|
| 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 |
|
|
|
#1
December 20th 03, 07:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"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! 
|
|
#2
December 19th 03, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2.... "Sunny" wrote: "Polybus" wrote in message . com... Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University Kevin Martin Executive Director, Peace Action Daniel Ellsberg Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The Pentagon Papers Questions : 1. Do the three retards listed above, condone the cross posting to the groups listed ? 2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History (or only his version of it)? 3. Do any of the three realise that there was a World War on at the time? 4. What would you have suggested, at the time, as the means to subdue a fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate acts of barbarism that are still wondered at? They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese, they would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major invasion planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a viable option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it. 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? Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed. Saddam's use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed. As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war, and anyone who committs such acts deserves death. No mercy, no quarter, no questions asked. Comparing Hiroshima/Nagasaki to 9/11 is like apples and oranges. I had a grandfather who would've been in Kyushu for the invasion-his unit was heading from England thru Suez to Australia, then up to the Marianas and Okinawa to Japan. They had just gotten their shots for the Pacific when the bombs fell. They knew then they were going home alive and two years sooner. Enough said. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
|
|
#3
December 21st 03, 12:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe325a4$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2.... "Sunny" wrote: "Polybus" wrote in message . com... Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University Kevin Martin Executive Director, Peace Action Daniel Ellsberg Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The Pentagon Papers Questions : 1. Do the three retards listed above, condone the cross posting to the groups listed ? 2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History (or only his version of it)? 3. Do any of the three realise that there was a World War on at the time? 4. What would you have suggested, at the time, as the means to subdue a fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate acts of barbarism that are still wondered at? They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese, they would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major invasion planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a viable option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it. 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? Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed. Saddam's use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed. You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. You still haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same right, given that ANY MEANS obviously encompasses both legal and illegal. As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war, The war had actually started at least some 6 years earlier. How was it different from bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres and wars by the US and its allies where the targets were residential or economic? (Apart from the obvious that it was them doing it to US rather than US doing it to them.)
|
|
#4
December 22nd 03, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe325a4$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2.... "Sunny" wrote: "Polybus" wrote in message . com... Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University Kevin Martin Executive Director, Peace Action Daniel Ellsberg Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The Pentagon Papers Questions : 1. Do the three retards listed above, condone the cross posting to the groups listed ? 2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History (or only his version of it)? 3. Do any of the three realise that there was a World War on at the time? 4. What would you have suggested, at the time, as the means to subdue a fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate acts of barbarism that are still wondered at? They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese, they would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major invasion planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a viable option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it. 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? Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed. Saddam's use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed. You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. You still haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same right, given that ANY MEANS obviously encompasses both legal and illegal. As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war, The war had actually started at least some 6 years earlier. How was it different from bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres and wars by the US and its allies where the targets were residential or economic? (Apart from the obvious that it was them doing it to US rather than US doing it to them.) Saddam used CW in VIOLATION of a 1925 treaty signed at Geneva prohibiting use of CW/BW. Of course, the treaty (or any other) is useless paper w/o enforcement. I had a grandfather who was scheduled to ship out from England (USAAF) to Australia thru Suez and then on to the Marianas and finally Kyushu if the bomb hadn't been dropped. He felt that the bombs on Japan saved his life, and felt that way to his dying day. Now, as far as hitting as many Japanese cities as necessary: even after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been hit, the militarists in the Japanese Government wanted to keep fighting,despite what had happened and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Korea, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles. It took the Emperor voicing his wishes to force the militarists to accept the Potsdam Declaration. Before, the response was "mokasstu" or treat with silent contempt. "Japanese Spirit" would resist the bombing, blockade, and eventual invasion, despite shortages of weapons, fuel, ammuniton, lack of a navy and trained airmen. The bombs forced them to see reason and realize that the war was lost. Sure they wanted peace, but on their terms, not unconditional surrender. Some might say that was modified to keep the Emperor, but as long as the government answered to Douglas MacArthur as SCAP, it was as Sec. State Byrnes remarked: "It'll be one divinity answering to another." And postwar events vindicated the decision to keep the Emperor. But until the Emperor spoke up and expressed a desire to end the war on Aug. 10, it looked like Kokura would be next on Aug. 16th, and additional targets to be selected as circumstances permitted. All target cities had military targets in them: arms factories, road and rail nets, airfields, POL refining and storage, etc. Kyoto and the Emperor's Palace were off-limits.Everything else that met such criteria was fair game. Add to that a lot of Japanese industry was cottage industry, taking down cities was necessary. Answer this: what would you do: invade Kyushu (at least risking 766,000 Army and Marines plus all air and naval personnel American and British) or drop the bombs. Everything else learned postwar is hindsight. So use the info Truman had to him at the time. He had two choices: invade or the bomb. I choose the latter. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
|
|
#5
December 21st 03, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? Actually, he did in the war against Iran; however, this absolute right was tempered by international treaties on the laws of war which restrict the use of poison gases in combat, to which Iraq was a signatory. He used mustard gas, a blister agent, against Iranian forces. However, the Hussein regime did not have the right to use nerve gas on civilians in rebellion. Firstly, there were other, less drastic means to suppress any demonstrations, as any competent army will use. The use of nerve gas on Shiites and Kurds was to spread terror. Secondly, under the 1954 Geneva conventions, internal wars and their combatants also fall under the same restrictions as international wars. The blanket prohibition against using poison as a weapon applies. Any tribunal will be right to try Saddam and his assistants for the use of this weapon. Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? No. Al-Queda is not a state and as such cannot declare war. Al-Queda is a combination of private persons united by ideology. They don't fall under the 1906 Hague Convention definition of legitimate combatants, nor under the 1954 Geneva Convention extension of these rules. The United States actions against al-Queda fall into the category of suppression of criminals or pirates, not warfare between states. The acts of September 11 were by international law murder, not warfare. Gregory Baker
|
|
#6
December 28th 03, 01:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gregory Baker" wrote in message nk.net... 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? Actually, he did in the war against Iran; however, this absolute right was tempered by international treaties on the laws of war which restrict the use of poison gases in combat, to which Iraq was a signatory. He used mustard gas, a blister agent, against Iranian forces. However, the Hussein regime did not have the right to use nerve gas on civilians in rebellion. Firstly, there were other, less drastic means to suppress any demonstrations, as any competent army will use. The use of nerve gas on Shiites and Kurds was to spread terror. Secondly, under the 1954 Are you sure of this date? The latest I can find is dated 1949 with additional Protocols in 1977. Geneva conventions, internal wars and their combatants also fall under the same restrictions as international wars. The blanket prohibition against using poison as a weapon applies. Any tribunal will be right to try Saddam and his assistants for the use of this weapon. Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their war with the USA, specifically WTC? No. Al-Queda is not a state and as such cannot declare war. Online see Wikipedia: "is any conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force between countries or other large-scale armed groups. " Other dictionaries Support the notion that war does not necessarily involve countries. GWB described Sept 11 as "war" and subsequently declared war on terrorism. The US had previously declared war on crime and drugs. Al-Queda is a combination of private persons united by ideology. They don't fall under the 1906 Hague Convention definition of legitimate combatants, nor under the 1954 Geneva Convention extension of these rules. The United States actions against al-Queda fall into the category of suppression of criminals or pirates, not warfare between states. The acts of September 11 were by international law murder, not warfare. Gregory Baker
|
|
#8
December 13th 03, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mycroft" david wrote: Look up the projected losses on both sides that an invasion of Japan would have caused then tell me how in-humane the A bomb was. Plus you forgot to mention that the fire bombing of Axis cities caused losses in some cases greater than both A bombs, war is hell but in the pacific the A bomb ended it. Myc MacArthur estimated about 70,000 casualties for Kyushu. Given the firepower the U.S. and British (British Pacific Fleet and RAF) had, the invasion of Kyushu would have succeeded, but if the bomb doesn't work, or there are production problems, the invasion HAS TO GO. I'd rather risk the lives of 7 B-29 crews on the Hiroshima strike than the lives of 766,000 men in U.S. 6th Army, plus the Navy's 3rd, 5th, and 7th Fleets in the Kyushu invasion. Truman made the right decision based on the information HE HAD AT THE TIME. It was a quick and brutal means to end a long war, but it got the job done. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
|
|
#9
December 13th 03, 08:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter Aitken wrote:
"Mycroft" david wrote in message ... Look up the projected losses on both sides that an invasion of Japan would have caused then tell me how in-humane the A bomb was. Plus you forgot to mention that the fire bombing of Axis cities caused losses in some cases greater than both A bombs, war is hell but in the pacific the A bomb ended it. This overlooks two alternatives. 1) We could have dropped the bomb in a lightly populated area to show the Japanese that we had it and hopefully scared them into surrender. They could have dropped the bomb on a big city too to show the Japanese they had the bomb, and scare them into surrender. Hang on a minute! They DID drop a bomb on a big city and DID show the Japanese they HAD the bomb. Guess who didn't surrender? ronh -- "People do not make decisions on facts, rather, how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine
|
|
#10
December 13th 03, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
