A Third World War on the cards.

Egginacup

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

The latest dope move by NATO completely thwarted:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41969.htm

:pac:

Irelandcool

would the term second cold war be more accurate. While yes the threat of nuclear war is lower but still a lot of tensions that have arisen between USA and Russia. Not to mention a lot elements such as proxy wars are happening.

darkpagandeath

Irelandcool wrote: »

would the term second cold war be more accurate. While yes the threat of nuclear war is lower but still a lot of tensions that have arisen between USA and Russia. Not to mention a lot elements such as proxy wars are happening.

Russia is not a superpower.

FTA69

gandalf wrote: »

And the Russians were involved in that as well helping out their buddies in divvying up Poland between them.

And a couple of years before, the Poles had no bother teaming up with the Nazis to invade Czechoslovakia. Long before 1939 the USSR had called for a pact with Fance and the UK against Hitler but were rebuffed as the latter two were following a policy of appeasement. As such, the USSR found itself alone and needed to bide time.

History isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.

Streetwalker

tipparetops wrote: »

I have always thought that a Third World War could be started by the USA.
Their debt is so high, they might repay it with a few nukes.
China should be very worried.

The US have a track record of aggression around the planet, let's not forget they are the only nation ever to drop a nuke on innocent civilians murdering hundreds of thousands in the process.

Fratton Fred

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but France lost over 100,000 men and hundreds of thousands more wounded in the Battle of France against the Nazi invasion. And all while their British "partners" were running for their lives across the Channel from Dunkirk..

And Britain lost many times that number after the French surrendered and started collaborating with the Nazis. Until they were liberated of course, thanks to Britain continuing the war in their absence.

Reiver

Streetwalker wrote: »

The US have a track record of aggression around the planet, let's not forget they are the only nation ever to drop a nuke on innocent civilians murdering hundreds of thousands in the process.

So the people who had supported a violent fascist regime responsible for the rape and destruction of large swathes of south east Asia were innocent?

The Nuremberg defense doesn't cut it.

blatantrereg

Reiver wrote: »

So the people who had supported a violent fascist regime responsible for the rape and destruction of large swathes of south east Asia were innocent?

The Nuremberg defense doesn't cut it.

They were actively trying to surrender during the few days between the first and second bomb though.
To paraphrase the response:

"Not accepted... Let's see what this this one does."

The civilians including children in those cities were probably not all part of the decision making process regarding Japan's exploits in SE Asia.

Reiver

blatantrereg wrote: »

They were actively trying to surrender during the few days between the first and second bomb though.
To paraphrase the response:

The civilians including children in those cities were probably not all part of the decision making process regarding Japan's exploits in SE Asia.

Neither were the children of the Blitz or those killed in Dresden.

But the civilians, these were the ones who supported a government that slaughtered thousands of Chinese in Nanking. It's just like the Germans who tried to pretend they knew nothing of the concentration camps.

And do you agree the first bomb was necessary then?

darkpagandeath

Japan would not have surrendered unless they were bombed. It's not in their cultural nature. They had to be shown there was a will to finish the war by any means. That they understood.

Yes it was horrific but think of the lives it saved in the long term.

J Mysterio

Reiver wrote: »

It's just like the Germans who tried to pretend they knew nothing of the concentration camps.

I would think a majority didn't know they were being killed but would have thought they were being put to work or whatever.

blatantrereg

Reiver wrote: »

Neither were the children of the Blitz or those killed in Dresden.

But the civilians, these were the ones who supported a government that slaughtered thousands of Chinese in Nanking. It's just like the Germans who tried to pretend they knew nothing of the concentration camps.

And do you agree the first bomb was necessary then?

Don't leave out the USSR. I think their tally of WW2 atrocities might be the highest. I posted a summary on another thread recently http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95515164

Atrocities are atrocities. They're not justified by previous atrocities.

If you don't think that dropping atomic bombs on cities is inherently bad then you can make a case for the first bomb. Personally I do think dropping bombs on cities is inherently bad.

checkyabadself

(scratches head) "Honey, where did I put those iodine tablets?

.......Wife: "they're in the bottom drawer in the kitchen next to the millennium candle and the free cheese"

ComfortKid

This thread is going more towards a discussion on WW2 than 3

KomradeBishop

Reiver wrote: »

So the people who had supported a violent fascist regime responsible for the rape and destruction of large swathes of south east Asia were innocent?

The Nuremberg defense doesn't cut it.

You're trying to justify murdering civilian populations. Targeting civilians is a war crime.

Playboy

Reiver wrote: »

Neither were the children of the Blitz or those killed in Dresden.

But the civilians, these were the ones who supported a government that slaughtered thousands of Chinese in Nanking. It's just like the Germans who tried to pretend they knew nothing of the concentration camps.

And do you agree the first bomb was necessary then?

Why was any bomb necessary? They were trying to surrender before any bomb was dropped. The bomb was dropped to send a message to the USSR not to get Japan to surrender.

Playboy

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Japan would not have surrendered unless they were bombed. It's not in their cultural nature. They had to be shown there was a will to finish the war by any means. That they understood.

Yes it was horrific but think of the lives it saved in the long term.

They wanted to surrender... the idea that dropping the bomb saved lives is nonsense

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

There are many more quotes on the same thing at that link.

DamagedTrax

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're trying to justify murdering civilian populations. Targeting civilians is a war crime.

unfortunately 'war crimes' generally only apply to the losing side.

and then the history books get written.

KomradeBishop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Japan would not have surrendered unless they were bombed. It's not in their cultural nature. They had to be shown there was a will to finish the war by any means. That they understood.

Yes it was horrific but think of the lives it saved in the long term.

The Japanese surrendered because the Soviets went to war with them on August the 8th - rendering any action other than complete surrender and ending the war, unsustainable.

The Japanese didn't even have enough time to investigate Hiroshima properly, before the US dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.

Only 3 days had passed before they dropped the second bomb - how could that be in any way justified?

If the atomic bombs really did convince Japan to end the war, why also, not just do an atomic bomb test on an island, to show Japan of the potential?

Completely senseless waste of human life.

pueblo

It is most likely to be US-China and to start over territorial disputes in the south seas...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html

KomradeBishop

Also, the book Hiroshima should be mandatory reading, for anyone who thinks that the atomic bombing of Japan was justified - or who thinks that any talk of military conflict between any nuclear powers (particularly lately, with Russia in Ukraine...) is anything other than utterly fúckwit insane, and dangerous to everyone:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hiroshima-Penguin-Modern-Classics-Hersey/dp/014118437X/

Gatling

Personally I think the next big conflict will be china vs US especially on the current climate china expanding military operations to 600 miles off its coast with its new man made island in the south China sea,(at some stage it will be shut up or put up )
There is no point building up militarily and proclaiming to be be a superpower when you have zero experience in modern combat .
Where it turns into a global conflict will likey involve north Korea seeing America caught off guard who will attack south Korea .
And highly likely followed by a suprise Russian attack and push on the Baltics and Ukraine in an attempt to reclaim Soviet communist terrorises.

Which will have to be dealt with in massive retribution for all involved .

KomradeBishop

If the US and west in general, don't go destabilizing ex-Soviet nations in Eastern Europe - as was done in Ukraine, leading to the civil war there - then there's no reason for there to be any military conflict in the region.

Russia will always be meddling in their immediate 'sphere of influence' of ex-Soviet nations, but that doesn't have to turn violent on a large/military scale, so long as these countries aren't being destabilized in a stupid fashion - like the US did by funding the protest groups in Ukraine.

It is incredibly stupid to talk lightly of any conflict between western/NATO-aligned nations and Russia (or for that matter, the US and China) - i.e. to talk of direct and open conflict between nuclear powers - as an inevitability or necessary given certain conditions, because wars tend to spin completely out of control and proportion, which when it comes to nuclear powers fighting one another (and allied with multiple other nuclear powers) is literally an 'End of the World' type of situation.

Gatling

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If the US and west in general, don't go destabilizing ex-Soviet nations in Eastern Europe - as was done in Ukraine, leading to the civil war there - then there's no reason for there to be any military conflict in the region.

Russia will always be meddling in their immediate 'sphere of influence' of ex-Soviet nations, but that doesn't have to turn violent on a large/military scale, so long as these countries aren't being destabilized in a stupid fashion - like the US did by funding the protest groups in Ukraine.

That's not what happend there was no meddling by the US .

Amazing nobody ever seems to mention Russian meddling and controlling election's in Ukraine since its independence talking about selective history lessons

KomradeBishop

Gatling wrote: »

That's not what happend there was no meddling by the US .

Amazing nobody ever seems to mention Russian meddling and controlling election's in Ukraine since its independence talking about selective history lessons

Yes there was meddling by the US - it's well documented that there was funding of the protest groups from the US (very interesting in fact, as Pierre Omidyar, who owns First Look Media, helped fund it as well):
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/
http://pando.com/2014/02/24/everything-you-know-about-ukraine-is-wrong/

That is from a well respected author, who was a critic of the Russian government and oligarchs through the 90's - before having to shut down his publication and leave the country, due to threats from the Russian government.

I don't have to qualify the fact that the US was stoking the Ukrainian revolution, with Russian acts - that's whataboutery.

Gatling

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes there was meddling by the US - it's well documented that there was funding of the protest groups from the US (very interesting in fact, as Pierre Omidyar, who owns First Look Media, helped fund it as well):
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/
http://pando.com/2014/02/24/everything-you-know-about-ukraine-is-wrong/

That is from a well respected author, who was a critic of the Russian government and oligarchs through the 90's - before having to shut down his publication and leave the country, due to threats from the Russian governmen

I don't have to qualify the fact that the US was stoking the Ukrainian revolution, with Russian acts - that's whataboutery.

11 years ago viktor yanukovic was a nobody politican who was at best 4 place runner in the Ukrainian elections ,
He made a bold statement saying if he got elected he would hold a Ukrainian referendum seeking the removal of all Russian forces from Ukraine and the port of sevastopol.
Suddenly a poisoning, a coruption show trial where everyone's favourite Russian gas company gas prom supplied all the suggestively edited evidence.
Then yanukovic gets elected and becomes one of the richest people in Ukraine and Russia over night .

The rest is history an annexation and an invasion later .

By whom some might ask

Russia

Not Nato or the US or the EU

KomradeBishop

Gatling wrote: »

11 years ago viktor yanukovic was a nobody politican who was at best 4 place runner in the Ukrainian elections ,
He made a bold statement saying if he got elected he would hold a Ukrainian referendum seeking the removal of all Russian forces from Ukraine and the port of sevastopol.
Suddenly a poisoning, a coruption show trial where everyone's favourite Russian gas company gas prom supplied all the suggestively edited evidence.
Then yanukovic gets elected and becomes one of the richest people in Ukraine and Russia over night .

The rest is history an annexation and an invasion later .

By whom some might ask

Russia

Not Nato or the US or the EU

Whataboutery. Your claim was that the US did not meddle with Ukraine, destabilizing the country by stoking a revolution - I have provided proof that they did.

Reiver

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The Japanese surrendered because the Soviets went to war with them on August the 8th - rendering any action other than complete surrender and ending the war, unsustainable.

The Japanese didn't even have enough time to investigate Hiroshima properly, before the US dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.

Only 3 days had passed before they dropped the second bomb - how could that be in any way justified?

If the atomic bombs really did convince Japan to end the war, why also, not just do an atomic bomb test on an island, to show Japan of the potential?

Completely senseless waste of human life.

Can I get one thing straight? Are you saying the war would still have ended on the same date if the bombs hadn't been dropped?

Gatling

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Whataboutery. Your claim was that the US did not meddle with Ukraine, destabilizing the country by stoking a revolution - I have provided proof that they did.

That's not proof .

Explain the Russia invasion and annexation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine .

America did it !

KomradeBishop

Reiver wrote: »

Can I get one thing straight? Are you saying the war would still have ended on the same date if the bombs hadn't been dropped?

? No, that's not what I said (neither did I say the opposite).

KomradeBishop

Gatling wrote: »

That's not proof .

Uh, yea it is proof - read the articles, the US was funding protest groups in Ukraine...

Do you deny that the US were funding such groups?

Gatling wrote: »

Explain the Russia invasion and annexation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine .

America did it !

You're not going to change the topic, with more whataboutery and by misrepresenting me - you claimed that the US were not meddling with and destabilizing Ukraine, I have provided proof that they were.

Reiver

KomradeBishop wrote: »

? No, that's not what I said (neither did I say the opposite).

Fair enough, I just wanted to double-check. Thanks for answering. I'm just trying to point out that it did shorten the war.

force eleven

Only when China calls in its loans to the US will you see real fireworks. US cannot afford to pay.

KomradeBishop

Reiver wrote: »

Fair enough, I just wanted to double-check. Thanks for answering. I'm just trying to point out that it did shorten the war.

You haven't shown that.

Reiver

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You haven't shown that.

The war didn't end before the bombings, we know that much.

You haven't shown that if the bombs hadn't dropped that Japan would have still announced its surrender on August 15th.

Eugene Norman

force eleven wrote: »

Only when China calls in its loans to the US will you see real fireworks. US cannot afford to pay.

China can't afford to make them pay. In any case you don't call in loans, they either get paid back over time or they reach maturity and get paid back, sometimes by rolling over to new bonds.

Gatling

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Uh, yea it is proof - read the articles, the US was funding protest groups in Ukraine...

Do you deny that the US were funding such groups?


You're not going to change the topic, with more whataboutery and by misrepresenting me - you claimed that the US were not meddling with and destabilizing Ukraine, I have provided proof that they were.

From your own so called proof


" This was by no means a US-backed “coup,”

Yes this is the truth.

Now $400,000 was given to pro democracy groups .
Key word" Pro Democracy "

Now explain where the stolen billions of dollars belonging to the people of Ukraine went to .....

Clue it begins with R_ _ _ _ _ _

Oh followed by a statement by vlad himself who stated yanukovic was kicked out because years of corruption

Reiver

I'm not having a go at you KomradeBishop. It was a barbaric act but that is war.

Why should Allied lives have been lost to save the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

What made it alright for the African, Indian, American, Australian, British and Chinese soldiers all fighting Imperial Japan to continue to die but not the inhabitants of those cities? They had their lives on the line that day as well. Some of them had been fighting since 1937 when the war in China erupted, others might have been conscripts who'd arrived out just a few weeks earlier.

Japan was the first one to throw the rulebook out the window. They slaughtered more Chinese in Nanking than Fat Man killed in Nagasaki. Their savage behaviour was institutionalised, just like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The way civilians and POWs were treated was absolutely disgusting. Hiroshima and Nagasaki while absolutely horrific events that will never leave human memory, were but a drop in the ocean to what had gone before it.

Civilian lives yes but why should Allied soldiers lives be deemed more expendable than those subjects of a hostile power? Any general who valued the lives of the enemy more than his men shouldn't be in that position. The bomb was dropped to save Allied lives and it did. Whether it saved 1000, 10,000 or 1 Million, it doesn't matter. We don't know and won't know. Allied soldiers were dying daily against a tenacious, brutal adversary. Their lives had worth too.

DoYouEvenLift

If there actually was a big war now, what would Ireland's involvement be like and would our army draft everyone they can into them to fight? What happens if someone was drafted and refused to go?

KomradeBishop

Reiver wrote: »

The war didn't end before the bombings, we know that much.

You haven't shown that if the bombs hadn't dropped that Japan would have still announced its surrender on August 15th.

You're just relying on pedantry about the exact timing of the Japanese surrender, to try and bolster a weak argument - instead of asking "If the bombs were not dropped on Japan, would the Japanese have surrendered?" you ask "If the bombs were not dropped on Japan, would the Japanese have surrendered exactly on the 15th?".

It's a stupid question. You already know my answer to the former question which doesn't specify a date.

KomradeBishop

Gatling wrote: »

From your own so called proof


" This was by no means a US-backed “coup,”

Yes this is the truth.

Now $400,000 was given to pro democracy groups .
Key word" Pro Democracy "

Now explain where the stolen billions of dollars belonging to the people of Ukraine went to .....

Clue it begins with R_ _ _ _ _ _

Oh followed by a statement by vlad himself who stated yanukovic was kicked out because years of corruption

You're engaging in quote mining - now that I've seen you do this once, please only ever quote full sentences hereon, instead of engaging in quote mining.

This is the full quote from the article:
"This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych."

KomradeBishop

Reiver wrote: »

I'm not having a go at you KomradeBishop. It was a barbaric act but that is war.

Why should Allied lives have been lost to save the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You're deliberately using misleading arguments (of incredibly poor quality), to try and skip over my arguments from earlier, that counter what you say here.

YFlyer

Kenny Everett at the Conservative Party conference called for the bombing of Russia.

Reiver

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're deliberately using misleading arguments (of incredibly poor quality), to try and skip over my arguments from earlier, that counter what you say here.

And you're avoiding answering my counterpoints. What makes them of poor quality?

I think the bombings of the two cities were justified. You and some other posters don't. I've stated why I feel it was. You have just said "war crime".

The Japanese opened Pandora's Box in the 30/40s. They deserved everything they got.

KomradeBishop

Reiver wrote: »

And you're avoiding answering my counterpoints. What makes them of poor quality?

I think the bombings of the two cities were justified. You and some other posters don't. I've stated why I feel it was. You have just said "war crime".

The Japanese opened Pandora's Box in the 30/40s. They deserved everything they got.

Right, since you're just skipping over my posts that detail the poor quality of argument, and are then asking me to explain how your argument is of poor quality, I think you're just trying to waste my time here - and are trying to just parrot the debunked "it had to be done" view of the atomic bombing of Japan, without actually engaging with counterarguments.

Reiver

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Right, since you're just skipping over my posts that detail the poor quality of argument, and are then asking me to explain how your argument is of poor quality, I think you're just trying to waste my time here - and are trying to just parrot the debunked "it had to be done" view of the atomic bombing of Japan, without actually engaging with counterarguments.

We don't know if they would have surrendered. Look at Okinawa. Look at the island-hopping in the Pacific, the constant conflict in Burma. They'd shown themselves to be fanatical defenders of tiny little atolls and isolated outposts all in the name of their Emperor. With the home islands under threat....

I think they would have surrendered. Eventually. But only after the pointless expenditure of thousands of more lives.

KomradeBishop

Either reply properly to the previous counterargument on that - which you dismissed with the pedantic "Would Japan still have surrendered without the bombings, exactly on the 15th?" nonsense, or stop pretending you've actually replied to that

zeffabelli

Putin wants to go down in history. He has mythic longings on him. If there is a war, that would be why.

Un Croissant

World War III will start, and be fought, on boards.ie over the issue of American meddling in world affairs.

Reiver

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Either reply properly to the previous counterargument on that - which you dismissed with the pedantic "Would Japan still have surrendered without the bombings, exactly on the 15th?" nonsense, or stop pretending you've actually replied to that

Do we know 100% that the invasion of Manchuria was the reason for the Japanese surrender?

The war had been unsustainable from the start. It was the reason behind the whole debate between Strike North or Strike South factions of their military command because they only had enough fuel for one.

Didn't have enough time to investigate? One of their cities had been annihilated, what more did they need? And Allied soldiers continued to die over the three intervening days before Fat Man was dropped.