![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 | |
|
|