Michael Moore just said ME....

[Viking]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
In the post 9/11 world we do not need 100% accurate intelligence to act before we are struck first. I'd say if the chance is greater than 50% that pre-emptive action is necessary.

The fact is everyone thought he had WMDs (Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Bush), and there is still a great chance that he did. In fact, some would argue that they've already been found.

US intelligence and Russian intelligence both forecasted Iraqi attacks of Americans or American interests.

We saw that another 9/11 attack could rise from this and acted. It was a great decision. Kerry voted for the war, even he was right!

A great side effect of our protecting Americans is the possible establishment of a democracy in the center of brutal dictatorships. Yes, tens of thousands of Iraqis may die as a result of the war. But much more would have died had Saddam stayed in power. He had already killed over 300,000, who knows how many would have been killed had he stayed in power and had a successor come from his party.

It's kind of like dropping the bombs in Japan, except this time the amount of lives that were saved were far greater than those lost.

And Iraq's oil had nothing to do with it Or why didn't you go for North Korea
Bush's dumb war will soon have killed more Americans than 9/11, Iraq is not one inch nearer to democracy than during Saddam's era as a democracy which has to be held together by military power is no democracy.
And trying to compare all this with the bombs on Japan, where you just used a already defeated population as guinea-pigs for the newest toy, is more than hare-brained BTW, this made you users of WMD!!! The first bomb was probably justified, but Nagasaki was simply a cruel field-test for a new weapon.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by Viking
And Iraq's oil had nothing to do with it Or why didn't you go for North Korea

NK has the BOMB. Iraq doesn't.

Bush's dumb war will soon have killed more Americans than 9/11, Iraq is not one inch nearer to democracy than during Saddam's era as a democracy which has to be held together by military power is no democracy.

I guess the FREE elections they plan to have in January prove your point?

And trying to compare all this with the bombs on Japan, where you just used a already defeated population as guinea-pigs for the newest toy, is more than hare-brained BTW, this made you users of WMD!!! The first bomb was probably justified, but Nagasaki was simply a cruel field-test for a new weapon.

Japan did not surrender until after the 2nd bomb was dropped. We had to send the message that we had infinite power to destroy (even though it was the cleverest bluff in history, except maybe the trojan horse) so that the all-to-proud Emperor of Japan would surrender. Any measure that gets desired results without endangering more troops is probably a good thing. Or would you have rather we sent another couple hundred thousand troops into the Japanese meat grinder?

Yes, that DID make us users of WMD's. WMD's in and of themselves are not bad things. Theyare only bad when they are in the hands of those who would use them for evil purposes. Like Saddam or terrorists. Surely you recognize the distinction Vike?

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by Nancy
What do the last 5 or 6 pages have to do with the original topic? Michael Eisner and what MM said on Howard Stern?

It has been interesting reading though...just got way off topic didn't it?

It's DB etiquette to go OT within 6-7 pages.

 

[shortbun]

I'm not sure our use of WMD was/is thought of in a positive light
universally as you paint it. Nagasaki for instance, is a real questionable area.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

You really can't seriously equate the bombing of Japan with the US attacking Iraq. We were in the midst of a world war with a power that had the ability to take over the world. Do you really feel that Hussein drove the same type of empire that Hitler did? Please go back and read your history books.

Just for your information, I have debated whether or not it was right to drop the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

No offense to anyone, but I have found the debates about these subjects on the old DB to be much more informative. The old DB people had a greater knowledge of history, and didn't just try to personally attack. Obviously a lot of those people are gone. Such a shame. This nitpicky type of rhetoric is really a waste of time!

 

[Hagred]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel

No offense to anyone, but I have found the debates about these subjects on the old DB to be much more informative. The old DB people had a greater knowledge of history, and didn't just try to personally attack. Obviously a lot of those people are gone. Such a shame. This nitpicky type of rhetoric is really a waste of time!

You're kidding, right? I see a great many former DB people arguing the same things they argued when the DB was here.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by shortbun
I'm not sure our use of WMD was/is thought of in a positive light universally as you paint it. Nagasaki for instance, is a real questionable area.

To some people, perhaps. To others, it's not questionable at all. Japan had the choice to surrender after Hiroshima, they chose to continue fighting. Bad choice.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
To some people, perhaps. To others, it's not questionable at all. Japan had the choice to surrender after Hiroshima, they chose to continue fighting. Bad choice.

I'm sure we would have rather NOT dropped ANY atomic bombs. After the first one, I think we rather would have not dropped the second one. But Japan just wouldn't give up. Bad choice for them.

 

[JimB.]

If Iraq is for the Oil, why didn't the U.S. just take the Iraqi Oil fields in 1990?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Hagred
You're kidding, right? I see a great many former DB people arguing the same things they argued when the DB was here.

Just because you have an ongoing war with some of the people, doesn't mean that they were ALL bad. I actually haven't seen you posting in awhile. Do you only post to trash the DB people?


edited to say that : I like you too, and hope to see you post more!

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by treesinger


I'm sure we would have rather NOT dropped ANY atomic bombs. After the first one, I think we rather would have not dropped the second one. But Japan just wouldn't give up. Bad choice for them.

Have you ever read anything about the effects that the bombs had on the people? About how their flesh was melted off, and how some suffered even twenty years later. Why unleash something that had such long term effects?

How can we be so smug about it now?

 

[jrydberg]

I think it's tough to sit here 60 years later and argue the merits of whether to drop a 2nd atomic bomb on Japan. We know a lot more about nuclear weapons now than we did then. We know a lot more about the long term implications. What we don't have a good grasp of now is the circumstances 60 years ago. We don't know what it was like to have fought a truly world war for several years and to see the immense sacrifice it would require on our part to defeat Japan. We don't know how many lives would have been lost had we not dropped any atomic bombs. We don't know if Japan would have ultimately surrendered had we just waited and not dropped the second one.

We'll never know. I do know that President Truman had a terrifying choice to make either way. There was no "good" option. That, perhaps, is the only parallel I see to the current state of affairs. I'm not willing to second guess his decision 60 years later. Actions that are taken today, however, I'm perfectly willing to criticize with reckless abandon

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Have you ever read anything about the effects that the bombs had on the people? About how their flesh was melted off, and how some suffered even twenty years later. Why unleash something that had such long term effects?

How can we be so smug about it now?

One very wise quote I keep in mind is, "One must know the options rejected to appreciate the one selected."

The other option was not knowing whether or not the Japanese would surrender, and how many thousands of lives more the USA would lose if the war did NOT end.

And in war, I will ALWAYS favor the taking of lives of the opposition rather than the lives of our own troops and citizens. I don't find that to be Amero-centric. I find it to be common sense.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by treesinger
One very wise quote I keep in mind is, "One must know the options rejected to appreciate the one selected."

The other option was not knowing whether or not the Japanese would surrender, and how many thousands of lives more the USA would lose if the war did NOT end.

And in war, I will ALWAYS favor the taking of lives of the opposition rather than the lives of our own troops and citizens. I don't find that to be Amero-centric. I find it to be common sense.

ITA

Richard

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb ******* die for his country."
General George Patton, Jr.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Have you ever read anything about the effects that the bombs had on the people? About how their flesh was melted off, and how some suffered even twenty years later. Why unleash something that had such long term effects?

Because it needed to be done to end the war before even more American lives were lost. Us or them - simple choice.

How can we be so smug about it now?

Please see the answer above.

And in war, I will ALWAYS favor the taking of lives of the opposition rather than the lives of our own troops and citizens. I don't find that to be Amero-centric. I find it to be common sense.

ITA.

 

[JimB.]

Have you ever read anything about the effects that the bombs had on the people? About how their flesh was melted off, and how some suffered even twenty years later. Why unleash something that had such long term effects?

What a GREAT idea!!


Just tell me, have you asked Al Qaeda, Abu Nidal, The PLO, The taliban & Shining path the same thing??

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Have you ever read anything about the effects that the bombs had on the people? About how their flesh was melted off, and how some suffered even twenty years later. Why unleash something that had such long term effects?

Because, the most conservative estimate of the number of dead (not wounded, but dead) by invading Japan was hundereds of thousands, some thought as high a million. To the Japanese, the Emporer was the equivalent of a god. They would have fought for him to the death.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by JimB.
What a GREAT idea!!


Just tell me, have you asked Al Qaeda, Abu Nidal, The PLO, The taliban & Shining path the same thing??

You all gave me good answers, and I appreciate you all for that.

Yes, I have read about the others and wondered why they choose to do violence in the name of their respective causes. Except for the Abu Nidal, I don't know who they are.


I guess I'm really just a pacifist at heart. It's kind of ironic, because I'm not even religious.

Jrydberg, brought up some good points about how we get our information. I have only experienced these things through books, and from others stories of their experiences. This is how I have processed that information. I like to see things from all sides.

Whether or not dropping both bombs was 'just' is debatable. It's still being debated how many years later? That should atleast tell us all something. Or atleast make us think about today, and our future.

 

[treesinger]

Some people are still debating whether or not we should have broken away from the English Crown. that doesn't mean that the debate is valid anymore. It only means that those people just can't let it go.

Let's bring this around to a current perspective.
Extreme Muslims are engaged in a HOLY WAR with us. They are rabid. They will stop at nothing to kill Americans. I equate our pre-emptive actions against terrorists, terrorists countries and terrorist sympathizers to us using the bombs on Japan. I don't want the USA to rock on its heels, wait for something to happen, and then react. We need to go into their hideouts, not wait for them to come out of their holes. We need to go into those countries, not wait for Muslim leaders like Saddam Hussein to have a change of heart and condemn terrorism. Like that's ever going to happen.
Iraq is just one rung on the ladder that is the GWOT. Imagine ten years down the line, Saddam still in power, the UN not watching as closely as it was, and they redeveloped a heavy arsenal of WMD's which they then sold to the highest bidder. Know where those weapons would go? The USA---target numero uno. By eliminating Saddam's Iraq, we eliminate the chance that Iraq will be a likely danger to the USA in the future.
I'm defionitely a hawk when it comes to terrorism. I think we need to go into Syria next. Their support of terrorism, especially in Israel, is terrible. Also, anyone remember those weapons that were found at the Jordanian border a couple months ago? They estimated 80k people could've been killed. (If anyone has the correct info, feel free to correct me on the numbers. I remember it was HIGH)
In WWII, I wouldn't wait for the Japanese to surrender. I would MAKE them surrender. I wouldn't wait for them to prepare and mobilize. I would strike before they could respond. I think we need to take the same attitude towards terrorists and terrorist states. Iraq was definitely a terrorist state. They funded families of suicide bombers. Saddam knowingly allowed Abu Nidal and Zarqawi (an Al-Qaeda leader) into the country and allowed them to be there. And Salman Pak was a known terrorist training camp, right in the heart of Baghdad. (how many Muslim run airplanes do you know have been hijacked that Iraqi forces would need to train on how to defend them? Please...) I know many scoff at the idea that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. But terrorists came from all over the world to train at that facility, where they have a 707 fuselage. I wonder what that is doing there?