User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Non Planetarion Discussions > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 15:52   #51
Sub
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
Sub is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
go ask the kurds
His point was the UK/US didn't care at the time. Now they do, which is quite odd.

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
he invaded kuwait, and had a 10 year war with iran, who are ready to attack and claim land themselves (part of the coalition forces job is to make sure iran doesnt invade if i remember rightly). as for turkey, yes the are
He meant the present. The past isn't really relavent.

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
if my enemy could fly a massive bomber halfway accross the world to drop bombs on my republican guard units i'd be overawed too..
I thought they were based in the Gulf?

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
he has used them, lots of times
When?

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
yes, and it'd also be the quickest way for saddam to kill another million of his people
He killed like 2000 Kurds. Hardly a million is it? Also, they can barely be classed as 'his own people'.
Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 15:55   #52
LHC
J to the C to the A G E
 
LHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scúnthorpe
Posts: 5,583
LHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet societyLHC is a pillar of this Internet society
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
His point was the UK/US didn't care at the time. Now they do, which is quite odd.

Don't blame the current leaders for that. He should have been sorted out then.
LHC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 15:58   #53
Sub
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
Sub is an unknown quantity at this point
I know he should have, but no one seemed to care when he was 'their dictator'.
Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 15:58   #54
Slidey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 205
Slidey is an unknown quantity at this point
ok lets go again

Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
His point was the UK/US didn't care at the time. Now they do, which is quite odd.
They always did, it's taken 12 years for the resolutions to go through

Quote:

He meant the present. The past isn't really relavent.
the past is always relevant. its how you got to the current situation

Quote:

I thought they were based in the Gulf?
not the b52's, they're based in the uk

Quote:

When?
over hte past 10 years. would you like me to do a search on google or are you capable?

Quote:

He killed like 2000 Kurds. Hardly a million is it? Also, they can barely be classed as 'his own people'.
erm. multiply that by a bit. then count hte amount of 'dissidents' he's killed. then add the amount of kuwaitis that 'disappeared' in the last war. then tell me if the kurds are in the country iraq. they might have their own rule now, they didnt then. and they were attacked with chemical agents if i remember rightly (chemical or biological)
__________________
#linux - home of idiots

#impulsed - home of genius..?
Slidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:06   #55
Sub
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
Sub is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
They always did, it's taken 12 years for the resolutions to go through

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
the past is always relevant. its how you got to the current situation
Then why aren't we calling the Americans war criminals and making them surrended the country to the native Americans? Because it isn't relevant now.

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
over hte past 10 years. would you like me to do a search on google or are you capable?
Yes I'd very much like you to find examples of Saddam using WMDs in the last 10 years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
erm. multiply that by a bit. then count hte amount of 'dissidents' he's killed. then add the amount of kuwaitis that 'disappeared' in the last war. then tell me if the kurds are in the country iraq. they might have their own rule now, they didnt then. and they were attacked with chemical agents if i remember rightly (chemical or biological)
No, it was 2000 or thereabouts. If you want to be that thorough, how many Iraqis have died so far from the war? How many died from the chemical weapons the Americans used on the Vietcong? Who sold most of chemical weapons to Saddam in the first place?

edit: ok it was 5000
Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:10   #56
Cynical Oracle
Poster Professionale
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The place where mods put bad people
Posts: 1,077
Cynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really nice
Quote:
Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
When has Saddam used WMD without the permission of the West?
You do realise that this question is an utter show of how ignorant you are?
__________________
ATTENTION!
This thread is hijacked by a wiseguy! Please evacuate promptly at your nearest exit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I wish we could trademark for a less shitty poster
hahahahahahaha, get it?
Cynical Oracle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:17   #57
Cynical Oracle
Poster Professionale
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The place where mods put bad people
Posts: 1,077
Cynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really nice
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
He killed like 2000 Kurds. Hardly a million is it? Also, they can barely be classed as 'his own people'.
No. He killed 5000 Kurds with Nerve toxin but he killed another 125000 in 'war on his people'. And they are indeed his people as they are living in Iraq, or are you saying the palestinians have no buisness hanging about in Israel?
__________________
ATTENTION!
This thread is hijacked by a wiseguy! Please evacuate promptly at your nearest exit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I wish we could trademark for a less shitty poster
hahahahahahaha, get it?
Cynical Oracle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:20   #58
Slidey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 205
Slidey is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
Then why aren't we calling the Americans war criminals and making them surrended the country to the native Americans? Because it isn't relevant now.
If you want to take someone on for something htat happened 200 years ago, i guess the spanish and hte brits are mostly to blame for 'discovering' the 'new world' and going after the indians.

Quote:

Yes I'd very much like you to find examples of Saddam using WMDs in the last 10 years.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...ct_2002.htm#05
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...ct_2002.htm#06

just over 10 years isnt a bad start for the lsat 2 mins

if you think the cia might be bias, try:

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88

Quote:

No, it was 2000 or thereabouts. If you want to be that thorough, how many Iraqis have died so far from the war? How many died from the chemical weapons the Americans used on the Vietcong? Who sold most of chemical weapons to Saddam in the first place?
i wasnt aware we were gonna go through each and every war in history and check the usage of wmd. we'd start with ww1 i guess, and (i think) mustard gas. then ww2, and we could talk about concentration camps and the atomic bomb. several thousand non-combatant iraqi's have died (at least) so far in the war i believe (i dont have hte figures, im not gonna look them up) but quite a few of these are due to saddam placing his key infrastructure in built up areas. i couldnt tell you where they got their chemical weapons from, although they can and do produce their own. most chemical warfare agents are things you'd put on the garden anyway. he got his nuclear startup from france though
__________________
#linux - home of idiots

#impulsed - home of genius..?
Slidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:20   #59
Cynical Oracle
Poster Professionale
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The place where mods put bad people
Posts: 1,077
Cynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really nice
Quote:
Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
You do realise that this question is an utter show of how ignorant YOU are?
You aimed at the war against Iran, when the Americans supplied Saddam with WMD to kill of Iran. Then stopped helping Saddam, and afterwards Saddam hasn't been to friendly towards America.

He was not permitted by the west to gas a Kurdish village upp north in Iraq, and ever since the first Gulf war there has been work going on to deal with him. Like previously mentioned in this thread, it has taken far to long.
__________________
ATTENTION!
This thread is hijacked by a wiseguy! Please evacuate promptly at your nearest exit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I wish we could trademark for a less shitty poster
hahahahahahaha, get it?
Cynical Oracle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:25   #60
Slidey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 205
Slidey is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
blah blah blah much ranting
just to let you know, the geneva convention was signed in 1949, AFTER the end of the second world war. so neither side broke anything
__________________
#linux - home of idiots

#impulsed - home of genius..?
Slidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:25   #61
Sub
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
Sub is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...ct_2002.htm#05
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...ct_2002.htm#06

just over 10 years isnt a bad start for the lsat 2 mins

if you think the cia might be bias, try:

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88
The whole point was events *after* the Kurds. 15 years isn't 10 years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
i wasnt aware we were gonna go through each and every war in history and check the usage of wmd. we'd start with ww1 i guess, and (i think) mustard gas. then ww2, and we could talk about concentration camps and the atomic bomb.
What country would you say has killed the most people with WMDs?
Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:28   #62
Slidey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 205
Slidey is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
The whole point was events *after* the Kurds. 15 years isn't 10 years.
why do we discount the kurds? because it proves a point?

Quote:

What country would you say has killed the most people with WMDs?
why does that matter? it was 60 years ago to end a war that had already lasted 6, and would probably have dragged on another few. you'll remember that japan attacked america (which wasnt at war) first, in order to try and cripple them. the idea was to cripple the strongest, so they could then conquer the weakest. this is quite standard..
__________________
#linux - home of idiots

#impulsed - home of genius..?
Slidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 16:31   #63
Cynical Oracle
Poster Professionale
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The place where mods put bad people
Posts: 1,077
Cynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really niceCynical Oracle is just really nice
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
The whole point was events *after* the Kurds. 15 years isn't 10 years.



What country would you say has killed the most people with WMDs?
Iraq's war with Iran?
__________________
ATTENTION!
This thread is hijacked by a wiseguy! Please evacuate promptly at your nearest exit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I wish we could trademark for a less shitty poster
hahahahahahaha, get it?
Cynical Oracle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 17:00   #64
Sub
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
Sub is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
why do we discount the kurds? because it proves a point?
I meant events that happened after the first gulf war - i.e. things that are relevant. He hasn't done ANYTHING since the first one, so it seems a bit odd that they suddenly pounce on him now.

Quote:
Originally posted by Slidey
why does that matter? it was 60 years ago to end a war that had already lasted 6, and would probably have dragged on another few.
Was that the only time America has used chemical/biological/nuclear weapons?
Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 17:04   #65
acropolis
Vermin Supreme
 
acropolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
acropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better place
Quote:
Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

You may be right about the Geneva convention not being signed after 1949, well spotted, so that makes the targetting of civillians alright I suppose? My point is that the use of Nuclear weapons against civillians should be recognised as a grave crime against humanity, unless you believe the purpose of human indeavour is to eventually anihilate each other in more and more devastating ways.
That's just silliness.

PS: I'm pretty sure no iraqis died from America's use of chemical weapons on the vietcong.

PPS: the real question being: if we were to nuke iraq, what effect would the radiation have on the oil supply? would it still be usable? would we have to decontaminate it? why does no one else consider the effects of this type of attack...
acropolis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 17:09   #66
Sub
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
Sub is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by acropolis
PS: I'm pretty sure no iraqis died from America's use of chemical weapons on the vietcong.
So? I'm reasonably sure no Americans/Europeans died from Iraqs use of chemical weapons.
Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 17:12   #67
acropolis
Vermin Supreme
 
acropolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
acropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better place
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
So? I'm reasonably sure no Americans/Europeans died from Iraqs use of chemical weapons.
i was only responding to this question:

"If you want to be that thorough, how many Iraqis have died so far from the war? How many died from the chemical weapons the Americans used on the Vietcong?"
acropolis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 17:45   #68
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Obviously the Japanese surrender is an inconvenient fact that has been dropped down the memory hole, but they were in secret talks with the US whcih the US rejected in favour of murdering civilians to get an unconditonal surrender.
Yes you are right Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked becasue there was more to damage, that is still an attack on civillians. Surely an airbase or naval port would have been fairer game and also more likely to end the war, attacking civillians is against the geneva convention and lest we forget the Japanese (by no means saints) had not attacked US cities once. For any moron who argues that the Japanese broke the Geneva convention first though their evil PoW camps, can I point out that under any legal system that is not a defence for different crimes, especially since the US also broke that convention by inturning Japanese and German blooded Americans for no particular reason.
Again with the corrections:

1) No, there was no secret negotitations, there was no 'about to surender', and it is not an 'inconvenient fact' rather it is not a fact at all. There were slow, drawn out discussions since March about a conditional surrender, which the US refused. These negotiations were being conducted by the doves in the Japanese cabinet, without the approval of the whole cabinet. There WAS a negotitation conducted by the Japanese Ambassador, but this was entirely without the approval of his government, and when Japan found out about it, the cabinet condemned him to death in absentia for his treason.

2) You are correct, Japan attacked no US cities en masse, not because of lack of will, but rather lack of opportunity. They certainly did a number on British cities, on Thai and French (Vietnam) cities, oh, and did we forget Chinese cities? That whole Rape of Nanking thing was mildly unpleasant...

Oh, and they did try and set fire to Canada and the US by releasing 2000 large incendiary-laden baloons into the Gulf Stream, about a tenth of which landed in North America, half a dozen went off, and only 3 people were killed, an American family who found one in a tree and poked it with a stick until it went off.

3) I asked for you to identify a military target they could have attacked. Airfields are somewhat pointless considring the tiny target which could be destroyed by a B-29 loaded with conventional bombs. There were few shipyards left intact, and all of them were in cities. So I ask again, what military target do you suggest they use the bombs on? Furthermore, you make the assertion that this would be 'more likely to snd the war'. Where do you draw that conclusion from?

4) The US (and Canada) interend japanese nationals, not Germans, and this was in perfect conformity with the Hague Conventions. They were well treated and not abused. Not to diminish the actions of the US here, they were still completely wrong to intern these people, but I think there is a significant difference between that and, say the Bataan death march and japanese POW camps.

5) Every nation in the world in 1945 accepted the targeting of civilians with bombers. All of them. Britain, Germany, France, Canada, the US, the USSR, Japan, Norway, Poland, every nation which used an air force in WWII. This was seen as an acceptable and valid tactic, and it was only proven post-war that the concept of demoralisation through bombing was incorrect. Using the targeting of civilians as an argument against the bombs is a comlete anachronism.



I can recommend a series of books on the subject if you care to learn about it, I would start with the excellent "Downfall" by Richard B. Frank. If you are interestd, I can toss a whole bunch more at you, including a Former MA paper of mine on the effect of the Soviet Invasion of manchuria on the balance of power in the Japanese Cabinet, which I had published.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"

Last edited by Vermillion; 3 Apr 2003 at 17:52.
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 17:52   #69
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
2) Japan was NOT about to surrender, I have no idea where this comes from, obviously from people who have not done much reading in the field. Not only were they not about toi surrender, but they very nearly did not surrender after both bombs were dropped and the Kwangtung army had been destroyed. It took the intervention of the Emperor to break the deadlock in cabinet and force a surrender, and even THEN there was an attempted coup to reverse the decision.
Werent they negotiating terms of surrender with the Russians at some point?
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 18:00   #70
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
Werent they negotiating terms of surrender with the Russians at some point?
Yes, and this is a really interesting story. The Russians were acting as go-between for Japan and the Allies, and through Russia the Japanese were trying to work out a negotiated conditional surrender. The Russians were sending the messages through to the Allies, but were also misleading the japanese into thinking the west was more interested than they actually were. In fact, since Potsdam (and possibly earlier) Stalin had decided to attack Japan, so he was just stringing them along by being friendly.

When he attacked manchuria, the Japanese cabinet was stuned, they figured the Russians were friendly neutrals. The Kwangtung army was not even on alert when the Red Army plowed through it like wet tissue paper.

There were certainly several attempts by the Japanese, both throgh the Russians, through the Mexicans and several other secondary parties, to come to a conditional surrender. But Japan would not accept disarming or loss of sovereigny over the home islands.

So these talks were going nowhere, and when they broke off, it was JAPAN that broke them off, not the West.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 18:05   #71
Kumnaa
Unreregistered User
 
Kumnaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 824
Kumnaa is infamous around these parts
Quote:
Originally posted by CrashTester
But we are not attacking them, it is the leadership that is under attack. So its circular for as long as the Iraqi people decide to embrace liberation.
tell that the the iraqis/arabs/islamics of this world
__________________
I have been unbanned.
Kumnaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 18:05   #72
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
Yes, and this is a really interesting story. The Russians were acting as go-between for Japan and the Allies, and through Russia the Japanese were trying to work out a negotiated conditional surrender. The Russians were sending the messages through to the Allies, but were also misleading the japanese into thinking the west was more interested than they actually were. In fact, since Potsdam (and possibly earlier) Stalin had decided to attack Japan, so he was just stringing them along by being friendly.

When he attacked manchuria, the Japanese cabinet was stuned, they figured the Russians were friendly neutrals. The Kwangtung army was not even on alert when the Red Army plowed through it like wet tissue paper.

There were certainly several attempts by the Japanese, both throgh the Russians, through the Mexicans and several other secondary parties, to come to a conditional surrender. But Japan would not accept disarming or loss of sovereigny over the home islands.

So these talks were going nowhere, and when they broke off, it was JAPAN that broke them off, not the West.
Is this a widely accepted theory, or your personal opinion? I only ask because I have very little knowledge of WW2 (it has never been something that interested me greatly), and I've heard many wildly ranging theories regarding this (including ones along the lines of "The increasing likelihood of Japan surrendering to Russia was a prime motivation in America's decision to drop the bomb at that time" and such), although they werent exactly from 'reputable' sources (which is why im curious).
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 18:13   #73
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
Is this a widely accepted theory, or your personal opinion? I only ask because I have very little knowledge of WW2
We know pretty much everything about the Japanese cabinet, their decisions and arguments and negotiations. We have the original minutes of those meetings which I have read (translated versions sadly...) at some length. The japanese government at the time is an open book to us, as are the memoirs of most of their top officials.

The Russians is harder. Stalin is one of the few leaders of the time to have left us no written idea what he was thinking: no memoirs, no minutes of meetings, so a lot of his intentions is pieced together from memoirs of his aides, what he told other foreign leaders, and guesswork.

We do know he was planning on attacking Japan since Potsdam, because we can see his military orders and troop deployments. His political intentions we guess at. japan never even talked about surrendering TO Russia, as they were neutrals. Even once the Soviets went to war, it was a continental war, and Japan was still well aware that its primary enemy was the US.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 18:34   #74
TejasCop
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Nuclear bombs against Iraq

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
I was discussing this with a couple of friends yesterday.

The current war has some similarities with the war against Japan.

Only to those grossly uneducated in world history. Run off and read how fanatical the Japanese were as a whole. Then come back and attempt to make an intelligent point.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 20:45   #75
General Geiger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
Posts: 157
General Geiger is infamous around these partsGeneral Geiger is infamous around these parts
I would like to say to Vermillion that, as per my first post in this thread, a slightly bizarre yet perfectly valid comparison can be made between Japan, 1945, and Iraq, 2003. The comparison is this:

They are both military actions intend to prevent from becoming necessary future ones that would cost at least ten times as many lives.

The nukings of Hiroshiuma and Nagasaki, though killing a quarter-of-a-million people, prevented the necessity of an American invasion that would have cumulatively resulted in at least ten times that amount of blood shed (the general consensus is that it would have cost American a million men, and Japan that + 50%. That is entirely ignoring the noted factor of the Russian's plan to invade Japan, of course.

My hypothesis regarding the current war - and it is one that I think stands up - is that it is a vast and long-range gambit to prevent a second Korean war from ever occurring. It is designed to demonstrate to the North Koreans that America is prepared, post-9/11, to mount a concerted ground campaign and take casualties in the process. They were not prepared to do this between the end of Vietnam and September 11th 2001, and that emboldened the North Koreans in their aggression towards South Korea during that time. However, NK is so much more militarily potent than Iraq that the US would, I am certain, very much like to avoid ever fighting a war there.

Let us assume that the Second Gulf War will cost, in the end, two hundred thousand lives. I think that is a reasonable estimate. With the advance of chemical and/or biological WMD, and the North Koreans acquirement of nukes, I think it is likely that a second war between North and South Korea would cost something in the order of two million lives. If the current war with Iraq prevents that from occurring, by frightening the North Koreans into plassitude by demonstrating America's resolve against vicious dictatorships, then it will by extension have saved ten times the lives it cost - like August 6th, 1945.

I think it's a pretty neat comparison. Any views?

---

It is interesting to hypothesise, in a futile yet interesting alternate history scenario, what would have happened had the Americans not dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Americans and the Russians would probably have managed to invade at roughly the same time, sometime in 1946, and it is conceivable that the battle for Japan would have turned into a desperate race between the USA and Russia to acquire as much territory as possible before coming up against the front lines of the other invader. Maybe the USA and Russia would have ended up fighting each other as well as Japan, and the Japanese mainland would have been the site of a years-long, confused, utterly ghastly ground war costing many millions of lives. With Russia and Japan's total disregard of human life - the former due to being used to general hardship and ghastly treatment, aka their tough physical climate and treatment at the hands of the Germans; the latter due to their general "no surrender" psyche - forcing the Americans to behave similarly, Japan would likely have turned into a holocaustic conventional-weapons battlefield, with three sides completely at odds with each other, the defending Japanese able to take advantage of the confusion to cause bloody chaos. It would have truly been a case like that propounded by Japan until shortly before their surrende, of fighting the invaders until they were pushed out or every citizen lay dead.
__________________
* CakeGuevara has quit IRC (They keep saying the right person will come along; I think a truck hit mine.)

*morg has never heard of GD
<@morg> sounds like an std to me

<.KraKto5is8> "you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose"

Last edited by General Geiger; 3 Apr 2003 at 20:50.
General Geiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 20:46   #76
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub

I thought they were based in the Gulf?
he was referring to the B2 bomber, all of which are based in the US. although I believe that they might be putting some on a British Island somewhere in the pacific.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 20:55   #77
SPQR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 145
SPQR is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Nuclear bombs against Iraq

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
I was discussing this with a couple of friends yesterday.

The current war has some similarities with the war against Japan.

We want unconditional surrender and the Iraqees are going to fight till the bitter end. Alot of americans will die in this war. And what makes all things even worse, is that Hussein could use C/B weapons .

So, why not drop a nuclear bomb on , lets say, Basra or Mossul and demand unconditional surrender??

It would sure save alot of american lives.

If you think bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do, then you surely can not be against this.
The war is not even fought for a month now and you are already thinking to use the probably last option to win this war? :eek:

People like you should be sterilisated.
SPQR is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 21:07   #78
Texan
Prince of Amber
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,313
Texan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these parts
Quote:
Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
If he is a threat to the Middle East why aren't Turkey, Kuwait or Iran all of whom border iraq worried about him?
If you do not mind me choosing one particular point to debate, I would like to point out that Kuwait and Iran have been worried about Iraq for quite some time now. Turkey has not been worried because of Article Five of the NATO Treaty. Kuwait and Iran do not have the protection of Article Five.
__________________
"We sleep safe at night in our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who wish to do us harm." -- George Orwell.
Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 21:13   #79
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally posted by General Geiger
(the general consensus is that it would have cost American a million men, and Japan that + 50%. That is entirely ignoring the noted factor of the Russian's plan to invade Japan, of course.
That is not the general consensus at all. F
irstly, there is no consensus on the number of Japanese dead, as it is pure speculation. The number of US casualties (NOT the same as dead) has been guessed at about 200k to 350k, meaning 60k to 100k dead, given Pacific theatre based estimates. The guess of a million was the number put forward by one man, who had limited knowledge of the situation, in an effort to get Truman to drop the bomb. It is not a military estimate at all, and was in direct contradiction to every war plan at the time, even the pessimistic ones.

North Korea right now has a less powerful military than Iraq did in 1991. Their country is a much more challenging battlefield (mountains and forests rather than open desert) but the US has much easier access. (Ocean on two sides, South korea and japan as launching points.) Barrin N. Korea having nukes of course, any war between N.Korea and the US would be a massacre. I see no evidence that the Iraqi action is in any way directed as a threat overt or otherwise, at N. Korea.

Quote:
Let us assume that the Second Gulf War will cost, in the end, two hundred thousand lives. I think that is a reasonable estimate. With the advance of chemical and/or biological WMD, and the North Koreans acquirement of nukes,
200,000 is a vast overestimate in my opinion. Right now the US has suffered less than 30 dead, while Iraq has lost (only a rough estimate) about 20,000 to 30,000 dead. The battle for Bagdad, if such a battle even occurs (which i doubt) will certainly not kill 10 times that number.

As for a Million in N.Korea, thats a high guess, and frankly, based on very little. Nobody can guess how a war there would go or what would happen, and for that matter, at the moment we still suspect N.Korea does NOT have functioning atomic weapons.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 22:34   #80
General Geiger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
Posts: 157
General Geiger is infamous around these partsGeneral Geiger is infamous around these parts
Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
That is not the general consensus at all. F
irstly, there is no consensus on the number of Japanese dead, as it is pure speculation. The number of US casualties (NOT the same as dead) has been guessed at about 200k to 350k, meaning 60k to 100k dead, given Pacific theatre based estimates. The guess of a million was the number put forward by one man, who had limited knowledge of the situation, in an effort to get Truman to drop the bomb. It is not a military estimate at all, and was in direct contradiction to every war plan at the time, even the pessimistic ones.

North Korea right now has a less powerful military than Iraq did in 1991. Their country is a much more challenging battlefield (mountains and forests rather than open desert) but the US has much easier access. (Ocean on two sides, South korea and japan as launching points.) Barrin N. Korea having nukes of course, any war between N.Korea and the US would be a massacre. I see no evidence that the Iraqi action is in any way directed as a threat overt or otherwise, at N. Korea.



200,000 is a vast overestimate in my opinion. Right now the US has suffered less than 30 dead, while Iraq has lost (only a rough estimate) about 20,000 to 30,000 dead. The battle for Bagdad, if such a battle even occurs (which i doubt) will certainly not kill 10 times that number.

As for a Million in N.Korea, thats a high guess, and frankly, based on very little. Nobody can guess how a war there would go or what would happen, and for that matter, at the moment we still suspect N.Korea does NOT have functioning atomic weapons.
You're post is, as usual, interesting and informative. It is however true that, if North Korea made a first strike against South Korea, they would be able to launch a rain of devastating artillery fire on the South Korean capital of Seoul (which is in the north of the country, quite near the border), reducing it to a firestorm-wracked ruin. They have a first-strike capability sufficient to kill tens of thousands of people in South Korea.

Why on earth do you doubt that a battle for Baghdad will occur? It's just about to occur, for heaven's sake.

I find it interesting the way people say "barring Weapons of Mass Destructions". It's like there's this ghastly thing bracketing everything that happens, which we tag on to the end of each sentence.
__________________
* CakeGuevara has quit IRC (They keep saying the right person will come along; I think a truck hit mine.)

*morg has never heard of GD
<@morg> sounds like an std to me

<.KraKto5is8> "you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose"
General Geiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 22:43   #81
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally posted by General Geiger
Why on earth do you doubt that a battle for Baghdad will occur? It's just about to occur, for heaven's sake.
I find it amusing that everyone keeps talking about how Hussein wants to fight in cities this time, drag the US into messy urban warfare where they will take tremendous casualties. That may be his plan, yes. But do you think the US has not thought of that?

They already showed their plans at Basra: Surround the city, lay seige to it, use surgical incursions to do damage to specific areas and points without committing to a city assault. Hope that population pressure, civil unrest and time reduce the capacity of Hussein's forces and will.

The US is aware of the risks of urban warfare as well (if not much better) than anyone on this board. They will try and avoid it if at all possible, and there are always alternatives...
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 22:47   #82
General Geiger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
Posts: 157
General Geiger is infamous around these partsGeneral Geiger is infamous around these parts
Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
... there are always alternatives...
... Like? Don't imply, tell. We're stupid. And this does sound interestingly conspiratorial.
__________________
* CakeGuevara has quit IRC (They keep saying the right person will come along; I think a truck hit mine.)

*morg has never heard of GD
<@morg> sounds like an std to me

<.KraKto5is8> "you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose"
General Geiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 23:31   #83
acropolis
Vermin Supreme
 
acropolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
acropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better place
Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion

The US is aware of the risks of urban warfare as well (if not much better) than anyone on this board.
More likely the military planners came across ideas for avoiding urban combat while reading threads that discussed that topic on this board. iirc numerous alternatives were discussed, and I think most of us could have successfully taken baghdad with no losses at all*

Anyway, clearly it's about time that people like Eddie Vedder and the Dixie Chicks look around here for some help. An elegant mix of sarcasm with your anti-war rhetoric** would go right over the heads of the ignorant pro-war masses and manage to avoid damaging sales.


*I think we concluded that the best way was to begin by laying siege, and then run surgical strikes with a carrier/archon combo.

**Maybe "I think we can all agree that Bush is the right man for the job. Who else could have brought our nation to where it is today from where it was only a couple years ago?"
acropolis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 23:55   #84
General Geiger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
Posts: 157
General Geiger is infamous around these partsGeneral Geiger is infamous around these parts
Quote:
Originally posted by acropolis
*I think we concluded that the best way was to begin by laying siege, and then run surgical strikes with a carrier/archon combo.
I'm not so sure. I'd have to see overhead maps of Basra and Baghdad to be certain, but I'm under the vague impression that Baghdad is a much less well-defined shape than Basra. I mean, it seems more like a conurbation rather than a sharply-delineated city (as I'm under the impression Basra is).

Therefore, it would be very much harder to lay siege to a city which fades into being rather than one which practically has an edge. Consider: how would you lay siege to London? It's a comparable idea; London is only about twice the size of Baghdad, and also a diffuse city. I suppose you might call the Ring Road the "city wall", and lay troops in a vast circle around it.

Baghdad's seeming diffuseness, meaning it will be ineffective to lay siege to in the way Basra has been, is why I think the battle for Baghdad is going to be much bloodier for the Coalition than the rest of the war put together. There's no "no-man's land" Iraqi troops would have to charge over to attack Coalition forces, as around Basra; they will be able to melt out of the suburbs, strike, melt back in, Vietcong style. Clearly the Americans and the British will win, but it's going to be nasty.

I think this summarises the whole war, from a British perspective: We will win, but it won't be pleasant.
__________________
* CakeGuevara has quit IRC (They keep saying the right person will come along; I think a truck hit mine.)

*morg has never heard of GD
<@morg> sounds like an std to me

<.KraKto5is8> "you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose"
General Geiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Apr 2003, 05:41   #85
Judge
Doh!
 
Judge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
Judge is infamous around these parts
Quote:
Originally posted by acropolis

**Maybe "I think we can all agree that Bush is the right man for the job. Who else could have brought our nation to where it is today from where it was only a couple years ago?"
Indeed,

That is assuming that the "Job" in the first place was to take your nation into a state of war, cause the biggest rift between Europe and The US since WWII, divide the UN, and render it ineffective, reduce the NATO alliance to a Talking shop, trash your economy, raise unemployment, and split the opinion of the US Public.

Yes if those were the aims of the GW Bush Presidency, you can clearly say you got the best man for the Job.

Good Luck.
__________________
Spinner: Kudos to Judge for having big cohones!
Judge is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Apr 2003, 12:33   #86
Marilyn Manson
Gone
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
Iraqee people are 60% Shia and shia`s are very very fanatical. Specially when their most sacred cities(nadjaf and Kerbela) are being bombed
Although I was wrong on the figures, Iraq has little history of fanatical extremism. I fail to see any evidence so far. It has generally been, like most Arab states, a political minefield, but it is wrong to think that it suffers from the same sort of religious context as Iran.

I have to say, I have abolsutely no idea how this making of Iraqis out to be religious maniacs, and then on the same hand saying that nuking said Iraqis will result in a peacful, western friendly Iraq for the future works on any logical level. Perhaps you would wish to enlighten me?

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
I didnt say I support it either.
You said there is no risk of losing the war to Iraq . I replied that there was no risk of losing the war aganst Japan
And so the point of this is?

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
The japanese thought that he was a god.
What more executive power do you want???
Read my lips: He had no real executive power. The only time he actually exerted any authority was at the end, during his intervention in the surrender. If he had even tried to fiddle in the affairs of the government (Which, considering he was technically a consitutional monarch, he didn't have any reason to do anyway) the war party would have found a way of replacing or silencing him.

Perhaps you don't know whatn 'executive power' means in a political context, or you're just being silly. I don't know.

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
No, I am not.
You said that we should not Nuke Iraq because they would hate us forever.
I am replying that Japan was nuked and is our ally.
If you want to convince me, then start bringing some better arguments.
Did you actually read me detailed section on 'Why Iraq and and Japan are completely different situations', or did you just chose to completely ignore it for the purposes of your rag-tag excuse of an argument?

Last edited by Marilyn Manson; 4 Apr 2003 at 16:09.
Marilyn Manson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Apr 2003, 14:27   #87
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
The japanese thought that he was a god.
What more executive power do you want???
more specifically a descendent of the Sun God. and also as MM pointed out he didn't actuall have much power. Just because the military respected him didn't mean that they were influenced by him.. This has always been the case. If you look at the various samurai and Shogunates, the emperor was often shuffled onto the sidelines and "kept" so that while in essence he had power, in reality he had little or none, and was just there to make sure the sun came up in the morning and stuff like that.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018