A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old December 20th 03, 07:04 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same

right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting

Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately

target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would

not have been a need to defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."


Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses
considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there was no

military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the Pentagon

being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military

targets within the cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists in the
WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating two,
three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so
be it." He made no mention of
destroying military assets. His choice of words
clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender,
not destruction of
military
assets.




For weary: I'm the one who stated that however many cities had to be destroyed
by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE located in said cities. Hiroshima
had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line and depot, a airfield and port
facility, and a division's worth of troops garrisoned there. Nagasaki: Mistubushi
aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities and related infrastructure,
an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit on 9 Aug if not for weather)had
a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.
With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary.
If that meant destroying cities to prevent two invasions of the Japanese
Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather risk: several B-29 aircrews
on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines in the U.S. 6th Army hitting
the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November? Not to mention the American
and British aircrews and sailors directly supporting the invasion. Al-Queda
started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre. They may have started
the war, but we'll finish it.

Posted via
www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.