Here's a question for you that made me start wondering.... I saw this posted in another thread:
"I have no problem with having the worlds strongest military and maintaining it in great working order here, at home to where no one dare attack us."
Is this feasible to do? I tend to not think so. Especially when dealing with terrorist organizations. How do we keep terrorist supporting nations from lobbing nukes at us once they have them? Do we wait to be attacked first? At what point do we say..."OK, we now have our threshold of crispy cities... we are now justified in retaliation."? My threshold for that is zero.
When someone tells me that they want to end me and my family, I tend to take that rather seriously. If they repeatedly say it, and take steps to build the tools and relationships to accomplish that goal, then they are opening themselves up to preemptive action from me.
I would expect no less of my neighbors, or my government.
My primary objection to the current "wars" are that we are trying to be too politically correct. This costs way more in lives, resources, and cash than I want to see spent. Unleash the damn dogs, or put them away. All in or all out.
I think we should spend a ton of money on "intelligence", followed up by very effective, PC unrestricted and assertive preemptive action. This can never, ever, ever^googol be done without collateral damage (jeez I hate that term).
Extended military operations on foreign soil is just so much crap.
Quotewe are trying to be too politically correct
We are also asking the military to do a jobs they cannot do.
What the military can do is kill folks and break things. Making long standing enemies (Shiite's and Sunni's and Kurd's for example) kiss and make up is not something they will often accomplish.
Nobody can win a politically correct war.
I don't like to lose.
So you got an idea where I stand on that?
The Rules of Combat
1. Bring a weapon. Preferably, bring at least two. Bring all of your friends who have weapons. Bring their friends who have weapons.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. Close doesn't count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough, nor using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a big weapon and a friend with a big weapon.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived and who didn't.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting is more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the weapon.
10. Use a weapon that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
11. Someday someone may kill you with your own weapon, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
12. In combat, there are no rules, always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
13. Have a plan.
14. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
15. Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The visible target should be in FRONT of YOUR weapon.
16. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
17. Don't drop your guard.
18. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
19. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
20. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
21. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
24. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a ".4."
Number 21 is very relevant today...
21. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
Which goes along very well with fighting a PC war.
So let me get this straight, Frank.
QuoteI would expect no less of my neighbors, or my government.
You think that a pre-emptive strike is OK if some country
may possibly use nukes or build that would take the lives of citizens?
Does that include countries that are proven to be enriching to only power grade uranium per our own intelligence reports? hmm
Don't you think that is a little harsh unless they have demonstrated they are serious? ???
Maybe they are just talking out their behinds like Dubya. d*
Also can you give me specifics on how a terrorist supporting nation is defined? hmm
Quote from: glenn kangiser on September 24, 2008, 12:39:30 AM
You think that a pre-emptive strike is OK if some country may possibly use nukes or build that would take the lives of citizens?
No... "may possibly" doesn't cut it, because that includes everybody on the planet with a nuke, including our allies. They have to have threatened to destroy us, have the ability or be in pursuit to do so, and be earnestly developing the means to deliver.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on September 24, 2008, 12:39:30 AM
Don't you think that is a little harsh unless they have demonstrated they are serious? ???
I think operating 4000 centrifuges in the pursuit of enriched uranium while telling the world they want to end us and our allies are a couple of pretty good hints. But that's just me... I tend to notice the teeny little things like that.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on September 24, 2008, 12:39:30 AM
Also can you give me specifics on how a terrorist supporting nation is defined? hmm
Sure! Support or harboring of any of the following groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization
Three questions answered. Here's one single question for you.....
You have a neighbor that hates you. He has told you and everyone in the neighborhood that he is going to kill your family as soon as he is able to afford some tools to do so completely. He's killed before. He's told you he would hire others to do the work and to snipe at your family and friends. Heck, he's even taken shots at some of your friends... killing some.
At what point do you [noidea' take him serious?
ED: made print larger so aging eyes like mine can read more easily - MD
very good john,
from one who is a combat veteran i concur on all points. when i was in "nam i was issued an m-14 until i had about three months to go and they made me turn it in for an m-16(useless). my m-14 would work 100% of the time(handy in combat. the m-16 would stop working frequently. this was 1967. i now own the civilian equivelent of the m-14(m1-a1). it is a little heavy now(i am 61) but properly sighted i can still hit a bulls eye at 1,000 yd.(not feet) all day long. and that is w/ iron sights. w/scope and spotter to get it on target you would be dead meat at 2,000 yds. now that's a weapon. some of my parts are match grade. i paid $1100.00 about 8 years ago for it and i see them now for $2,000.00 at gun shows that are equiped like mine. i buy bulk military ammo for practice and reloading and specialized expensive ammo at sporting goods store.
another good investment: quality firearms/ammo- price will only go up!
added a leupold scope and i now have a weapon for hunting anything in the country and a good long range defensive weapon.
That Wikipedia link has quite the list of terrorist organizations! :o
There are also interesting links to terrorist event history.
apaknad; nice gun, that M1A1
m.d,
i also had a .450 marlin guide gun that i loved, you have a 45-70? serious knock down power on both. i will get another .450
I will unfortunately I have to wait until tonight to get on this as I have to go to work, but I assume we are really talking about Iran and I was wondering where these statements have been made -- twisted translations taken out of context from the mainstream government controlled media or what was actually said?
Could it be that they are looking at it the same as you and they are only trying to protect their families, as we have already taken over and occupied 2 of their small neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, under false pretenses based on lies and we are wiping out the Iraqi and Afghan population with Depleted Uranium?
Our gift to the Afghans and our own military. Yes -- our military boys are coming home with this too from the DU -- in fact the can even pass it on to their wives.
Yes - here is a gift from our war machine to the Afghans, Iraqis, and our sons and daughters. A cute little Depleted Uranium baby.
What if this was your own child? Would you be upset at the country responsible our would you just go on and raise your son or daughter with the pride of a proud parent, if it lived?
Would you then fight to free your country of the occupiers? Would they not then be your enemy"? If you were a neighboring country with oil would you not want to protect yourself? Seems that is what you said above.
QuoteYou have a neighbor that hates you. He has told you and everyone in the neighborhood that he is going to kill your family as soon as he is able to afford some tools to do so completely. He's killed before. He's told you he would hire others to do the work and to snipe at your family and friends. Heck, he's even taken shots at some of your friends... killing some.
At what point do you no idea take him serious?
We have already demonstrated we will wantonly kill them without remorse.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bush+where+are+those+weapons+of+mass+destruction&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
We are not a terrorist organization when we do this to whole civilizations?
(http://www.jankraak-taichitao.nl/upload/htmleditor/DU%20baby%20Afghanistan%203.jpg)
Is it a wonder they hate us?
Or do your parameters not apply to us because we are the great superior race, the Amerikkkans?
Quote
"You have a neighbor that hates you. He has told you and everyone in the neighborhood that he is going to kill your family as soon as he is able to afford some tools to do so completely. He's killed before. He's told you he would hire others to do the work and to snipe at your family and friends. Heck, he's even taken shots at some of your friends... killing some."
I will give you a better reply tonight.
Note -- sorry I couldn't read the rest of the replies - I'm late.
With the total lack of truth in the world how does one decide who is and is not a threat? Does it even matter what we think? The masters make up their minds that some country is evil for what ever reason and we are told they are evil regardless of what the truth may be. This world has always had walls, forts, castles for the purpose of keeping the other guys from taking what you've got. If someone hates/fears the US because they think we are trying to take what they've got do they have a right to build walls? That's all nukes are really, walls. They are of little use in regular warfare.
C'mon Glenn, don't snipe and run. Answer the question. Iran is an example, but not an exclusive one.
Very simple question. Very simple words. Given the above condition, when would you take him as serious?
(Scott... another minor detail, but walls can't be strapped to the top of a ballistic missile and aimed at your house. Well, maybe they could, but the damage inflicted would be within a relatively small radius).
Bringing DU, birth defects, unintended and serious consequences all, sidesteps the question originally asked... Those may be reasons for avoiding use of certain weapon types, not reasons for sitting back and letting acknowledged belligerents take potshots at you or your allies.
Since we're talking "war here, war there" I think this article has some important points... hopefully, some will read it... and do go to the link on Gen. Smedley Butler & read what he had to say (I can't remember where the link was posted - I've been out of the loop quite a bit lately, working extra due to the economy d* )
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/24/708/
I've discussed this at length with my co-workers - one of the docs (WASP) I worked with this past weekend was in "special forces" during the Vietnam war. He is very conservative but has been against the Iraq & Afganistan war from the beginning. I talked with some East Indian docs, also... they were saying they "came to America for the freedom & opportunity but they might as well be back in India what with our corrupt administration & corporate leaders" they really don't know what to do. Until the past few months they would defend the USA, saying that it was "more honest" than any other country, but they don't think that anymore. So tell me again what we are defending? Many of the veterans coming back from 1,2,3 tours in Iraq think we need to get out, but due to all the destruction of the countries, we can't just leave until we fix things, but the people don't trust us anymore & are fighting against the US. If it is freedom, we sure are going about it like we've lost our marbles...
And how do we think that we will make a "theocracy" into a "democracy"? Our own country is no longer a "democracy" let alone a "republic"... good examples we are...
The article above that I've linked to above, outlines a step-by-step descent into fascism & a police state... see if it doesn't look familiar... And I am definitely NOT a "bleeding heart liberal"! I'd appreciate your comments...
BTW, what country has used nuclear weapons on another country? ??? not to mention DU...
lots of differing opinions here, so I'll toss mine into the pile as well and let them fall where they may.
"You have a neighbor that hates you. He has told you and everyone in the neighborhood that he is going to kill your family as soon as he is able to afford some tools to do so completely. He's killed before. He's told you he would hire others to do the work and to snipe at your family and friends. Heck, he's even taken shots at some of your friends... killing some. At what point do you no idea take him serious? "
Yes, people should be taking the United states very serious here. We do not have a good track record for being a good international citizen. We have threatened many and now that weakness is showing expect some of that to come back to us. For what it is worth, if called upon I will take up arms against Iran or anyone else if needed to defend this nation if under attack. However, I will not volunteer for it today.
War is distraction. War is a mechanism to swell patriotism, and get people to ignore larger failings of the leadership. It has occurred for centuries and wont be stopping any time soon. I believe that for most, people need a black and white, good guy/bad guy enemy to focus on.
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." Charles de Gaulle, President of France; recalled on leaving the presidency, Life 9 May 69
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any- price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. letter (Jan. 10, 1917).
"The art of leadership ... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.... The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).
"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).
"The great mass of people ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 (1925).
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." Adoph Hitler, 1939
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
George W. Bush, 2004.
"I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper."
George W. Bush, 2005.
Chilling quotes, Muldoon, but I think that is basically the real story... besides, even the Bible says there will "always be wars & rumors of wars"... as long as there is greed, the "me 1st" attitude, instead of Jesus' command to "love your neighbor as yourself" - he also said "not to worry about tomorrow, as the evil today is sufficient" - that doesn't mean we aren't to be "wise as serpents, gentle as doves"... did Jesus take up arms against those who took him prisoner? From what I read, he rebuked Peter for using his sword to cut off one of the guard's ears & he even went so far as to heal the guard... I believe in protecting our nation, protecting my home & loved ones if attacked...
But I think a lot of people either haven't read or don't remember what Paul Bremer did to the Iraqi people... check out this link http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/12/billions_over_baghdad_how_did_9b
Billions Over Baghdad: How Did $9B in Cash Airlifted From the Fed to Iraq Go Missing?
One month after the invasion of Iraq, the United States began airlifting planeloads of cash to Baghdad. Between April 2003 and June 2004, a total of $12 billion dollars of US currency was shipped to Iraq where it was to be dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority for reconstruction. To date, at least $9 billion dollars cannot be accounted for. In a startling new expose in Vanity Fair, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele follow the money trail from the Federal Reserve to Iraq. [includes rush transcript]
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bush-cheney_oil.html
THE BUSH-CHENEY OIL WAR
Administration Plans to Steal Iraqi Oil For Mega-Rich Revealed for First Time
By Richard Walker
Iraqi oil workers are waking up to the fact that a proposed hydrocarbon law the Bush administration wants the Iraqi Parliament to pass will effectively place the country�s massive oil reserves in the hands of big U.S. and British oil giants for decades.
Many Iraqis are only realizing now what experts have been saying since 2003: that the invasion of Iraq was about oil and Israel, and not about America�s security.
SECRET U.S. PLANS FOR IRAQ'S OIL
BBC Newsnight | March 17, 2005
By Greg Palast
Why was Paul Wolfowitz pushed out of the Pentagon onto the World Bank? The answer lies in a 323-page document, secret until now, indicating that the allies of Big Oil in the Bush Administration have defeated neo-conservatives and their chief Wolfowitz. Tonight BBC Television Newsnight will tell the true story of the fall of the neo-cons. An investigation conducted by BBC with Harper's magazine will also reveal that the US State Department made detailed plans for war in Iraq -- and for Iraq's oil -- within weeks of Bush's first inauguration in 2001.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/secret_us_plans_for_iraq_oil.htm
So, tell me again, why did we go into Iraq & Afganistan? ???
A song by Bob Dylan comes to mind You Gotta Serve Somebody
by Bob Dylan You may be an ambassador to England or France, You may be the heavyweight champion of the world, You may like to gamble, you might like to dance, You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You're gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody. You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage, You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage, You may be a business man or some high degree thief, They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief You're gonna have to serve somebody, But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody. You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk, You may be the head of some big TV network, You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame, You may be living in another country under another name But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord You're gonna have to serve somebody, But you're gonna have to serve somebody. You may be a construction worker working on a home, You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome, You might be somebody's landlord, you might even own banks You might own guns and you might even own tanks, But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You're gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody. You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride, You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side, You may be workin' in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair, You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You're gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody. Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk, Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk, You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread, But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed You're gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody. You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy, You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy, You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray, You may call me anything but no matter what you say You're gonna have to serve somebody. You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
Do a little research on the Fabian Society or Lucius Trust & the people behind the movements... check out Margaret Sanger & population control, check out Skull & Bones - George W Bush & his daddy have never renounced their allegiance to Skull & Bones - just which "Lord" do they serve? Do some research on the Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, the UN Agenda 21... I could go on & on... conspiracy you say? check out their beginnings... check out David Rockefeller...
Quote from: Sassy on September 24, 2008, 01:00:07 PM.... BTW, what country has used nuclear weapons on another country? ....
What's this supposed to mean?
Let's see, WWII... We had Germany, under Adolf Hitler working on a bomb. We had the Soviet Union, under Joe Stalin. We had Japan, theoretically under Emperor Hirohito, but really under total military control with a mindset of 'no surrender'. As well we had the USA working on a atomic bomb.
Who would you rather have use it first? (assuming that once the ball got rolling somebody was going to. I have little doubt that the other three would have had they been first.)
Quote(Scott... another minor detail, but walls can't be strapped to the top of a ballistic missile and aimed at your house. Well, maybe they could, but the damage inflicted would be within a relatively small radius).
Lets get real here. Any nuke fired by any country at any other country with a nuke is the same as shooting yourself because you can be assured the other side will return the favor. So if Iran or anyone else shoots one nuke at us they would be commiting suicide. Having a nuke or trying to make one is hardly a good reason to invade another country.
So while our attention is on the merits of "just wars" we are being blindsided by Paulson & Co., the head of the US Treasury, former Goldman Sachs CEO, we have the preplanned war against the US citizen by the preplanned "bailout" which says in clause
8. Review: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
The bailout plan starts with
(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:
(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;
(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;
(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;
(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and
(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html
So not only do they get our young men & women to go to war to kill & be killed, they wage an economic war to bring us to the "New World Order" that Daddy Bush was so fond of speaking about... we can't even review what they are planning!!! So, it is a win-win situation - the internationalists make money on the wars & help with de-population & they control the money - it all equals POWER a game of chess & we are the pawns who don't want to see the big picture for the squabbling... keep the "common man fearful & confused... Bernaise, the father of our current advertising disinformation taught us well... what will you say to our "leaders ie handlers" when they decide they need your property to help pay back Goldman Sachs since they are demanding premium prices, not market... I can't begin to understand it all because I don't think the way "they" do, but I want to have my eyes open & state the obvious. After reading about Enron, Drexel Burnham, the Federal Reserve... seeing the draconian laws that have been put in place "for our own good, for our security & prosperity" the myriad questions that still have not been answered about 9/11 that has led to so much of what is happening today... ??? d* if we don't speak up, stand up & fight what is going on in our own country, none of it will matter... except that we will be the new serfs in a feudal system...
check out all the different agencies, foundations etc that came about in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created....
Quote from: ScottA on September 24, 2008, 04:31:15 PM
Quote(Scott... another minor detail, but walls can't be strapped to the top of a ballistic missile and aimed at your house. Well, maybe they could, but the damage inflicted would be within a relatively small radius).
Lets get real here. Any nuke fired by any country at any other country with a nuke is the same as shooting yourself because you can be assured the other side will return the favor. So if Iran or anyone else shoots one nuke at us they would be commiting suicide. Having a nuke or trying to make one is hardly a good reason to invade another country.
Amen to that Scott!
Remember "order out of chaos" & "problem, solution, resolution"
Quote from: NM_Shooter on September 24, 2008, 12:06:47 PM
C'mon Glenn, don't snipe and run. Answer the question. Iran is an example, but not an exclusive one.
Very simple question. Very simple words. Given the above condition, when would you take him as serious?
(Scott... another minor detail, but walls can't be strapped to the top of a ballistic missile and aimed at your house. Well, maybe they could, but the damage inflicted would be within a relatively small radius).
Hey, you guys, wasn't anyone even slightly outraged of the mockery conducted by the "president" concerning WMD's when maybe you or someone you know have lost a loved one due to the fact we went to war to find those WMD's? I take care of these men & women who went over there in good faith... I see the devastation in their lives, families & psychologically... When I find the link, I'll also post the news interview when someone asked about Osama bin Laden & what he had to do with 9/11 - Bush stated "nothing" doesn't that appall anyone? He's also not on the "most wanted" list... I stand in amazement at the lack of outrage...
Quote from: MountainDon on September 24, 2008, 03:58:49 PM
Quote from: Sassy on September 24, 2008, 01:00:07 PM.... BTW, what country has used nuclear weapons on another country? ....
What's this supposed to mean?
Let's see, WWII... We had Germany, under Adolf Hitler working on a bomb. We had the Soviet Union, under Joe Stalin. We had Japan, theoretically under Emperor Hirohito, but really under total military control with a mindset of 'no surrender'. As well we had the USA working on a atomic bomb.
Who would you rather have use it first? (assuming that once the ball got rolling somebody was going to. I have little doubt that the other three would have had they been first.)
Don't forget that Japan had already constructed a submarine aircraft carrier that was ready to deploy a nuke somewhere in California. We beat them to it. If we hadn't done it, we would have gotten nuked ourselves. (Don.. have you been to the nuke museum in Los Alamos? It is really well done).
Quote from: ScottA on September 24, 2008, 04:31:15 PM
Quote(Scott... another minor detail, but walls can't be strapped to the top of a ballistic missile and aimed at your house. Well, maybe they could, but the damage inflicted would be within a relatively small radius).
Lets get real here. Any nuke fired by any country at any other country with a nuke is the same as shooting yourself because you can be assured the other side will return the favor. So if Iran or anyone else shoots one nuke at us they would be commiting suicide. Having a nuke or trying to make one is hardly a good reason to invade another country.
Hi Scott.. another teeny point (i like helping!)
Muslims are pretty fond of suicide missions, end of the world scenarios... that sort of thing. Bringing the end of the world is sort of a goal for them.
I can't help but notice that my simple, single question has not been answered.
Lots of smoke and mirrors and B.S....pictures of deformed babies, nonsense about nuke weapons being used 60 years ago, but no answer to that one question.
Helllloo? Is this thing on? Can you hear me now?
Quote from: NM_Shooter on September 24, 2008, 08:59:34 PM
Don't forget that Japan had already constructed a submarine aircraft carrier that was ready to deploy a nuke somewhere in California. We beat them to it. If we hadn't done it, we would have gotten nuked ourselves. (Don.. have you been to the nuke museum in Los Alamos? It is really well done).
The Japanese were actually not quite as far along as Germany in the quest to make an atomic bomb, from my recent reading.
BUT we didn't know that until after the war!
The Japanese were going to make any invasion of their islands very costly. They had pinpointed where the allies would land, unlike Hitler in Europe. They spent months fortifying those beaches. Even though we had pretty much wiped out their navy and maritime shipping as well as their fighter aircraft they had somewhere between 7000 and 1000 kamikaze aircraft and pilots. Some of these were purpose built one way aircraft, others simply anything they had and packed with explosives. They had hoarded enough fuel for these one way missions. The aircraft were dispersed in many hidden sights. The bombing of their air fields would not have put much of a dent in their kamikaze capacity.
Then they were also a few thousand small one/two man submaines with torpedos. Add to that some that were outfitted with nose explosives that were to be rammed. Add to that a corps of swimmers with chest strapped explosives. They had rebreathers; the plan was to wait in the water at the invasion beaches.
This could have truly been a fight to the last man situation. The Japanese warrior code was the force behind this. This was much like the religious fanaticism exhibited by today's terrorists to my eye.
Even after we dropped two atomic bombs on their cities there was a hard core of fanatical military officers who did not want to surrender. They tried to sabotage the Emperor's surrender right up to the last hour.
In the light of all that it is no wonder to me that the bombs were dropped.
In the end it was the Soviets who came closest to making their own bombs.
RE: Los Alamos... yes, we've been there. The museum in ABQ. Alamogordo, White sands. The only place related to atomics we haven't been I guess is Trinity Site. Been to Roswell too... my eyes couldn't cease rolling. :o See, there they go again.
Lots of Obfuscation.
Sorry for adding to it with the history lesson above.
QuoteYou have a neighbor that hates you. He has told you and everyone in the neighborhood that he is going to kill your family as soon as he is able to afford some tools to do so completely. He's killed before. He's told you he would hire others to do the work and to snipe at your family and friends. Heck, he's even taken shots at some of your friends... killing some.
At what point do you take him serious?
If we're going to answer this we need to know if he has a reason to want to kill my family and if so is it something I did to cause him to feel this way? If I provoked his anger then I'd be looking to burn his house down or get him to leave the area in some sneaky way. If he just hates me for no real reason then I'd have to wait for him to act. Motive both his and mine would need to be considered.
Let me say that whether or not the reason for the hatred is "real" or not is a matter of perception. The reason may not seem real or rational to you or I, but if it is real to the promoter of the hatred then it must be considered a real threat. What matters most is whether or not he is capable of carrying out the threat.
To apply a name to this question...
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears threatening to me. For one, has made direct verbal threats to Israel; vowing to wipe them off the map. I also find his calling the holocaust a myth to be scary. He has since back pedaled on that statement but that's typical for public figures who make statements that are found unsavory to others. I still believe he personally wants to do just that.
However, the premise of the question still applies in a general manner to the world as a whole.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on September 24, 2008, 12:06:47 PM
C'mon Glenn, don't snipe and run. Answer the question. Iran is an example, but not an exclusive one.
Very simple question. Very simple words. Given the above condition, when would you take him as serious?
(Scott... another minor detail, but walls can't be strapped to the top of a ballistic missile and aimed at your house. Well, maybe they could, but the damage inflicted would be within a relatively small radius).
I wouldn't leave you if I didn't have to, Frank. I want to help you. :)
Actually I stayed an extra hour - I was already an hour late, to make the first reply to you. I cannot parrot the mainstream media news as they are prohibited from telling the true story. Why do you think you don't see any war dead in the US? hmm
I would take him as serious when our intelligence said he was serious, however the main ones saying he is serious are mainstream government controlled propaganda outlets here in the US such as Fox News and others. Anyone who only follows the mainstream news and doesn't research further would think like you do, Frank. As seen by the above video, Dubya was lying to us to get support for his oil and power war, so you have to research further. Follow the money. See what your leaders are up to and what is really happening. I noticed you have still not provided proof references to these threats so I assume you believe in the Bogeyman they have made up for you.
So if it is not Iran, then I would have to reply that we can sit and make up scenarios all day but if we kill all that hate us we would have to kill the world because our foreign policies have caused many of them to hate us.
As Don noted, we are the only ones who have been cold enough to actually drop the atomic bomb because we wanted to see the results. Not to cause the surrender of Japan. To cause the unconditional surrender of Japan without negotiating at all with them or discussing it. So it is us who are in need of being watched so that we don't do it again to start with.
QuoteThe atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. After six months of intense fire-bombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday,[1] August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.[
The memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain lists of the names of the hibakusha who are known to have died since the bombings. Updated annually on the anniversaries of the bombings, as of August 2008 the memorials record the names of more than 400,000 hibakusha — 258,310[61] in Hiroshima, and 145,984[62] in Nagasaki.
We commissioned studies of the effects of the bomb, not to help them but as an experiment recording as if on laboratory rats.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on September 24, 2008, 09:12:42 PM
I can't help but notice that my simple, single question has not been answered.
Lots of smoke and mirrors and B.S....pictures of deformed babies, nonsense about nuke weapons being used 60 years ago, but no answer to that one question.
Helllloo? Is this thing on? Can you hear me now?
Sorry, Frank...I don't have a desk job-- worked until well after dark.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on September 25, 2008, 12:27:44 AM
As Don noted, we are the only ones who have been cold enough to actually drop the atomic bomb because we wanted to see the results. Not to cause the surrender of Japan. To cause the unconditional surrender of Japan without negotiating at all with them or discussing it. So it is us who are in need of being watched so that we don't do it again to start with.
Whoa. Hold on a minute. I've been misinterpreted.
My statement was to say that it is absolutely right we dropped the bomb. Two of them. And no other country ever did. That's simple plain fact.
But I never intimated the reason was "because we wanted to see the results". With the knowledge we had at the time we did not have any real idea of the long term consequences. Most of the worry was about what the size of the explosion might do to the "balance" of the physical world, not that there were going to be radiation consequences. The atomic bomb was seen as the answer to the question as to how to avoid the terrible looses that would occur if a land invasion was to take place. My reading on the events do not indicate that anyone had much of an idea that the bomb, once dropped, would keep killing in future years.
At the time, it was known that Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union were working on the atomic bomb. In fact it was news that German scientists were working on splitting the atom that propelled the intense activity that went into The Manhattan Project. We did not know for certain how their research was going, but it was felt, and wisely so IMO, that it was foolhardy to not pursue the genie ourselves.
In retrospect it is true that we misjudged one aspect of demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese people have great reverence for their Emperor. If the matter had been studied more fully it would have been realized that leaving the Emperor in place, mostly as a symbol, would have likely made the idea of surrender more palatable than unconditional surrender. At the same time it must be remembered that the Japanese had been ruthless in their advancement of their territorial grabbing. They were into China long before most in the USA heard of Pearl Harbor. They were vicious and remorseless invaders. This, in part, was a product of their
Bushido, the warrior code. Surrender brought disgrace. Because their military had this "die, never surrender; better to die for the Emperor than live in defeat" mentality they treated any enemy worse than animals. To the Japanese any living enemy soldier was the lowest form of life. The Japanese took far fewer prisoners in WWII than the Germans did. The Japanese slaughtered prisoners outright or worked them to death. That contributed to the USA's demand for complete and unconditional surrender.
Remember, at the time it was Japanese forces that were being the aggressors against many nations in their part of the world. Their aggression against China began in 1931. They were ahead of Hitler in being nasty. We ignored it. If they had not attacked the USA their war might have turned out quite differently.
I don't think we were "cold" about the decision to drop the bombs. At the time it was simply thought that they were big bombs. At the time, as I earlier pointed out, the invasion of the islands of Japan would have been a casualty disaster for both the Japanese and the combined forces of the Allies. At the time the Japanese military wanted to fight to the last man. I don't know what else the Allies could have done given the knowledge of the times. It is now known that even after the two bombs were dropped there were high ranking Japanese military who wanted to fight it out down to the last man if necessary, in the hope that they might kill enough Allies as to make them (us) give up.
As for studying the effects afterward... well I guess you might as well. In fact one could say that it would be irresponsible not to. I don't believe the USA went ahead dropping the bombs with the preconceived concept that this would make a cool science experiment. Again, with the knowledge of the day, it seemed like an expedient way to end the war in the Pacific.
Looking backwards, with today's knowledge, most people would say that no, we should not have dropped the bombs on Japan. However, I maintain that faced with the same circumstances and knowledge that was available back then, anyone would have made the same decision.
Quote"I have no problem with having the worlds strongest military and maintaining it in great working order here, at home to where no one dare attack us."
Is this feasible to do? I tend to not think so. Especially when dealing with terrorist organizations. How do we keep terrorist supporting nations from lobbing nukes at us once they have them? Do we wait to be attacked first? At what point do we say..."OK, we now have our threshold of crispy cities... we are now justified in retaliation."? My threshold for that is zero.
I assume this is the question you want answered first. I wouldn't even consider not answering it, if I had been here.
Of course it is feasible to do if that is what we want to do.
For really nailing down the question, even though you say you don't mean Iran, I have to assume from your reference to 4000 centrifuges, that you do really mean Iran. I can't give a specific answer on a general question with changeable unknown scenarios.
Limiting this part of the question to Iran, I say according to Iran, we are not cooperating. Where is our diplomacy? I haven't heard of the threats being made in the way that you refer to them. Could you please supply references?
Quote
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
* Iranian president calls for furthering of diplomatic relations between the two nations
NEW YORK: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday justified his policy of confronting the West by saying US troops are surrounding Iran. Interviewed by National Public Radio (NPR) about his stance, Ahmadinejad replied: "I'd like to ask you, is it the Iranian (army) that's around the territories around the country, or is it the US troops that are around? "It is the US troops around our borders. It is not ours around the American borders. So what exactly are they doing over there?" he asked.
Diplomatic relations: Ahmadinejad said the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency offers "the best guarantee" that Iran can enrich uranium for peaceful uses, and said the United States "should cease putting pressure" on the agency. He also said diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States should advance, citing a willingness to cooperate on security in Iraq. Asked if Iran has a plan to reassure the world it intends to use its nuclear program for peaceful means only, Ahmadinejad said the United States should "extend at least the equivalent of one-tenth the cooperation we have extended" to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. "We believe that the IAEA itself offers the best guarantee," he added.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\09\24\story_24-9-2008_pg4_13
I have to bring up this of your comments next.
QuoteI think we should spend a ton of money on "intelligence", followed up by very effective, PC unrestricted and assertive preemptive action.
You only allow one option and that is bombing the heck out of them no matter what our intelligence we have paid tons of money for says, so I have to assume you will not take no weapons of mass destruction, or not enriching for bombs as an answer -- no matter what our high cost tons of money intelligence says, just like our currently installed resident of the Whitehouse.
I will redirect you to this video - it appear you missed it.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bush+where+are+those+weapons+of+mass+destruction&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
Remember that he was told there were no weapons there by the inspectors and Saddam Hussein himself, as well as Saddam inviting the inspectors to inspect-- they had to leave as we were going to bomb anyway. That was our intent all along.
Did we know there was no reason to attack Iraq? Were we attacked by them? This guy knew. Please watch it. I don't want to think I am talking to someone with his mind so controlled by the government propaganda that he is afraid to look at the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSunCsrkLTw
Our ill founded pre-emptive strike was for what? Against the intelligence you claim we should use? We just bomb them anyway because we want a powerbase and control of oil (looks like that failed) in the middle east - as it has always been. We never intended not to bomb them and the strike on Iraq and Afghanistan was planned before the Bush Administration took office.
Should we do the same to Iran because we want their countries oil? Negotiations are off the table?
That high cost intelligence you tout so highly says "U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
This is our own intelligence - not UN intelligence ..... .
Note that this is CNN whom I assume would be reliable enough for you to believe.
I am not saying we let them bomb us in the face of irrefutable evidence that he is intent on doing it. Our highly paid intelligence says there is not a problem so we currently have no reason to kill them, unless we go with your plan and kill them anyway. Are we being monitored to be sure we don't nuke someone?
Remember that 6 Nukes were stolen from Minot AFB with highest US Government authorization. I assume you didn't follow the story close enough to know that only five nukes made it to Louisiana. Yes I know the story has been changed to cover that up, but the fact remains, one nuke is missing and several people somehow are dead.
QuoteWhoa. Hold on a minute. I've been misinterpreted.
My statement was to say that it is absolutely right we dropped the bomb. Two of them. And no other country ever did. That's simple plain fact.
Guess I have to amend that to Don confirming we dropped the bombs and are the only ones in the world to have ever done so.
Quote from: muldoon on September 24, 2008, 01:15:36 PM
lots of differing opinions here, so I'll toss mine into the pile as well and let them fall where they may.
"You have a neighbor that hates you. He has told you and everyone in the neighborhood that he is going to kill your family as soon as he is able to afford some tools to do so completely. He's killed before. He's told you he would hire others to do the work and to snipe at your family and friends. Heck, he's even taken shots at some of your friends... killing some. At what point do you no idea take him serious? "
Yes, people should be taking the United states very serious here. We do not have a good track record for being a good international citizen. We have threatened many and now that weakness is showing expect some of that to come back to us. For what it is worth, if called upon I will take up arms against Iran or anyone else if needed to defend this nation if under attack. However, I will not volunteer for it today.
War is distraction. War is a mechanism to swell patriotism, and get people to ignore larger failings of the leadership. It has occurred for centuries and wont be stopping any time soon. I believe that for most, people need a black and white, good guy/bad guy enemy to focus on.
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." Charles de Gaulle, President of France; recalled on leaving the presidency, Life 9 May 69
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any- price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. letter (Jan. 10, 1917).
"The art of leadership ... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.... The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).
"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).
"The great mass of people ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 (1925).
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." Adoph Hitler, 1939
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
George W. Bush, 2004.
"I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper."
George W. Bush, 2005.
muldoon, I have to say that I agree with all of that, and that obviously your mind is open enough to face the facts.
I have to add that war is not only a distraction, but a major moneymaker and played properly the corporations who make the war machines can supply both sides and profit from both as their major interest is in prolonging the war and making all they can off of it.
Frank -- I can agree with you on one thing. Git er' done, as Russia just did with Georgia. Obviously not a moneymaking proposition, but a simple 5 day war to correct the attack on people it had agreed to guard and keep the peace.
Our wars are obviously for profit, as you say you disagree with, and I assume you respect the way the Russians handled themselves.
Quote from: MountainDon on September 24, 2008, 12:28:37 PM
Bringing DU, birth defects, unintended and serious consequences all, sidesteps the question originally asked... Those may be reasons for avoiding use of certain weapon types, not reasons for sitting back and letting acknowledged belligerents take potshots at you or your allies.
From this statement, Don, I assume you also approve of Russia's actions in protecting S. Ossettia, when our trainers and the Israeli Mercenaries in Georgia trained and influenced Georgia to test Russia by attacking one of their allies and The Russians were the agreed upon peace keepers there. It was their agreed duty to protect S. Ossettia. What kind of peacekeepers would they have been if they didn't carry out that protection?
This is a fine example of a hasty and decisive response to an incursion into their territory by a terrorist group, bombing civilians indiscriminately and killing peacekeepers who were given no warning.
It is nice to get some agreement here that terrorist organizations (the Georgians trained by us and Israel) should be stopped stopped decisively and swiftly.
The Bush administration policies are the biggest cause of danger to our families and the biggest threat to our safety in the United States. Pre-emptive strikes do not make friends or solve problems. They only cause us to be viewed as the world bully and the other countries will have to create alliances in order to protect themselves. Look at us and our actions to see how they view us.
What happened to love thy neighbor? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Do we ignore those commands and expect to not suffer the consequences? hmm
If I missed anything let me know.
I am going to the valley tomorrow with a helper so will not get time to reply until tomorrow night, but, I'll be back.....
Quote
Hiroshima & Nagasaki -
the Worst Terror Attacks in Human History
The Record Speaks...
Collated & Sequenced by Nadesan Satyendra
"...If terrorism is the massacre of innocents to break the will of rulers, were not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, terrorism on a colossal scale?... "Hiroshima, Nagasaki & Christian Morality - Patrick J. Buchanan, August 2005
"...The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.." Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Ralph Raico, 2001
"The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality " The Lies Of Hiroshima Are The Lies Of Today - John Pilger, 6 August 2008
"...I voiced to him [Stimson, US Secretary of War] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the [atom] bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of such a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that movement, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'." Dwight D. Eisenhower:The White House Years: Mandate For Change, 1953 - 1956 Doubleday & Company Inc., New York, 1963, pp. 312-313
http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/hiroshima.htm
Speaking of supporting terrorists, would you like more information on the ones we support, have supported and continue to support? Here's a start - I can find more if you would like.
QuoteIran specialists have been aware of these groups for years, and largely discounted them. However, assertions of active United States support for them, awakened by journalist Seymour Hersh in the July 7 issue of the New Yorker, have become real cause for concern. The groups include:
*The M.E.K—Mujaheddin-e Khalq—officially a terrorist group in the United States for having killed Americans before the Revolution. They are Marxist in orientation, and are despised in Iran, since they were protected by Saddam Hussein all during the Iran-Iraq war, and are directly supported by the United States today.
*The PJAK—the "Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan," a trans-national Kurdish militant organization dedicated to an independent Kurdistan. They are supported by the United States when they launch attacks against Iranian forces, but faulted when they launch attacks against Turkish forces in Turkey.
*The Jundallah—based in Sunni Muslim Balochistan. They are supported by extreme conservative Salafi groups in Saudi Arabia. The Salafi movement also forms the religious philosophy of the Taliban of Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Claims of U.S. support for Jundallah are now several years old. In April 2007 Brian Ross and Christopher Isham of ABC News reported that the United States had been aiding Jundallah to attack Iranian targets. Jundallah's leader, Abdul Malik Rigi, appeared on the Iranian service of the Voice of America, where he was identified as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement." More disturbing are Jundallah's wider connections. As Seymour Hersh points out: "Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists."
Sunni Arab separatists in the Southeast Iranian province of Khuzistan, especially in its capital, Ahwaz, have been active since the time of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. There is no identifiable organization as with the other groups above, but Iranian security forces claim that the current round of violence, which includes the assassination of an Iranian Shi'ite cleric, Hojjat ol-Eslam Hesham Seymari on June 26, 2007, were "trained under the umbrella of the Americans in Iraq." The militants have also been linked with the London-based Ahvaz Arab People's Democratic-Popular Front.
The Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement, SANAM or GAMOH, led by Mahmudali Chehregani was founded in 1995, and is perhaps the weakest of the ethnic separatist movements today. Nevertheless, Chehregani was hosted in Washington by the U.S. Department of Defense in June 2003, according to the Washington Times, and addressed a number of neoconservative venues. One difficulty with this movement is Chehregani's antipathy to Kurds, whom he calls "guests" in the Azerbaijan region of Iran.
These separatist movements continue to have support in some legislative circles. Two of the most avid supporters are Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, both Republicans. Both favor removing the MEK from the list of terrorist organizations, and Brownback served as host to Mahmud Ali Chehregani in Washington.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=0a3f42cca536140506e6a708be367b98
Does this make us susceptible to a pre-emptive strike by Iran, Frank. Seems it does if I understood what you said correctly or it doesn't apply to us ??? You will be fair won't you?
Okay... I think we can agree that you won't answer the question that has been covered up by a bunch of weird rhetoric. I was asking what your threshold was to putting up with someone who wanted you dead. When do you consider them serious?
The point I was trying to make with that question is that I am not willing to wait until somebody pulls the trigger. And I guarantee you that you are not that type either. It is way too late then. Are you telling me that you would wait for someone to go out, get a gun, load it, point it at your kid's head, and wait for them to follow through before considering them serious? After they have told you and everyone else their intention long before they started any action?
My guess is that if you were out and about, and someone not known to you at all were to come up to you, and point a gun at you, you would take them as serious as a heart attack. You wouldn't wait to check any websites to see what the problem was.
This started out like this... you made the statement that we could sit here within our own border, and create such a mighty military that no one would dare attack us.
I contend that it can not be done. These are people who are not driven by rational thought. In spite of your own somewhat blinding hatred towards George Bush in specific and the US / Israel in general, they hated us long ago, long before W or his dad were in the white house. There is nothing we can do to pacify them or to make them our friends, or to even be tolerant of us. Nothing. Ever.
How big would a defensive military need to be to intimidate them? How much bigger was the US military than Al Qaeda prior to 9/11? They didn't seem at all deterred by the odds then. What do you want in terms of military might?
Think for a bit about their (not just Iran, or Syria, or the Palestine communities) overall society and doctrines. How do they treat their own people? Steal something, and hands get cut off. Blaspheme and you are put to death. Doesn't that sound just a tad overkill? And that is their culture and some of their governments support it!
Forgiveness has never been part of their culture. Never.
Why do you think that they would be willing to leave us alone based on us having a big military and staying here at home?
The best defense is a strong offense. (not the other way around)
Your own logic is compromised by your hate of the US and the folks at the helm. It seems to me that you are willing to allow our country's nose to be cut off to spite our face, and that you sort of long for it. I don't understand this.
The bunker you live in is not deep enough to protect you if this gets escalated.
-f-
BTW... don't assume that I am saying that we have not contributed to this problem. I am saying that it is now what it is, and that to ignore what is going on would be nothing short of suicide.
The war in Iraq WAS justified... Iraq was found to be materially (hard evidence) in violation of UN1441. I consider 4 tons of VX to be a WMD, and that is only one example.
What is not justified is this police action BS that doesn't seem to have an end. I'm pissed and I want it over with.
i almost hate getting into this but... if i were king er president then our countries policy would be to live by the golden rule, love, pray for your enemies, bring back all of our troops to the mainland and have the scariest armed forces in the world to kick the s--- out of you as a deterrent. all of you are bringing good points to the table but our most pressing problem is getting back control of our country somehow.
shooter what you are describing is a type of global guerilla warfare. and a large armed forces is no deterrent. this only scares countries, not terrorists. this is the world we live in. i am not sure i have an answer to this problem.
I had a thought this morning on all this. It's a possible solution to the crisis were on now, and its quite extreme and likely not persuable in any form. Interesting thought process behind it though.
Step 1) US prints 6 trillion dollars in foreign debt and pays way out of financial crises. All debts are wiped clean, stock market goes to 300k in a month.
Step 2) We tell China, thanks for all that money - were going to turn our heads and let you do whatever you need to in Taiwan. We tell Russia, same - thanks for the cash, you go ahead and do what you need in Georgia, Ukraine and such. Then tell the middle east, I know we still owe you alot - how does Isreal sound?
Step 3) The us emergence debt free, with no participation in the world war.
Can you tell I'm not getting much sleep?
Quote from: apaknad on September 25, 2008, 08:15:23 AM
i almost hate getting into this but... if i were king er president then our countries policy would be to live by the golden rule, love, pray for your enemies, bring back all of our troops to the mainland and have the scariest armed forces in the world to kick the s--- out of you as a deterrent. all of you are bringing good points to the table but our most pressing problem is getting back control of our country somehow.
Apaknad, I think I can support your platform.
Not much for praying... but the golden rule is not a bad medium.... do unto others...We have never lived by that creed however :-\
QuoteOkay... I think we can agree that you won't answer the question that has been covered up by a bunch of weird rhetoric. I was asking what your threshold was to putting up with someone who wanted you dead. When do you consider them serious?
OK - now it is clear. When I can no longer negotiate with them.
QuoteThe point I was trying to make with that question is that I am not willing to wait until somebody pulls the trigger. And I guarantee you that you are not that type either. It is way too late then. Are you telling me that you would wait for someone to go out, get a gun, load it, point it at your kid's head, and wait for them to follow through before considering them serious? After they have told you and everyone else their intention long before they started any action?
No - reliable intelligence, but not fabricated intelligence, or ignoring good intelligence such as we have been seeing to get us into our current situation, could be used to determine the threat level. The problem is that the intelligence is ignored depending on the desires of the leaders of our nation and the chances to profit from the war and the lives of our servicemen. Hope that wasn't too far off base for you.
QuoteMy guess is that if you were out and about, and someone not known to you at all were to come up to you, and point a gun at you, you would take them as serious as a heart attack. You wouldn't wait to check any websites to see what the problem was.
If faced with a fact, I will take action, Frank. Yes that is correct - after the time for negotiations have ceased. I will assume the opponent is out to kill me and I will take him out.
I was attacked by a drunk Navy Boxer at a service station in about 1973. He mouthed of to me as he though he could take me. Ridiculed my hat so I told him to shut the hell up. He asked me "When is the last time you've been really hurt?" and I told him, "When I walked in here and saw your ugly face."
He told me he'd wait for me outside. I got my change to go pick up my boss who was broke down and as I walked out the door I saw a fist coming at me and he hit me on the forehead. As you know, that was not a place to hit me and do any damage.
I put my change in my billfold and when the second swing came I grabbed his hand then the other one - pushed him against his car and lifted him off the ground with my knee between his spread lags as he tried to regain his balance. With a bit of his fight gone I tripped him with my foot as I shoved him to the ground to the right. Throwing him on his back I sat on his chest as he continued swinging. I put each of his arms under each of my knees then started slamming his head into the concrete until he surrendered. I suppose you think I should have killed him, but I let him up and he slunk back into a corner just as the police arrived. He assaulted them next but it was a losing battle for him against 3 officers.
So in light of the above, I considered that he wanted to kill me after negotiations were no longer possible due to an impass on both sides. Yes -- I took him out and neutralized him. No - I didn't kill him. I did not launch a pre-emptive strike unless but responded with sufficient force to stop his attack. I guess if he had no scruples at all he could have shot me, but from previous negotiations I did not assume that would be the case. I did finish the war. I did not destroy him but he was aware he was overpowered.
Will that work as a description of how I would react? What is your take on that, Frank? Stupid to stop without finishing him -- seems I would have gone to jail when the law arrived. Pre-emptive strike - do it first -- I would have been the guilty party rather than him. He went to jail - not me.
QuoteThis started out like this... you made the statement that we could sit here within our own border, and create such a mighty military that no one would dare attack us.
I should clarify that. We have lots of bases around the world. I am not saying , leave them. I am saying there is no need for the Empire building and attacking small countries with oil but no defenses to speak of.
If we are really fighting terrorists why then is Iraq the country we chose to attack when most of the hijackers (if you buy the official story) were from Saudi Arabia? Why did we attack Afghanistan? If you research it you will find these were oil motivated war.
If our war machines are not destroyed in the deserts and our military are not destroyed faster than we can rebuild them they can be wherever they need to be from any of our worldwide bases with a much larger force there in a short time without the unnecessary loss of life. Russia demonstrated this is a realistic idea in the war I mentioned above - the 5 day war in S. Ossetia. That is what I am saying and it is exactly what you say you want. Unquestionable and decisive power. Overwhelming as you desire and minimal loss of life. They did not lose over 4000 soldiers -- they lost something over a hundred as I recall. They did not make billions of dollars in non-bid contracts.
Sorry to drag all of this into my reply, Frank, but, it is all tied together.
QuoteI contend that it can not be done. These are people who are not driven by rational thought. In spite of your own somewhat blinding hatred towards George Bush in specific and the US / Israel in general, they hated us long ago, long before W or his dad were in the white house. There is nothing we can do to pacify them or to make them our friends, or to even be tolerant of us. Nothing. Ever.
First sentance- I have to disagree and refer to the above recent war. Overwhelming specific power and getting it done immediately stopped Georgia in it's tracks.
I contend that our leaders are not driven by rational thought either and their driving force is oil, power, money and greed without respect for human life lost on either side.
It is more that I despise what George Bush and his cabal are doing to our country and our Constitution. I do not define patriotism as the blind following of whoever is at the helm when they are steering us into an iceberg and shooting holes in the bottom of our ship. I define it as loving my country enough to sound a warning to others to wake up and see what is being done in our name, when there is a danger that it is destroying our country and the Freedom we have come to know in the past.
I say in the past because it is gone now. It is not any terrorists that have taken our freedom and destroyed our economy and most of our Constitution. It is our own leaders who hold our highest offices no matter who they are or how they got there.
I do not hate Israel or Jews. I have Jewish friends and there are Jews on our forum. I harbor no animosity toward them of any kind. I have had a very nice old Jewish customer and have ridden to jobs with him in his car and find him to be a very nice fellow and good friend.
On another note I have another Jewish acquaintance who works at the Home Depot as a demonstrator of windows and to arrange sales there. I spent a long time talking to her between her customers. She is semi-retired and works there to keep occupied. She said that the term "Homeland Security" sent shivers down her spine and the things going on in our government now reminded her so much of Nazi Germany under Hitler, that she hoped we woke up before it was too late. She was only a child when she was there but remembers it like it was yesterday.
No, I'm afraid you are mistaken, I have no hate for these people and in fact there are relatives of mine in the Jewish cemeteries and marriage records in Lithuania.
(https://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d184/glennkangiser/jewishmarriagerecordkangiser.jpg)
I cannot tell you how these people are related but they are from our home town in Lithuania and we (GGF and GF) left in 1889.
What I do have a problem with Israel first at all costs with loyalty sworn to support Israel without even having our national debt paid off --- we continue pretty unlimited support and billions per uyear when we can't even take care of our own citizens. 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. It will cause us to fight wars that are of interest to Israel rather than in the best interest of the United States.
You can't see this? Here is a reference. Sorry for using references, Frank, but I don't see what my opinions are as being of any relevance here without supporting them by facts. I realize you have an aversion to Google and what the rest of the world thinks but I find I cannot base my responses on only my opinion. I have to see what is happening in the world.
http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html
I cannot hide in my own mind and find the answers that I feel I am obliged to give. I feel I must give the most well informed, well educated answers I can give you and they are not within the limit of what is inside my head without higher education.
Yes -- I live underground, but I do not keep my head buried there.
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.
QuoteHow 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.
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.
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.
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...
Quote from: glenn kangiser on September 26, 2008, 02:11:38 AM
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.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on September 26, 2008, 02:11:38 AM
http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html
They also have a story headlined... "LBJ killed JFK!" ::)
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 heh
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...
Quote from: benevolance on September 26, 2008, 09:27:59 AM
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-
so Frank, how come you never reply to my comments ??? ??? ???
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 (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.
Quote from: Sassy on September 26, 2008, 03:02:38 PM
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
Hi John, welcome to the food fight! Hope you brought a bib. ;D
-f-
Quote from: MountainDon on September 26, 2008, 10:41:36 AM
Quote from: glenn kangiser on September 26, 2008, 02:11:38 AM
://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.
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
Thanks, Frank, I don't feel left out now ;)
Quote from: John C on September 26, 2008, 03:48:11 PM
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 (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. rofl
Quote from: glenn kangiser on September 26, 2008, 07:55:47 PM
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. rofl
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Well Ben, what you wrote was this:
"All of this is on the other side of the world and is of absolute no threat at all to America....."
That sort of indicates that you might be a bit out of touch of how things work globally.
Sorry about it being one of the worst arguments you've seen. My mistake for using logic, reason, and sober perspective. I'll try to use more rhetoric, fabricated and/or distorted data, irrelevant material, and questionable references from fringe websites.
I noticed you never attempted to answer the question of the thread either.
Hey boys and girls: can we tone it down a bit?
This is a forum about living an independent and self-reliant life. While most of us are Americans or Canadians, we are not exclusively so. Any post on a forum such as this is a communication to the world - and to your children and grand children as well. Feel free to fly off the handle if you wish but remember you are leaving footprints.
American wealth, power and independence is grounded in the freedoms and rights that are granted to us in the constitution and bill of rights. Each of us is free to determine how we want to express that freedom so long as it doesn't harm the rights of another. In the most simple terms:
The Two Laws
1. Do all you have agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
(from Richard Maybury, "Whatever Happened to Justice?")
If we have anything more than hamburgers and Desperate Housewives to offer the world it should be the concept of a persons right and obligation to stand up as a free and self-reliant citizen. I am all for encouraging my fellow Americans and all members of all countries, creeds, religions and races to stand up for their own rights.
In claiming that right for myself I must allow another the right to have their own ideas and beliefs even if they are very different from mine. Otherwise I am living a lie and my own freedom is only a charade, a mask that can be ripped off by the next thug who comes along with a bigger weapon.
I like that viewpoint and would like to see others viewpoints shared in a friendly way.
I think those two laws could even solve the financial crisis but we would need different people in there.
It is my desire to expose others to other viewpoints and let them decide what is right. Not to convert them to mine.
Guess we could use some blood pressure meds here. d*
One thing I thought of about this topic is that while I think we should have a strong military here, I am not opposed to going there on intelligence of a threat that is not fabricated. That may have been open to misunderstanding. I was not in favor of waiting for them to come here.
Other than that, I think we have this topic pretty well discussed. If we are only down to petty arguments, then per John I agree, we need to lighten up and discuss things in a friendly manner - myself included, eh. :)
thank you john, it did seem to be getting a little tense for some.
The cut and paste philosophers were getting a little out of hand.... :D
We can ignore what's going on but we can't prepare for it or make an educated decision about it if we hide from it, so I
feel it is better to look at all available information even if we don't believe it now. It may make sense later.
We can ignore what doesn't fit at this time but at least we will remember something we read earlier if it in fact turns out to be true, and a decision based on that knowledge could help us.
If we don't look at all available information we will be taken by surprise, guaranteed.
I tend to be very skeptical of the controlled mainstream media ::)