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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3fe70e02$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Alan Minyard" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "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. Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted. That's what AQ thinks of the USA The barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing daily That's what AQ thinks of the USA. in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every building in Japan would have ended the war, it would have been completely justified. The only thing that the US did that was "wrong" was not hanging the ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree. Al Minyard So why do you apologize for them? Dropping the bombs and 9-11 were two different events under vastly different circumstances. That your opinion, and point out where I apologised for them. My opinion - supported by facts - is that there are similarities, deliberately targetting civilians, especially with regard to Hiroshima. In case you forgot: Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you think an attack without a declaration of war is "treachery", do your sums and see how many times the US has declared war in the conflicts it has been involved in since WW2. 9-11's treachery has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL reduced to a low-level insurgency. AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel inits oppression of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11. It is apparently news to you but others can hate as strongly as you, and be as ruthless as your government in targetting civilians. rant snipped Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have destroyed the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities? If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor results over Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters. The Navy's fast carriers are busy supporting Okinawa, so using TBMs and SB2Cs in dive and glide bombing is out. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military cities: military HQs were located there, there were port facilities, airfields, a division-sized garrison in Hiroshima and a brigade's worth in Nagasaki. Legitimate military targets. Add to that the military-related industries and that makes each more of a target. (This includes the cottage industry common in Japan at the time) As LeMay said, the only way to do it was low level fire raids at night. He knew there would be heavy civilian casualties, but felt it had to be done. A demonstration was out of the question for a number of reasons, techinical, political, and practical. Invasion brings heavy American, British, and Japanese loss of life. Bombing and Blockade will take up to 18 months to work. Truman has (according to the info he had at the time) those choices. What do YOU do in his place? I know what I'd do. Drop the bomb and end the war ASAP. Comparing Hiroshima with 9-11 is apples and oranges. Different context, circumstances, etc. I can see you as OBL's defense atty. when (not if) he's caught. Good luck keeping him away from the needle or the noose. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Tex Houston" wrote in message ... "weary" wrote in message ... Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK if their side does it but bad if the other side does it. From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force Magazine". THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED, "THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY" IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION. Then practice what you preach. Tex Houston |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" wrote: All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means. Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ? No. Do try to follow the thread. Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted. In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion. I can't be less evasive in my reply. You claimed that "All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means." I am asking you to tell us how. By dropping conventional bombs on the target. (What other possible meaning could there be?) Back up a couple of lines and you can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets in the city. He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima were well documented. I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the bomb in Hiroshima. The first criterion for the selection of atomic targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles diameter". The requirement that the target must be within an urban area meant that civilian casualties would be maximised. I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you* would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the technology of the period. Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against the Japanese home islands. That is a fact that I'm not revising, although you seem determined to. However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential area and the assets were only lightly damaged. ROFLMAO! Like all those who blindly regurgitate indoctrination, I bet you cannot name a single one. Indoctrination - my turn to ROFLMAO. "... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days after the attack. " So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian casualties. The incendiary raids on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial assets. It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain. If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of that. Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning out battleships, tanks and fighters. Get a grip on reality. 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. But you deny others the same right. Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night. Bad news - it isn't working, The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count. Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote: False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war. Oh really. Name them with references. Always happy to oblige in correcting your ignorance. http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:54:17 GMT, "weary" wrote:
No. Do try to follow the thread. Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted. In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion. I can't be less evasive in my reply. Inabilty to answer the question raised is quite clearly evasion. You claimed that "All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means." I am asking you to tell us how. By dropping conventional bombs on the target. (What other possible meaning could there be?) So tell us how *you* would put 'conventional bombs on the target' (sic) and the target alone, when the delivery system of the day had a CEP of 1000 yards. You do know what CEP means dont you ? Back up a couple of lines and you can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets in the city. He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima were well documented. I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the bomb in Hiroshima. Oh really ? Lets see what the targetting committee of the manhattan project actually said. http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html "(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target" The first criterion for the selection of atomic targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles diameter". That would be Tokyo on a march night in 1945 or Dresden. Hiroshima an Nagaskai werent treated any differently. The requirement that the target must be within an urban area meant that civilian casualties would be maximised. Which of course is another revisionist lie. I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you* would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the technology of the period. Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against the Japanese home islands. Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral damage to the surrounding urban areas. That is a fact that I'm not revising, Its not a fact, its an outright lie on your part. "... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days after the attack. " Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was quoted there now wont you. So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian casualties. The incendiary raids on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial assets. It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain. If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of that. Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning out battleships, tanks and fighters. Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up and down the kanto plain, what part of mass production sub contracting are you having problems comprehending. Get a grip on reality. I suggest you do. Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night. Bad news - it isn't working, The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count. Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer. Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown. greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:14:43 GMT, "weary" wrote:
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote: False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war. Oh really. Name them with references. Always happy to oblige in correcting your ignorance. http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm Thats not naming them, thats a link to a site regurgitating Wisconsin school revisionism from Gar Alperovitz. greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:54:17 GMT, "weary" wrote: No. Do try to follow the thread. Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted. In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion. I can't be less evasive in my reply. Inabilty to answer the question raised is quite clearly evasion. Is there some part of "no" that you don't understand. You claimed that "All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means." I am asking you to tell us how. By dropping conventional bombs on the target. (What other possible meaning could there be?) So tell us how *you* would put 'conventional bombs on the target' (sic) and the target alone, when the delivery system of the day had a CEP of 1000 yards. You do know what CEP means dont you ? I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, but feel free to construct strawmen, they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument. Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly exceeded the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign. From the US Strategic bombing Survey "Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes, and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. " The USBS states that the overall average for Germany was 20 percent within 1000 feet. Back up a couple of lines and you can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets in the city. He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima were well documented. I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the bomb in Hiroshima. Oh really ? Lets see what the targetting committee of the manhattan project actually said. http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html "(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target" The first criterion for the selection of atomic targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles diameter". That would be Tokyo on a march night in 1945 or Dresden. Hiroshima an Nagaskai werent treated any differently. The requirement that the target must be within an urban area meant that civilian casualties would be maximised. Which of course is another revisionist lie. So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism". I don't think you know what it means. What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised? Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a large urban area? I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you* would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the technology of the period. Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against the Japanese home islands. Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral damage to the surrounding urban areas. Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused no 'collateral' damage. That is a fact that I'm not revising, Its not a fact, its an outright lie on your part. No - you are lying when you claim I said that no "collateral" damage occurred in raids on industrial targets. You are obviously short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen. "... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days after the attack. " Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was quoted there now wont you. If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free to post it. So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian casualties. The incendiary raids on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial assets. It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain. If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of that. Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning out battleships, tanks and fighters. Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up and down the kanto plain, Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production. what part of mass production sub contracting are you having problems comprehending. I understand it quite well. I just don't believe the bull**** you post about it. Get a grip on reality. I suggest you do. Brilliant retort. Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night. Bad news - it isn't working, The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count. Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer. Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown. The contents of the USSBS do that quite satisfactorily - your distorted version doesn't. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" 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. But you deny others the same right. I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides and a terroristic act. It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond it does so at its own peril. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|