mention the Patriot act..

    We need inspectors here not there.

    I'm sure that our leaders will find some way to attack. Spin doctors must be working overtime these days.

    I just hope cool heads prevail.

    #57     Nov 14, 2002
  8. To convince the Japanese to surrender of course. The Japanese were given the opportunity to surrender prior to the first nuke drop but refused. They were again given the opportunity to surrender after Hiroshima but again refused in spite of the demonstration of the destructive force (demonstrating the military's determination to continue fighting). Only after the second target was hit did the Emperor finally decide to step in and push for surrender.

    He could??!!! What are you smoking?

    Note that understanding the rationale relative to WW2 doesn't mean I advocate attacks on Iraq.
    #58     Nov 14, 2002
  9. Because the US has placed military headquarters in close proximity to a heavily populated civilian area.
    #59     Nov 14, 2002
  10. ElCubano


    He has already done it and I dont think there is any military headquarters near ground zero......although it was not a nuke it did cost lots of inocent lives
    #60     Nov 14, 2002