Iran.

[Peter Henry]

It appears that behind closed doors the sabres are beginning to rattle in the Whitehouse. The focus for this attention seems to be Iran. A country that have not hidden the fact that they are now on the brink of being able to produce nuclear energy. In addition their leader holds no great affection for the west.
This of course has led to warnings and threats by the U.S. government as they see the natural step that Iran will want to take is to make nuclear weapons which they will turn on the western world.

Is America correct to act this way? Knowing full well that if they decide to attack Iran....Britain will be involved. Is there really a more sinister plot afoot by the Americans themselves...all that lovely oil in that region? Does America appreciate that Iran will be a far different force to reckon with than what was available to Sadam Husain in Iraq?

Is it only America,(and it appears Britain) and Israel that can be allowed to ignore all normal procedures and international law? Are the Americans correct to look after our long term future in this manner?

Please discuss.

[UlsterSV]

It's ok Peter. God is on our side. He tells Tony what to do. We're in safe hands :wink:

[Jelster]

Pete,

I notice that you have certainly got into non biking posts recently. I'm now becoming concerned that either senility has finally caught up with you or the Mrs has sold your 749.

There is also the option that you're undercover agent for the American Secret Service on a "black ops" mission to try and work out whether, in general, SV owners should be considered a clear and present danger on the US government..... :lol:

Whatever it is, get back on the program please mate :wink:

.

[wheelnut]

I think George Galloway has got it right when he asks,

"would you trust George Bush with his finger on the nuclear button when he cant be trusted with a bottle of beer" :P

His bike riding skills are not up to much either :D

[Supervox]

I think the whole thing can be summed by a quote I was told some years ago by an American college professor I knew :-

"America has gone from infancy to senility without ever achieving maturity" !!

[Demonz]

January 20, 2009 - still plenty of time left to change the world, and no doubt he will.

I cant see how the US will continue to compete against the emerging world leaders such as China and India without tying up the middle east. They are fat and lazy and they know they are in for a fall very soon.

[northwind]

Whether it's crusading zeal, idiocy or some actual belief that it'd improve the world. the practicality of invading Iran is bound to prevent it... The US is having enough trouble and spending enough moey and effort in Iraq already, and Iran could be a lot worse. Unless they seriously consider the nuclear option, which some sources say they are. :evil:

[philipMac]

There are some serious games being played out there at the moment.

So, Ahmadinejad is a nutcase. He is also clearly wanting to prod the US, and try to force the issue with his announcements ie they have managed to actually spin down Uranium to the point that it is eniriched to nuclear grade. (This is tricky, but still a long way off a fission weapon.) So, he is (attempting to at least) to wave sticks around the place.

The thing is Bush et al are equally mad. And, have no problem with killing lots of people. But, they are sort of in a bit of a situation now, what with the back to back screw-ups in the last couple of years. They are not as strong as they could be.

I think Ahmadinejad has seen what North Korea has been up to, and quite reasonabley might think that if he can make as much noise and appear to be as insane as KIM Jong Il tries to appear, then the US might just treat them in a similar way.

The thing is,,, this is the Middle east. So, its not really the same kettle of fish.

The over-riding problem of all of this is... no one playing these games gives a flying **** about massive body counts. The UN are a joke at this point, and no matter what this administration does (ie nuclear weapons), the US public can be whipped into line.

And, a US President at war has never lost an election.

There is somthing interesting here though. This is what PH is really asking, why does the US act as the world police man? (With all due repsect, the UK lends not much more than moral support, and a desperate attempt at legitimacy. US troops love the Brit troops, and the SAS SBS are serious boys, but war is not really about this so much any more. Shock and Awe (which means terrorise the population))
Do they really gain more than they spend on this work? Why do they want to do it? There are no other contenders for this position. Say if it were China. Say China was the world policeman, and the US just kept to itself. Its almost hard to imagine.

I think I would prefer to be policed by the US than China though.

Its such a strange thing though for a country to want to do. If it is for monetary gain, how come there are no other contenders even looking at the job. There is more to it than money. And, I personally dont believe the US is empire building.

I dont get it. Is it pride? Or, as Northy said, does the US think they can genuinely make the world a better place?

EDIT: Last thing, and this is the weirdest thing of all. The US has no real need for middle eastern oil. Calgary has vast reserves, comparable to Middle east amounts, and so does Venezuala, and so does Russia. For the money they are spending on bombing the crap out of the middle east, they could have plowed that into Russian oil production, and been all set. Why bother with the Middle east?

Its a game amigos. And, its a game that we cannot understand, because we do not know anyones cards. We can't even directly see the game. All we can do is look at the shadows on the wall made by the players, and draw our little potted solutions that fit into our little reality. Its like looking sv650.org every day and nowhere else, and then attempting to figure out what the WWW is.

[Stig]

All we can do is look at the shadows on the wall made by the players, and draw our little potted solutions that fit into our little reality. Its like looking sv650.org every day and nowhere else, and then attempting to figure out what the WWW is.

Couldn't agree more. 99% of the population never really knows what the whole picture is. If they did, then they would be sitting next to one of the world leaders.

[Supervox]

. . . Last thing, and this is the weirdest thing of all. The US has no real need for middle eastern oil. Calgary has vast reserves, comparable to Middle east amounts, and so does Venezuala, and so does Russia. For the money they are spending on bombing the crap out of the middle east, they could have plowed that into Russian oil production, and been all set. Why bother with the Middle east?

Is this not the main crux of it ?

If the U.S. were to use any of the above sources for its oil, they'd have to PAY for it - & not just monetarily either, there'd be Favoured Nation status deals to be negotiated, trading agreements to be drawn up etc, - a general you-scratch-our-back sort of thing - it's much 'easier' to invade a country & then under the guise of 'rebuilding' give the contracts to American companies who'll just charge the consumer.

[Spiderman]

....Its a game amigos. And, its a game that we cannot understand, because we do not know anyones cards. We can't even directly see the game. All we can do is look at the shadows on the wall made by the players, and draw our little potted solutions that fit into our little reality. Its like looking sv650.org every day and nowhere else, and then attempting to figure out what the WWW is.


=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> Well said Phil, well said.

Also i'd like to draw attention to the fact that the US military has in its main control centre a map of the wolrd split into 5 zones. This map has no other borders marked on it. They see the world as theirs in whole and under their control.

[Peter Henry]

Jelster,

No need to remind you that this is Idle Banter and as such any topic,(within U certifcation) may be discussed.

You did not seem to object when getting somewhat heated over Iraq related affairs with Akbar a week or so ago? You also got a little involved in the silly Vectra versus Corsa debate?

And though not in Idle Banter your very nicely taken birdie shots are not as far as I know bike related?


"Let he who is without sin,caste the first stone." :wink: :P

[GSXR Carlos]

ow, who hit me with this stone?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The US being unhappy about a nation with neuclear capability lead by a religious lunatic strikes me as extremely hypocritical.

[Jelster]

Jelster,

No need to remind you that this is Idle Banter and as such any topic,(within U certifcation) may be discussed.

You did not seem to object when getting somewhat heated over Iraq related affairs with Akbar a week or so ago? You also got a little involved in the silly Vectra versus Corsa debate?

And though not in Idle Banter your very nicely taken birdie shots are not as far as I know bike related?


"Let he who is without sin,caste the first stone." :wink: :P

Pete, I'm not complaining, just worried about your personal well being, that's all :)

.

[Peter Henry]

Steve...You are too kind by far.But alas my mental health has been long past salvation! :P

[northwind]

I think I would prefer to be policed by the US than China though.

Its such a strange thing though for a country to want to do. If it is for monetary gain, how come there are no other contenders even looking at the job. There is more to it than money. And, I personally dont believe the US is empire building.


I can understand why a country would wish to be the world's policeman, when they're on top- in theory it helps to keep them there. But even the US state department has now stated categorically that the war in Iraq has made the average American less safe, made them more marginalised, more an object of hatred (and fear, of course) and gives the actual zealots some real ammunition. It was a harder sell before the invasion of Iraw for them to convince people that the US were a deadly enemy ruthlessly killing their brothers and sisters- now it's child's play, because it's so close to being totally true.

I know it's easy to sit here and take things apart with hindsight, but it's not exactly brain surgery either.

[Peter Henry]

Andy you are right. How can they spin their line enough to justify any further foreign arenas of war after this catalogue of disasters surrounding Iraq? :?

[northwind]

Hah, well that's depressingly easy. They can say they're thinking too small, and that Iraq can never be free while Iran is still Evil. Also, they can say that Iran is supporting the insurgency. Lastly, there's the Afghanistan Gambit- can't do all you claimed you were going to do? Just abandon the last country and invade another one. The long war with troop attrition makes for bad PR, but everyone likes pictures of fighter jets and cruise missiles

Or am I getting cynical? Afghanistan's an utter mess, the opium trade's massively up, the warlords are more powerful than ever before, and troops there are still getting blown up on a regular basis. The stated objectives weren't achieved (well, depends which version you listen to, the pre- or post- invasion ones). And all the old problems- former muj warlords, armed gangs, utter lawlessness, drug production, oppression of women- are still as strong as ever. Brilliant work.

[akbarhussain]

Iran have had their chance to comply, it's entirely their own fault IMO. They were warned again and again about their WMD program and chose not to listen - now they will pay the price.

[akbarhussain]

Oops, just noticed a bit of a typo in my last post.

Replace 'their WMD program' with 'trading their oil in Euros instead of US Dollars' - that should read a bit easier.

[Peter Henry]

Akbar....It took you a while to get to spot this thread!
Straight in with a little cynical post there! :wink: :P

[weegaz22]

isnt it a bit ironic that the US is shouting about iran producing nuclear weapons when the US has one of the largest stockpile of wmd's in the entire planet? oh but thats ok, cos they are the "world police"

also they are the only ones to have actually used a nuke...twice

[hoodlum]

I say lets invade, I could do with another medal..... :roll:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

also they are the only ones to have actually used a nuke...twice

I was tempted to mention that, although I think the US was in a rather unique and rare situation where they were justified in using it.

[Peter Henry]

Squirrel...And the justification that the U.S. had in the deployment of those nuclear weapons was exactly? :?

Or did I miss a touch of black humour there? :shock:

[hoodlum]

Interesting point Mr. Squirrel, and one that's been and will forever be debated. Some say ot shortened the war in the east, others say it didn't particularly affect the length of the war.

What grips my ****, as an instrument of all of this politicising is the irony of the US and to some extent our viewpoint. ergo, it's ok to effect regime change in Iraq, but where's the mobilisation against the nasty North Koreans. Funnily enough, I don't see that happening in a wee while.

People say its about ouil, and to some extent it is. What it's really down to is economic security and assured economic survival. Without the petrochemical industry and control (or at least friendly regimes in the oil rich nations) the west is stuffed. Arguably then, oil as a strategic resource requires strategic action when eastern regimes look unfavourably on the west - invasions and the like to secure those resources.

Iran isn't a particulalry friendly country to the west, would be a relative military pushover, but as the US have demonstrated (and the UK isn't faring much better) maintaining the peace once the dust cloud has settled is somewhat harder than one might expect.

Should we invade? I doubt we'll see an invasion until 2010 - (it's a theory I have....) what we will see is incremental military action starting with cruise strikes, air strikes, more requests for UN folk to go in (inspectors), gradual build up of US Navy forces in the region. Trouble is, the UN security council probably won't back the US on this issue and it will have to act unilateraly (with the puppy dog brits in tow of course!)

I'll stop there....

Appart from this edit: - Of course Iraq was invaded because Hussein had "Weapons of Mass Distraction" which turned out to be a rather large and convincing bluff. I wouldn't put it past the Iranians to be tracking the same line, particulalry since the intelligence sources were sucked right in to Iraq's little game.

War on terror? training camps? Pakistan gets it next then... (a country that actually provided assistance to the brits when we toured Afghanistan (lovely mountains by the way))

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Squirrel...And the justification that the U.S. had in the deployment of those nuclear weapons was exactly? :?

Or did I miss a touch of black humour there? :shock:

No not black humour. I think the US was justified in using the bomb to end the war as quickly as possible against the savage foe the started the war.

That's another topic though.

[Balky001]

Squirrel...And the justification that the U.S. had in the deployment of those nuclear weapons was exactly? :?

Or did I miss a touch of black humour there? :shock:

Wasn't it to kill lots of people and end the war quickly. Not sure if that was a rhetorical question but I'm sure you know their justification even if you don't believe it.

Sometimes it worse to do nothing than something and the US seem intent on doing something. Not sure why they haven't stopped Pakistan and India though given the US's track record. Or the French!

[weegaz22]

also they are the only ones to have actually used a nuke...twice

I was tempted to mention that, although I think the US was in a rather unique and rare situation where they were justified in using it.

yes i know it was in a wartime situation, but they didnt attack a military target with it, they bombed a highly populated city full of innocent civilians, and i just merely brought it up to show how hypocritical the US is

fair enough i dont exactly trust iran with nukes, but the fact that they would go and use them is down to the US constantly meddling in the middle east affairs

ie invading afghanistan, leaving it in ruins and forgetting why they went there in the first place (bin laden) then moving onto iraq, draining it of oil, then moving onto iran...etc etc

can you blame the middle east for hating the west?

[hoodlum]

This is a different league of nukes - not the sort of stuff that Iran can fire around the globe and drop on New York for example (although Son of Stars Wars would have a rather hard time of hitting anythink like a MIRV ICBM falling from upon high, but that's another thread...)

The worrying element is a nuke weapon that could be vehicle borne and driven and parked somewhere, then detonated. Makes a dirty bomb look like a minor inconvenience. Now should Mr Taliban get a hold of something like that in a few years' time, that would make world security issues somewhat more pressing.....

[Peter Henry]

Hoodlum...although Iran portrays quite openly that it has no great love of the west,particularly America. I have not seen, heard or read anything whereby they are looking to go on the offensive. They have though stated if they are ever attacked,then they will retaliate. They also proclaim that they have evry write to carry out commercially minded activity within their own country.....e.g. production of nuclear energy.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that Iran's armed forces are something similar to the ragamuffin conscripts that Argentina used against Britain in the Falklands. They are not at all. They are both well trained and well equipped,possibly only second to Israel in that part of the world in military strength.

Squirrel..Perhaps the WW2 issues and America's use of the bombs is for another thread. I feel it only fair to point out that it was not the Japanese that started WW2 at all. They entered in to it with their attack on Pearl Harbour 2 years after the whole thing kicked off in Europe.(But I really do know you are aware of that.)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

also they are the only ones to have actually used a nuke...twice

I was tempted to mention that, although I think the US was in a rather unique and rare situation where they were justified in using it.

yes i know it was in a wartime situation, but they didnt attack a military target with it, they bombed a highly populated city full of innocent civilians, and i just merely brought it up to show how hypocritical the US is

Well, the are arguments that they wernt innocent, as they'd have all picked up a gun if it came to it.

fair enough i dont exactly trust iran with nukes, but the fact that they would go and use them is down to the US constantly meddling in the middle east affairs

I'm not compeletely convinced this is the only reason. I'm sure viewing the west as ungodly plays a big part in it too.

can you blame the middle east for hating the west?

The US certainly isnt helping our cause.

[hoodlum]

ah, PH you misunderstand my position a little - not saying that Iran would go on the offensive at all. Although, there are political factions within Iran that no doubt would support the underhand tactics of say a small, but very well connected and networked terror group by providing them with "assistance".

I'm reasonably well qualified to assertain what their military capabilities are - note my use of the word "relative" in my original post. The fact remains however that the use of force would stuill be asymetric and rather one sided, in favour of the West, but i certainly acede to the point that one shouldn't underestimate the enemy.

The main Argentine forces were not ragtag by any stretch of the imagination, the battle for Goose Green was a particularly close one that nearly saw 2 Para's defeat. In that short war, the UK lost at least 3 ships (Sheffield, Antelope, and the big transporter thingy) and suffered 240 plus casualties - more than so far suffered in the Gulf and we've been there 2 years.

Edit - Checked the ship losses - they were: Ardent, Sheffield, Antelope, Conventry and Atlantic Conveyor.

[weegaz22]

The worrying element is a nuke weapon that could be vehicle borne and driven and parked somewhere, then detonated. Makes a dirty bomb look like a minor inconvenience. Now should Mr Taliban get a hold of something like that in a few years' time, that would make world security issues somewhat more pressing.....

you can thank the CIA for training taliban soldiers while your at it

[weegaz22]

also they are the only ones to have actually used a nuke...twice

I was tempted to mention that, although I think the US was in a rather unique and rare situation where they were justified in using it.

yes i know it was in a wartime situation, but they didnt attack a military target with it, they bombed a highly populated city full of innocent civilians, and i just merely brought it up to show how hypocritical the US is

Well, the are arguments that they wernt innocent, as they'd have all picked up a gun if it came to it.

fair enough i dont exactly trust iran with nukes, but the fact that they would go and use them is down to the US constantly meddling in the middle east affairs

I'm not compeletely convinced this is the only reason. I'm sure viewing the west as ungodly plays a big part in it too.

can you blame the middle east for hating the west?

The US certainly isnt helping our cause.

would you not pick up a gun and fight if your country was attacked/family killed?

yes we may be viewed as ungodly or infidels blah blah but the way the US acts in the middle east only re-inforces these views

[hoodlum]

The worrying element is a nuke weapon that could be vehicle borne and driven and parked somewhere, then detonated. Makes a dirty bomb look like a minor inconvenience. Now should Mr Taliban get a hold of something like that in a few years' time, that would make world security issues somewhat more pressing.....

you can thank the CIA for training taliban soldiers while your at it

Yes - they have a rather irritating habit of training those they (we) eventually fight. It's coming full circle with Iran, and it's ironic still that some US Helo casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by Stinger which the CIA supplied to the Mujahadeen

[Peter Henry]

Hoodlum....I used "journalistic license" to make my point for comparison with the Falklands situation. I did not wish to under value what the British soldiers went through either.

I had a very good friend that just managed to avaoid injury on the Sir Galahad,(He was in the Welsh Guards?)

Could the fact that being friends of the nation with undoubtedly the greatest military resources available to them,provides at times a very transparent shield for many to hide behind as they spout their vitriole as to how "we" should go in there and kick ass? :?

You know I have often thought that on the world scale it is easy to see why Americans would be the most despised nation,due to their attitude to other countries. We should as Brits now remember that our own security when travelling the world has been drastically reduced due to the continued allegiance that we have with America.

For any action America is seen to carry out, we are seen as being party to that also. :?

[sharriso74]

The US secret services have a history of medling and generaly cocking things up, did anyone see th programes about Castro on over the weeken. Think it's the anniversary of the BAy of Pigs invasion?

[weegaz22]

You know I have often thought that on the world scale it is easy to see why Americans would be the most despised nation,due to their attitude to other countries. We should as Brits now remember that our own security when travelling the world has been drastically reduced due to the continued allegiance that we have with America.

For any action America is seen to carry out, we are seen as being party to that also. :?

this is why i have respect for the french, they dont really give a toss what any other country says US, UK, UN, where as we follow the yanks like stray dogs into a pointless conflict(s) cos blair dont have the balls to tell bush "sort it out yourself"

[hoodlum]

PH - There's never any malice in my posts, nor do I take from yours that this isn't anything other than informed debate (we're all grown ups :) )

That is a very interesting point you raise about friendship with the US and the "special Relationship" issue is absolutely key to this. The strength of the relationship varies over time, and usualy ebbs and flows with the fortunes of the UK in the EU context.

Interestingly, having spoken to US servicemen, they are hugely grateful for what the UK has done for/with them. After 9/11, they did feel that the UK was their only true ally. having visited the site (edit - twin towers) in NY in 2003, it was quite odd to have US folk approach me and say "gee, you Brits are great for still supporting us". This happened to such an extent that I felt like a minor celeb!

Now, I'm not saying where I stand on this issue, because it swings both ways; there's good and bad in being closer to/further removed from the USA.

And yes, your friend sounds like Weslh Guards - they were ordered off teh boat, then back on it again, and stupidly, it had sat in the same place for hours, just begging to be bombed.

An interesting topic - I think i'll shut up and let someone else have a say ;)

[Peter Henry]

Gaz..To be fair,I think Britiain's relationship with America is a little more intertwined than would allow such a common sense approach. No matter who the present administrator in Britain would be at any given time. 8)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

You know I have often thought that on the world scale it is easy to see why Americans would be the most despised nation,due to their attitude to other countries. We should as Brits now remember that our own security when travelling the world has been drastically reduced due to the continued allegiance that we have with America.

For any action America is seen to carry out, we are seen as being party to that also. :?

this is why i have respect for the french, they dont really give a toss what any other country says US, UK, UN, where as we follow the yanks like stray dogs into a pointless conflict(s) cos blair dont have the balls to tell bush "sort it out yourself"

I don't think the reason why we act like the Americans lap dog is because Blair has no balls. He realises we need to be part of a trade bloc, be that America or Europe. The French dont listen to the US because they're all happy existing in their utterly uncompetative Euro wet dream - unaware of the collosal Eastern frieght train from India and China that's about to squish them. Blair is keeping his options open.

[weegaz22]

anyway, isnt iran the 4th largest oil producing country on the planet?

ooooo so thats why the yanks are looking at iran :wink:

[akbarhussain]

anyway, isnt iran the 4th largest oil producing country on the planet?

ooooo so thats why the yanks are looking at iran :wink:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=9752

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47790

[northwind]

I think the US was justified in using the bomb to end the war as quickly as possible against the savage foe the started the war.


The Germans? :)

The standard argument for the use of the bombs was that the number of fatalities from the two strikes was less than the cost of a land war in Japan. Quite feasible really. Also, they may have been civilians but a militarised city is basically a factory for making weapons.

People get very het up about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but forget that the firebombing of Dresden caused more civilian fatalities.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I think the US was justified in using the bomb to end the war as quickly as possible against the savage foe the started the war.


The Germans? :)

The standard argument for the use of the bombs was that the number of fatalities from the two strikes was less than the cost of a land war in Japan. Quite feasible really. Also, they may have been civilians but a militarised city is basically a factory for making weapons.

People get very het up about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but forget that the firebombing of Dresden caused more civilian fatalities.

And the bombing of Tokyo to boot.

[hoodlum]

People get very het up about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but forget that the firebombing of Dresden caused more civilian fatalities.

But a less permanent one, the human effects of which are not lingering on still in the population

[weegaz22]

People get very het up about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but forget that the firebombing of Dresden caused more civilian fatalities.

But a less permanent one, the human effects of which are not lingering on still in the population

recent information suggested that the deathrate of the dresden firebombing was around 35'000 people

where as hiroshima was 80'000 people, but how many died after the bomb due to the radiation?

[Anonymous]

Yes but was the war allowed to rage on any longer, they have estimated that it would have claimed the number of deaths in Hiroshima to the power of 10.

It wasnt a case of being the right thing to do.. it was a case of which was the lesser of two evils.

Also the target was a city of innocent civilians as in order to bring the war to a direct halt they had to intimidate and shock the Japs into submission - remember, this was a nation that refused to surrender under any circumstance.. they would have fought on until each and every citizen of japan was dead.

In order to show them the west meant business, we wiped out their largest city... they still refused to surrender, so we wiped out their 2nd largest city. Then they got the hint and quit.

If they'd have surrendered, the USA wouldnt have dropped the bombs in the first place.

[Peter Henry]

Joe...I do not agree. The use of the nukes was no more than an opportunity for the Americans to put on a deadly demonstration. Partly for the benefit of the machine then known as USSR. Why? because frankly by the time they came around to using the bombs,the Japanese were virtually on their knees as a fighting force.

In the greater picture of WW2 what did a few months and the risk of a few more allied soldier lives matter? To my mind there was no justification for the bombing of those Japanese cities at that point.


A bomb could have been used in a desserted zone as a warning,that if the official surrender did not come within a given time scale THEN and only then could it have been used.

I do not defend some of the despicable acts carried out by the Japanese,not only to POW's but to the Chinese people but we have to understand that it was not barbarity for the sake of such....it was more due to the way their culture viewed the vanquished. This does not in any way excuse it though.

However whether the Germans started all of this or not, let us not for one second imagine that the Allies always played to Queensbury Rules...as I am sure that is far from the truth. Perhaps not on the same kind of scale....but it happened.

[The Basket]

Iran big country. Need many soldier to occupy. Very expensive.

China will become top power soon. Maybe USA just putting a few pieces into place before then.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Joe...I do not agree. The use of the nukes was no more than an opportunity for the Americans to put on a deadly demonstration. Partly for the benefit of the machine then known as USSR. Why? because frankly by the time they came around to using the bombs,the Japanese were virtually on their knees as a fighting force.

In the greater picture of WW2 what did a few months and the risk of a few more allied soldier lives matter? To my mind there was no justification for the bombing of those Japanese cities at that point.

Depends what you mean by on their knees. Where they unable to function at a strategic level to prevent the American advance, yes.

They were as capable as ever at inflicting casualties on the Americans however. From what I can remember, some estimates put this at 1,000,000 troops, let alone
Japanise casualties. Certainly not a few anyway.

Besides, at a time of such a collosal war, noone in their right mind is going to say "well, we can sacrifice x number of our people who've put their lives on the line to defend this country, to save y number of the savage enemy who attacked without warning."

A bomb could have been used in a desserted zone as a warning,that if the official surrender did not come within a given time scale THEN and only then could it have been used.

Perhaps, but again, the Americans wanted the war over as fast as possible and by any means possible, and I dont think they should be begrudged for that.

I do not defend some of the despicable acts carried out by the Japanese,not only to POW's but to the Chinese people but we have to understand that it was not barbarity for the sake of such....it was more due to the way their culture viewed the vanquished. This does not in any way excuse it though.

Ah yes, the Chinese. 300,000 civilians were slaughtered by the Japs in a single 'incident', so again I dont find it hard to understand why there was so little sympathy for them.

[hoodlum]

The only flaw in the cunning plan being that purposefully targetting non-combatants i.e civilians is illegal in international law, not to mention morally just plain wrong.

context - it's like saying that the Jews just might have been able to fight against the Nazis so they had to be killed. Like saying that the Kurds that saddam murdered with gas might have been freedom fighters (terrorists), even the women and children. Like saying that the blitz on london was justified, that dresden too and the other cities were justifiably bombed. In the cold light of law, they're all war crimes.

[The Basket]

The bombing of civilians was not a war crime. At Nuremberg. Because every one did it.

[hoodlum]

nevermind - misundertsood basket's post.

[The Basket]

War was the only way to stop Mr Hitler and the Japanese.
They bombed us, we bombed them.
Aircraft such as the Lancaster had to fly high to avoid flak. This meant they had the accuracy of spit in a hurricane.

They flew at night because they were being shot down during the day...not that it did much good.

They bombed all over the place to hit a target. Not a particular war crime. Just poor bomb aiming.
I don't think the British public cared much for the German civilian population at the time. Too busy trying to live themselves. At least the bombing was trying to hit industrial targets...
It's nice to try and justify something 60 years later. We won...and thank God we did.

[hoodlum]

I can't be bothered to correct the inaccuracies in your post, some of what you say is right, the rest isn't. I've definitely retired from this thread.

[The Basket]

There are no inaccuracies in my post. Not a single one.

I am widely read in WW2 history and the RAF especially. Even was a member of the RAF at one point.

It really grinds my gears...brave men from this country stopped one of the most evil regimes ever.

[UlsterSV]

And now their sons and grandsons are fighting for one of the most evil regimes ever.

[The Basket]

The problem with war is just that...it's war. It has no morals.
The only rule is to kill the enemy quicker and more of them before they kill you.
And Win.

War should be a last resort...only used in dire need. The problem now is that war is being used as a political tool. To serve an end in itself. To conquer.

[philipMac]

Great news footage too. Lets not forget the pretty pictures now.


And the Heroic journalists.

[Razor]

Nuke 'em all now and take their oil.

[philipMac]

Nuke 'em all now and take their oil.

Quite right.

What was God doing burying OUR oil under their deserts anyway.

Muppet.

[Razor]

Dude don't call God a muppet, he'll fecken smite you.

[philipMac]

Dude don't call God a muppet, he'll fecken smite you.


Ah well. I already said that Jesus must have been some phenomenally whiney bollix, since they released Barabas rather than to have him back.

So, I reckoned I might as well do the job right.

[The Basket]

yeah...but it will be very difficult to drill for oil in a nuclear winter...and won't the oil be radioactive?

Flaw in the plan there guys.

[Razor]

Nah neutron bomb, loads of high rad at ground zero but no damage to buildings or landscape. Most of them will bleed out through their **** and die pretty slow but it'd take that long to get an invasion force mobilised.

[The Basket]

Wow...you got it all planned and everything.

I would have gone Chemical but a neutron bomb...I stand corrected.

[UlsterSV]

Either or...

They'd both get the job done.

[Spiderman]

Dude don't call God a muppet, he'll fecken smite you.


Ah well. I already said that Jesus must have been some phenomenally whiney bollix, since they released Barabas rather than to have him back.

So, I reckoned I might as well do the job right.

ROFPMSL

:lol:

[Alpinestarhero]

Holy Wars. Thats all it is.

"my god is better than your god"....similar to playground arguments of old going "my dad is better than your dad" but with no real clear winner, cos each dad is the winner in the respective childs eyes.

I dont see why Iran cant be allowed to have nuclear technology. So they build Nukes, big deal. American has built nukes. They've even used an atomic bomb. So they can shut up and stick weapons-grade plutonium up their schvinkter (Waynes World!).

And lets not forget - america wages wars that arnt even there. They use brute force when less force is needed. Ok, so its not the nation as a whole - but why is their goverment so insistent on messing up the planet?!

Forgive me if im wrong. Im young, and this is how i see the world.

Science for peace only!!!!!

Matt

[philipMac]

Forgive me if im wrong.


Scuuuuse me???

You're obviously new here. :wink:

[Razor]

OK, Serious post now.

I'm guessing most of you were just kids when this happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

[Well Oiled]

I don't agree with America's (OK George Dubbya's) foreign policy but the idea of Iran's current leaders having nuclear weapons is a scary as it comes. They've already said they want to see the destruction of Isreal. Add a bit of religious fervour and martyrdom and they just might fire off a nuke at Isreal.

Isreal are a nuclear power and would almost certainly retaliate. Where it would go from there I wouldn't even want to imagine.

Cheers Keith

[Razor]

Israel will take out the Iranians, quick style. Remember the Gulf war(GW1) when they held off from retaliating against the Scuds?
I don't think they'll wait much longer...
Although with Hamas now living in their lap I reckon they'll have to be careful.

[northwind]

Israel could invade Iran and destroy their military without over much difficulty, but they couldn't hold the country without commiting genocide... Feeble-minded pundits who think that arabs hate americans have no idea what the word means compared to that. And in all likelihood, Pakistan would weigh in. And then you've got 2 nuclear powers in a square go.

But... Israel can't exert control over Palestine despite it being, in modern terms, all but demilitarised. Personally I consider Israel as it stands to be pretty much a force for evil and hatred, but their leaders are intelligent and cynical enough to understand what a war in Iran would mean.

They must desperately miss Arafat ,in him they had everything- a leader they could utterly emasculate yet also blame (I was always a fan of the Israeli strategy of cutting off every line of communication he had to the outside world bar shouting, then raising an outcry when he didn't speak against an attrocity- to have the sheer cynicism and nerve to make a gambit like that, that's impressive. Horrendous, and all the proof I ever needed to believe without doubt that the Israeli government of the time had no interest whatsoever in peace, but still impressive)

I predict- in fact, I bet you all a pound- that without a major shift in the balance of power or massive single destabilising event (massive terrorist attack, massive Israeli campaign in Palestine, most likely) you'll not see any moves in that direction.

[Razor]

Gotta disagree.
If Israel launched an action they would not invade. They'd cripple the air force, take out the fuel processing plant and knock out some of the infrastructure.
They'd leave the nuclear plant alone until the russians leave.
They've made lots of bold strikes over the years and if their collective backs are against the wall they'll make others. They remember Masada.

[northwind]

Very sensible alternative that... But I think not. To do that would cost Israel a huge amount of international goodwill- by which I mean American goodwill. And it'd utterly destabilise the region. On the balance of probabilities it's likely that a relatively stable Iran, even a hostile one, is better than a chaotic state of individuals with even more reason to hate Israel. Take away everything from someone and you give them one thing- nothing to lose. And then, still the Pakistan threat.

But that's my take on it, I'm certainly not saying you're wrong, just that I don't your prediction is the most likely.

[Razor]

I think somebody on here said that war is politics.
Even if Israel do nothing, their sabre rattling will scare the Americans into action.
The only thing that matters to them is survival, nothing else. How many jewish people live in the USA? How many of them work in government and for big business?
Or Hollywood for that matter.
The state of Israel must and will survive, no matter what. It's been that way since they were killing British officers in Jerusalem.

[UlsterSV]

If israel ever wanted to take out Iran, it would send in America and Britain. Just like they did with Iraq.

[Spiderman]

If israel ever wanted to take out Iran, it would send in America and Britain. Just like they did with Iraq.

Why go and fight if you have a couple of very guliible bully boys on your side?

[UlsterSV]

Exactly. Plus, God wouldn't be too pleased if he saw his 'chosen ones' slugging it out with the Iranians. No no. Manipulating the gentiles to fight for you is much better. I'm sure God is very proud.

[Spiderman]

Exactly. Plus, God wouldn't be too pleased if he saw his 'chosen ones' slugging it out with the Iranians. No no. Manipulating the gentiles to fight for you is much better. I'm sure God is very proud.

If you ever read any of the old testament, just for fun like, you'll see that God in those days was a very evil and spiteful entity, who enjoyed making life hard for everyone. What with the plagues and droughts and floods and poisoned apples etc.

So maybe youre right that their God is very proud. After all most of the old testament makes up the Torrah which jews follow. Talk about 2+2 = 22 eh :lol:

A normal god would be kicking some ass right about now with a couple of well placed earthquakes n stuff. :lol:

[philipMac]

Religion is such a spectacularly huge pile of festering ****e, its almost not fun to attack and denigrate it.


Almost. :wink:


(Not a very constructive post, I'll agree. But, sometimes, I just have to let that sentiment free, even though I know I should really just put up and shut up.)

[Razor]

If you ever read any of the old testament, just for fun like



Now that you mention it...

[UlsterSV]

Religion is such a spectacularly huge pile of festering sh*te, its almost not fun to attack and denigrate it.


Almost. :wink:


(Not a very constructive post, I'll agree. But, sometimes, I just have to let that sentiment free, even though I know I should really just put up and shut up.)

No. When your fellow countrymen and women are sent to fight and die for another nation's religion, and when the man who sends them uses his own religion as justification, you have every right to call religion whatever you want.

[Razor]

Insult religion all you want, but not specific religions. There's a name for that kinda talk.

[UlsterSV]

Why not specific religions?

[Spiderman]

Insult religion all you want, but not specific religions. There's a name for that kinda talk.

Really? Pray tell what is it?

Gentlemen, we are all mature enough to know that "Religion is the opium of the masses" are some of the truest words spoken, no?

[Razor]

The man sed opiate, close but no cohiba

[philipMac]

Why not specific religions?

-1 Pedantic, Razor my friend. We all got spidey's reff.

Em, why not limit it to specific religions? Well. Because by doing this, there is an implicit complement to what ever other religions you are not specifically saying are a joke.

I should really stop this sort of talk :( Its unhelpfull.
(Its just, being a Catholic, Irish person... its hard to contain my disgust.)

[Razor]

(Its just, being a Catholic, Irish person... its hard to contain my disgust.)

Because your priests shag choirboys?

:-k

[philipMac]

(Its just, being a Catholic, Irish person... its hard to contain my disgust.)

Because your priests shag choirboys?

:-k

one of my mates was messed around by one. not sure exactly what happened. didnt really want to know.

Do you know what the really ****ed up part about it was... I didnt believe him for a while. Urrrrgh. Scumbags.

But, that's only the tip of this particular iceberg.