War here, war there.

[benevolance]

America does nothing when there is genocide in Africa or europe... because there is no profit from it and no strategic ground to be gained for Israel.....why we topple Saddam and ignore the genocide in Rwanda spoke volumes about how much we care about freedom... humanity... democracy.... These  words are cherry picked and served to a dumbed down public here and as long as the current administration waves a flag and mentions something patriotic we as a whole embrace it and march off to whatever cause they wish.

It is sickening.

[glenn kangiser]

How big would a defensive military need to be to intimidate them?

It is much larger than it needs to be right now if it is used properly.  Rather than squandering the lives of our sons and daughters on a war for corporate profit and oil we should do as other countries are doing and rather than waste it, strike quickly, strongly and decisively, but not on perceived threats...on real threats.  

We need a system of oversight to see that wars are not started for corporate profit or commandeered to protect oil projects such as the Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan at the cost of our servicemen and economy.  

We need a real document that would insure that that sort of thing doesn't happen....a written set of rules to be followed to see to it that power is not abused by on segment of the government... some way to limit that power to insure that big business and world bankers cannot steal that power for their own purposes at the expense of the citizens and taxpayers of the United States of America.....some sort of a.... I don't know.........maybe...... a Constitution.

How much bigger was the US military than Al Qaeda prior to 9/11?

Actually we both know it is much bigger but there is so much of the official story that doesn't wash that it appears that size in this case doesn't matter.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/alqaeda_nonentity.html?q=alqaeda_nonentity.html

Actually at that time Bin Laden was the main one talked about, however he was a CIA asset and they were in contact with him after that but did not arrest him.

The short answer is if our military had been allowed to act, rather than being held back, this event would not have been as successful or spectacular.  I am a pilot.  I have been intercepted within minutes of straying off course slightly when near a military base.  There was one near directly under the attacks yet fighters were not scrambled.

They didn't seem at all deterred by the odds then.  What do you want in terms of military might?

If only our planes were allowed to intercept them.   Once again, Sorry for not trying to convince you without a reference, but I feel others would not take me seriously.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/norad-stand-down-in-2-minutes.html

Sorry but that's it for tonight.  I only had 3 1/2 hours sleep last night.

[NM_Shooter]

This is not a punch in the head from a bar fight. 

If that guy was holding brass knuckles, you might be dead. 

You can't allow an enemy with complete ability (and eagerness) to exercise extreme lethality the opportunity to do so. 

Once they do, it is done.

With nukes and long range ballistics, or suicide prone combatants with backpack nukes there is no place to hide.

We are at a point of irreconcilable differences.  They are not interested in negotiating.  They are only interested in building a weapons arsenal to destroy us and our allies.  Remember.. they never forgive. 

They are not building a defensive weapon. 

[NM_Shooter]

BTW... no aversion to google... why would you say that? 

I only have aversion to people who visit websites that are effectively National Enquirer type URLs (with even lower credibility) and preach them as gospel. 

A lot of folks should lay off the trash rag conspiracy sites. 

[benevolance]

Even if Iran had Nukes, which they do not...although nuke technology is their right as a member of the non proliferation treaty....So even if Iran had nukes and wanted to use them... they are no threat to America...No missile to carry it to america.

The only country that would ever be at threat would be Israel....But Iran does not have Nukes... and they are enriching uranium at the exact acceptable levels.

So whether it be a set of brass knuckles or something a little more potent...All of this is on the other side of the world and is of absolute no threat at all to America.....The only thing a nuke does to someone like Iran or Russia is that we can no longer push them around and threaten them into submission...

[MountainDon]

We have dual US/Israeli Politicians , or is it dual Israeli/US citizens running our country with no way to determine where their allegiance is.  It's not just one --- it's a lot.  I feel this is not in the best interest of the US as it will unfairly sway decisions toward Israel at the cost of lives of our.servicemen. 

Solely holding US citizenship, by either being born in the USA or by personal choice and becoming a "naturalized US citizen", does not automatically place ones loyalty beyond a doubt. Conversely holding dual citizenship does not automatically convey doubt as to where that loyalty is directed. Loyalty comes from ones beliefs, not a piece of paper or a computer record.

I'm not a politician, but I am a dual citizen; USA/Canada.

If push comes to shove, if decisions have to be made, my allegiance falls where I have chosen to live for the past 25 years.

[MountainDon]

http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html

They also have a story headlined... "LBJ killed JFK!"         

[Sassy]

If you read the history or Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root & LBJ's connection with them & the mafia of Texas, that wouldn't surprise me of any involvement with JFK...  assassinations happen all the time - there's still a lot of questions not answered, but those who believe everything the gov't & MSM spin doctors dish out will never step out to look behind the scenes...  call me or Glenn conspiracy theorists or tin hats - but at least we are willing to look at all sides...     

Our country does not have the manpower, strength, or money to attack every country that makes a fuss at us or replies to our threats...  seems like the money changers ie Federal Reserve & co have sold out big time to the UAE - Dubai in particular - Dubai & the Saudis are under Sharia law per the Islam faith, so therefore many of our banks & corporations are now under Sharia law...  check into that history...  this has been the voluntary sell out of our country to the highest bidder, which happens to be the Muslims or communist China...  Dubai is the biggest up & coming center of commerce in the world.  North Korea has threatened us & probably has nukes, but we haven't attacked them yet...  we gave Pakistan nukes & they have the largest terrorist cells in the world, a freakin no-mans land along the border of India - kinda like many places in Los Angeles   

We are now unleashing the military on the US citizen - since posse comitatus has been thrown in the garbage...  many of the Iraqi vets who have served 2-3 tours in Iraq & Afganistan are joining the police forces - I've seen 1st hand what 2-3 tours of combat can do to a person's psyche...  so they bring the combat mindset to our streets per their handlers (no, I am not against the vets getting jobs).  Free speech is being clamped down on, provocateurs planted amongst protesters... Halliburton given several hundred million to prepare internment camps "in case we have a problem with illegal immigrants" yeah, sure...  we've posted valid links to all this stuff before...  there's a lot of mainline people, leaders in the military, scientists, politicians etc who are questioning & blowing the whistle on the criminal element in our society who have positions of leadership & power...   

So it's alright to be in bed with the Muslims while going to war with them at the same time?  I use the Muslims because those are the countries (Iraq, Iran) you seem to be afraid of...   

BTW, Glenn had to leave early to work again so didn't even have a chance to log on to the net...

We can agree to disagree & I respect your right to disagree...  at least we still have the semblance of freedom & free speech - I want to ensure that the principles our founding fathers fought for continue to be in place in this wonderful country, keeping my eyes & ears open...  speaking out when those liberties are trampled on...  like Patrick Henry once said "give me liberty of give me death"  - the spiral of our country into a police state is occurring quickly...     we don't have to fear other nations, we arebeing destroyed from within...

[NM_Shooter]

Even if Iran had Nukes, which they do not...although nuke technology is their right as a member of the non proliferation treaty....So even if Iran had nukes and wanted to use them... they are no threat to America...No missile to carry it to america.

All of this is on the other side of the world and is of absolute no threat at all to America

You've got to be kidding... You realize that with where we are with communication and economic ties that the world has shrunk a bunch... right?  In terms of economy, it is absolutely global.  If a nuke war breaks out anywhere, it will have severe economic repercussions world wide.

And regarding Iran's delivery capabilities, even me, a person who has a complete aversion to using google  typed in "Iran Ballistic Missile" and found multiple sites detailing their strengths.  Note that they are developing a space program to deploy satellites.  Being able to do that means that they can drop a ballistic anywhere on the globe.  Take a peek.

-f-

[Sassy]

so Frank, how come you never reply to my comments 

[John_C]

There is the counter argument that at least twice as many total lives would have been lost if the bombs had not been used. A great many of those would have been American soldiers.

What do you think Truman should have done?

If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used

by Karl T. Compton

Complete article here   http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/46dec/compton.htm


.....About a week after V-J Day I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."

"Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you."

"What would have happened then?" we asked.

He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender..............................


............................................A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation...........................



The evidence points to a combination of factors. (1) Some of the more informed and intelligent elements in Japanese official circles realized that they were fighting a losing battle and that complete destruction lay ahead if the war continued. These elements, however, were not powerful enough to sway the situation against the dominating Army organization, backed by the profiteering industrialists, the peasants, and the ignorant masses. (2) The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those who sought peace and provided a face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war. (3) When the second atomic bomb was dropped, it became clear that this was not an isolated weapon, but that there were others to follow. With dread prospect of a deluge of these terrible bombs and no possibility of preventing them, the argument for surrender was made convincing. This I believe to be the true picture of the effect of the atomic bomb in bringing the war to a sudden end, with Japan's unconditional surrender.

[NM_Shooter]

so Frank, how come you never reply to my comments 

Well, mostly because they are usually more of a statement and a smidge off the topic of the thread.

For instance, I was asking folks what their threshold of perceived danger was. 

Your first post included pointing out that we were the first to use nukes, and DU.  Plus a bonus link to an article that made an argument that America was fascist.

Your second post was more American – oil grubbing stuff.  Seasoned with Iraqi war rants.

Your third post was more anti-George Bush stuff.

Forth post was a bit of déjà-vu for the thread.  Anti George and anti war variation.

Fifth post was in support of flawed logic.

Sixth post was railing against George again, and nonsense about not finding evidence of WMDs.  Not to further hijack this thread, but we could start another thread for that evidence if you'd like.

Seventh post was interesting.... It cements the fact that you pretty much believe whatever you read, but only on anti US / anti Bush / conspiracy type sites.

So Sassy, that's pretty much why.  I started out the thread with a question.  Instead of answering, Glenn posed other questions.  Being a sport, I answered them but never received a courtesy of a reply to mine.  You know... folks tip-toed around the actual question, asked for clarification and conditions, but really didn't just answer the very simple, very clear question.

So, between the fact that your posts were off topic, and I sort of believe in quid-pro-quo (you know... with respect to answering and acknowledgment of questions), I just read your posts and waited for an on-topic argument.

I enjoy arguing with you guys... we don't agree, but I admire your passion.   I'd really appreciate it if we could stay on topic, but I have to admit (what... with all the deformed baby pix and such) you guys make it interesting.  I'm sort of getting to where I know what to expect from you , but you guys sure can flesh out a thread 

You know what would be fun sometime?  If you and I agreed to answer one of these for each other.  Sort of a role swap.  See how close we could get to the other person's viewpoint.  I think that would be a hoot.

Have a good weekend!  (I'm headed to Chama with a kid in tow and will return barbs possibly Monday.)

Best regards (to Glenn too)

Frank

[NM_Shooter]

Hi John, welcome to the food fight!  Hope you brought a bib.   

-f-

[glenn kangiser]

://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html

They also have a story headlined... "LBJ killed JFK!"        

hmm -- may be worth reading.  Check it out as there is a lot of unbelievable rhetoric surrounding the lone gunman theory also.  Motive was there. 

[glenn kangiser]

Hey Frank, Have a great weekend. 

It has been an enjoyable week and I'm ready to let this rest a few days.  Best to you and your family.

To you also, Don --- have a good weekend.

I had to line up work for the weekend as one of my clients/friends works on a sea-going tug and is leaving Sunday.

Glenn

[Sassy]

Thanks, Frank, I don't feel left out now 

[glenn kangiser]

There is the counter argument that at least twice as many total lives would have been lost if the bombs had not been used. A great many of those would have been American soldiers.

What do you think Truman should have done?

If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used

by Karl T. Compton

Complete article here   http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/46dec/compton.htm


.....About a week after V-J Day I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."

"Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you."

"What would have happened then?" we asked.

He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender..............................


............................................A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation...........................



The evidence points to a combination of factors. (1) Some of the more informed and intelligent elements in Japanese official circles realized that they were fighting a losing battle and that complete destruction lay ahead if the war continued. These elements, however, were not powerful enough to sway the situation against the dominating Army organization, backed by the profiteering industrialists, the peasants, and the ignorant masses. (2) The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those who sought peace and provided a face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war. (3) When the second atomic bomb was dropped, it became clear that this was not an isolated weapon, but that there were others to follow. With dread prospect of a deluge of these terrible bombs and no possibility of preventing them, the argument for surrender was made convincing. This I believe to be the true picture of the effect of the atomic bomb in bringing the war to a sudden end, with Japan's unconditional surrender.

I read that one once, John, and now there is a new report that there was no need to drop them at all as the Japanese had already agreed to surrender but were only quibbling upon the terms.  Supposedly unclassified or newly released information,  If I can find it again I will post it.  It should be good for a couple more rounds. 

[MountainDon]

I read that one once, John, and now there is a new report that there was no need to drop them at all as the Japanese had already agreed to surrender but were only quibbling upon the terms.  Supposedly unclassified or newly released information,  If I can find it again I will post it.  It should be good for a couple more rounds. 

I will have to find the book I read over the summer, a recent book.

The Japanese military were far from agreed upon surrender, even after 2 bombs. There were some who were for surrender. The were a few were seemed ready to go either way. There were others who were dead set against surrender. To them it was still a matter of honor; death before the disgrace they felt surrender would bring.

The  Emperor's surrender message has been recorded at the palace. A copy was made. The original and the copy were whisked away and hidden in one of the palace rooms by a pro surrender officer. That night several "no surrender" officers rounded up a band of soldiers to do a room by room search. Their intent was to destroy the recordings. Coincident to this a bombing mission to a city to the north was underway. The track of the bombers were vectoring the bombers towards Tokyo. This caused the Japanese to black out the city, turn all power off. When the palace fell dark the search deteriorated into chaos. Flashlights were used. Batteries went dead. They needed time to round up new batteries. By morning the search had found nothing. Wit daylight the recordings were rescued from hiding and taken to the radio station for broadcast.

If the recordings had been found and destroyed they probably would have been redone anyhow. But that would have caused a delay.

In any event it's a moot point. Before the bombs were dropped, with the information that the USA had at the time they did not know how close or how far away surrender was. IF the Japanese weren't quarreling with each other, IF the Japanese had said "ok, enough" we could have had a different end. But we didn't. I don't see much point in conjecture at this time. We did what we did, and I say that with the same information, no more, no less, the decision would be the same at any other time.

New information revealed today can not change the thinking that went on 60 years ago. It makes no difference today.

[John_C]

I'm guessing that very few of the U.S. servicemen on Okinawa who were preparing to invade Japan regretted the dropping of the bombs.

[MountainDon]

Very true. In fact, speaking of US servicemen, the bomber pilots and crew of the B-29's that did the bulk of the bombing on Japan they were all very happy to see the end of the war. They were beased at Tinian and it was a very long flight. The planes were loaded with so much fuel they were over design weight. It was not uncommon for planes to not get up enough speed and crash at the runway end.

Once they were in the air the engineer had to nurse the engines along running them as lean as possible without damaging them in order to have fuel enough to make it back to Tiian. Many had to ditch. Also after takeoff they had to fly low and slow for 30 minutes in order to cool the engines. They were that taxed by the power needed to take off.

[MountainDon]

book...

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Mission-Secret-History-Battle/dp/0767907795/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222482977&sr=1-2

[glenn kangiser]

Yup- it's done.  I guess it's always easy to sit around afterward and say what could have been done different, but I don't see where any soldier would want to prolong a war.

The massive loss of so many innocent civilians is such a tragedy though.

[MountainDon]

Yep - the loss of all the lives remains a tragedy. There has probably never been a war where civilians have not been in the way. Quite often more civilians die than those i official uniforms. That is the hell of it all. When we look at historical events from our different perspective through time it is easy to second guess with a better plan. But when you restrict what you know to just what was known by those who were there there's a good chance you will come up with same/similar answers.

[glenn kangiser]

I found the paper that was referred to I think- It was by a College student as a thesis so I would have to agree that the book probably has much more credibility.  I read what was online and it was interesting and comments said it was written as a true story novel based on facts.

Comment here agrees with most of it but differ on a few details.  Nothing major.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R15I0S55QCKTAX/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

I can't comment one way or the other as I couldn't try to second guess what was done or why.

[benevolance]

Shooter

You are grasping at straws....For years we have bullied and beaten others into submission and defended these actions as responding to immanent threats...And when I point out to you that Iran could never strike the USA with a Nuke... which they do not have...And your response is that they are now a threat to our economy...

Okay with that logic, lets just blow up any country that outstips us economically because they are a threat to our investments and our economy....

This is one of the worst arguements I have ever seen