"like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" - Americas Iraq Attack Plan

Men(only males are conscripted unless you're an israeli) are expendable. Females and Children aren't. They can produce more members of society while men jsut help to build it...

In World War 2, under american forces, in Japan there were women serving within the armed forces. Nurses & Doctors, are part of the army too. Soldiers have just as much right to life as any other person in the world. Just because they wear a uniform, doesn't make them any less human.

I would have prefared twice as much soldiers to have died in WW2 than to have seen the hateful attacks on Japan with the use of the Atomic Bomb... Indiscriment Killing ...

You got to be joking. With that comment you're judging the worth of the lives that these soldiers led, before & after the war.

Pearl habour was a Military base!!

Pearl Harbour was a military base set into a populated area, during peacetime. Any attack on the area, would be guaranteed to deal damage to civilian areas. Just as the bombings of London, and Berlin did.

Back to the main thread subject ---

The main objective was not just to disable Iraq's fighting capacity but to leave the population dispirited and unwilling to support Saddam's regime.

Obviously Bush has never read any books about Stalingrad. Hitler had a similiar idea, using artillery (both ground and airbourne), to batter the city into surrender, and then sent troops in. I think we all know what happened. Its quite plausible that a similiar result could happen to american forces sent into that area.

One other point.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

Do they realise just how many civilians will die as a result, & do they care? I wonder will, if this goes badly wrong, will any country out there have the balls to indict Bush & his administration for war-crimes? (for this could easily turn into a blood-bath)

Victor

The concept of "shock and awe" is right, however I'm not sure if it will work in this case. Deprive me of food, water, sewage removal, electricity and my net connection for a week and I would suffer hugely, someone without these would not suffer their loss. I don't think the doctrine appreciates this.

However, something similar did work in 1991. The Iraqi front lines were bombed for a month. Damage and injury were of secondary purpose. The main objective was to disrupt communication, deprive sleep and instill fear. In this type of scenario "shock and awe" has / could work.
The docudrama Hiroshima was on TV3 last week. It appeared to be quite balanced and went into a lot of the different “why”s and “whynot”s.

Originally posted by Sand
Personally the only thing I disagree with about using the bombs is the choice of target - surely a fairly deserted island close to the Japanese coast could have been used a demonstration - but then they didnt surrender after the dropping of the first bomb onto a city so whose to say theyd have been impressed by a deserted island.

They were afraid if they told the Japanese were informed of the target in advance (1) an effort would have been made to counter the attack (2) the Japanese would have moved POWs to the site and (3) they were afraid if the attack failed they would look foolish and have provided the Japanese with enough uranium / plutonium for their own bomb.

Originally posted by Carpo
It should be noted that the only condition that the Japeneese required for their surrender was the provision that the emporer would be unharmed (a condition which was later granted during thier 'unconditional surrender' anyway). It could be siad that the Japeneese could not surrender without this condition as the emperor was practically seen as akin to a god, and more important than the lives of the Japaneese people.

There were factions, particularly in the Army (the Navy faction having lost much of it's military strength), that also wanted other conditions, like no occupation and that the Japanese would disarm themselves.

Originally posted by m1ke
They didn't pursue diplomatic routes or possible alternatives to war which would have saved what - 80,000 innocent civilians (I don't know the exact amount).

Diplomatic routes were pursued, but the Americans misunderstood a posture statement along the lines of "we didn't hear your (the American) offer" (in the hope of a better offer) directed by the Japanese leadership at the Japanese Army. The Russians (not at war with Japan) also led the Japanese along as a possible mediator, all the while planning to breach their (USSR-Japan) non-aggression treaty.

Originally posted by m1ke
This same trait I think can be seen by Americas refusal to exhaust diplomatic avenues in the ira[q] situation. 'War is just a continuation of policy'

Perhaps, the precedence threshold is too low with the Americans. War is almost "normal" to them.

Originally posted by m1ke
The initial question though: the atomic bombs dropped on "hiroshima and nagisaki be considered war crimes of some sort??" : Who do you pin it on though, no one would accept responsibility for this - The guys who designed the bomb, the president - who can claim he was acting on the advice of the civil service, the guy flying the aeroplane who actually dropped the bomb. It's this dethacted and distant sort of warefare that makes it easy for war to be a continuation of policy. No one will be ultimately be responsible for the atrocities that might happen in Iraq if it is carpet bombed with 800 missiles in 48 hours.

Actually everyone from a government down to the lowest officer is responsible for a war crime they have been involved in. They are all meant to be able to make the distinction (this onus does not rest on NCOs and ordinary soldiers).

Originally posted by Shinji
The victors always get to write history how they choose, don't they?

Usually, yes.

Originally posted by Shinji
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the only Japanese cities razed to the ground; they just go down in history because they were the first uses of nuclear weapons in wartime. Casualties in Tokyo were actually higher; on a single warm summer night, the Americans dropped sticks covered in burning tar from a height on the entirely wooden-built residential districts of the city in a circle, so that the flames would spread inwards and nobody would be left alive. There was no military target in the area and the dead were almost entire women, children and the elderly.

I understand they were actually a bit lower at 85,000 - not that that is acceptable either. The argument equally applies to Dresden (considered a 'safe' city where there was an agreement whereby the British wouldn't bomb Dresden and the Germans wouldn't bomb Cambridge(?), due to their historical merits – the Americans didn’t feel bound by this). It raises the question is one incident of 1,000 being killed worse than 1,000 incidents of 1 person being killed.

Originally posted by Shinji
The suggestion that the Japanese would never have surrendered because of their culture of Samurai honour is one that's only really made by people who don't understand the Japanese mindset but like to make flippant comments regardless.

Actually, there was a split among the Japanese as to what to do. Many military officers were gung-ho and some even tried to stage a coup. However, others recognized that an early surrender would have allowed them get better terms and allow them retain the army and parts of the empire.

Originally posted by Shinji
Besides which, I don't honestly believe that protecting the lives of soldiers is a valid excuse for the cold-blooded slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

All to often war “economics” is down to saving lives, not taking them, unfortunately all to often it is only saving lives of your own that is taken into account.

Originally posted by klaz
In World War 2, under american forces, in Japan there were women serving within the armed forces. Nurses & Doctors, are part of the army too.

The nurses and doctors generally would have worn the Red Cross and not carried or used weapons (personal / self defence may be another matter).

Originally posted by klaz
Soldiers have just as much right to life as any other person in the world. Just because they wear a uniform, doesn't make them any less human.

Fair point, but if hypothetically you had the “choice” of having to have one of the following shot at (someone must be shot at), which would you choose? A male soldier, a male Red Cross worker, an elderly civilian, a civilian male adult, a civilian female adult, a child, a pregnant civilian female (the list would be my order of priority). However, two soldiers are worth more than one child.

Originally posted by klaz
Pearl Harbour was a military base set into a populated area, during peacetime. Any attack on the area, would be guaranteed to deal damage to civilian areas. Just as the bombings of London, and Berlin did.

Well the rules of war say you shouldn’t have military forces in a civilian area. Pearl Harbor is a huge sprawling area and most of the damage was to military targets. The harbour wasn’t the only thing attacked either, several airfields were attacked. The Americans were aware of the Japanese declaration of war at the time of the attack.

http://ww2archives.net/images/maps/map-pearl-harbor.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/pearl-harbor-fig3.gif

Originally posted by klaz
Any attack on the area, would be guaranteed to deal damage to civilian areas. Just as the bombings of London, and Berlin did.

At Pearl Harbor the Japanese were attacking military targets, they were not engaged in the nighttime, carpet-bombing of a city or civilian port.

Originally posted by klaz
Obviously Bush has never read any books about Stalingrad. Hitler had a similiar idea, using artillery (both ground and airbourne), to batter the city into surrender, and then sent troops in. I think we all know what happened. Its quite plausible that a similiar result could happen to american forces sent into that area.

Quite possible yes, but hopefully they will learn from Hitler’s mistakes (fighting too many battles at the same time, bombing whole cities instead of selected targets).

Originally posted by klaz
Do they realise just how many civilians will die as a result,

They will have estimates, but these will have huge variations.

Originally posted by klaz
& do they care?

Only partly.

Originally posted by klaz
I wonder will, if this goes badly wrong, will any country out there have the balls to indict Bush & his administration for war-crimes?

Unlikely, but you never know.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The nurses and doctors generally would have worn the Red Cross and not carried or used weapons (personal / self defence may be another matter).

Actually, the US, along with most nations at that time had doctors, nurses, & priests as part of their armies. Priests served on the frontline with regiments. weapons were not part of their uniforms, however they drew army wages, and wore the uniform of their respective nations/armies

Fair point, but if hypothetically you had the “choice” of having to have one of the following shot at (someone must be shot at), which would you choose? A male soldier, a male Red Cross worker, an elderly civilian, a civilian male adult, a civilian female adult, a child, a pregnant civilian female (the list would be my order of priority). However, two soldiers are worth more than one child.

This is totally based on the perceptions & culture from which you're from. Every person will have a different answer, excepting that the child should be saved, since most cultures believe that children are the future. However every person you listed in that list has an equal right to life, regardless of the occupation that they have.

but if hypothetically you had the “choice” of having to have one of the following shot at (someone must be shot at),

I suppose i should answer, since you asked. I'd probably choose the elderly civilian. Who would you choose, knowing that each of them would continue their lives, performing the "greater good", if they weren't to be shot?

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
You got to be joking. With that comment you're judging the worth of the lives that these soldiers led, before & after the war.

No - what he's saying is that war is supposed to be between the warriors. It is not supposed to be about winning by bringing the general populace to its knees.

While there is some degree of justification for inflicting civilian casualties whilst attacking a military objective, there is nothing which can excuse any military attacking civilians.

In fact, in most recent threads here which have questioned what terrorism is, the general consensus is that it is the deliberate targetting of civilian rather than military targets.

In this respect, I would much rather have seen more soldiers and fewer civilians dieing - it would have meant that even though the world was at war, it had still held on to some of his higher principles.

However, one must also consider with many nations exercised some form of mandatory enlistment or Draft, and thus its soldiers were no more involved in the war by choice then the civilians were.

Pearl Harbour was a military base set into a populated area, during peacetime. Any attack on the area, would be guaranteed to deal damage to civilian areas.

Sure, but at least there was a valid military target which was being attacked. Again, this is what definitely clarifies the distinction between an operation designed to inflict military losses, and an operation designed to subjugate and terrorise the people.

Put simply, if you live near a military installation, you must accept that you are a prime "sideline casualty" suspect in the event of military action. This is not true of someone living in a regular flat in a regular street in a regular city.

Also, was it not the Americans who bombed state buildings containing creche's in Eastern Europe (or was it the Middle East?), and taking the line that "human shields" could not be used to deter a military strike against a valid target. This is hte same nation who condemned 9/11, Palestinian bombings etc. as cowardly attacks on a populace by those who are too craven to be willing to engage in anything but terrorist activities.

If this is the US line, then the only conclusion is that the bombing on Pearl Harbour was justified as a first-strike manouever, which attacked a military target and was not deterred by the Human Shield of residential area around it. The firebombing of Tokyo, and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the other hand, are not justifiable in the same way.

Back to the main thread subject ---

Cough....good idea. I'd better do the same before Gandalf gives out to me (again) for going off topic.

Do they realise just how many civilians will die as a result, & do they care? I wonder will, if this goes badly wrong, will any country out there have the balls to indict Bush & his administration for war-crimes? (for this could easily turn into a blood-bath)

The question of civilian deaths is such an ambiguous one that no-one can "realise" how many deaths there will be. There are so many factors in how this war may run, all of which will affect the casualty rate, that it is effectively impossible to make accurate predictions. But I would imagine that the US government have the best estimations of these figures of anyone on the planet, and if they think the cost is low enough for them to achieve their goal before the world cries foul...then I can only hope they are right, and that it doesnt turn into a bloodbath, cause God knows nothing is likely to stop the war from happening.

As for indicting on war-crimes...someone more than likely will try, but it will be vetoed by the US in the UN security council, and that will be that.

jc

Borzoi

Originally posted by m1ke
the nuclear strikes on japan were an act of pure malice, coldy calculated

1. The option of contacting japan and showing japanese scientists a test version of bomb, and saying surrender or we'll use this on you was debated and dropped.

So America could have avoided dropping the Bomb but they just wanted a fast and easy way out. Infact I think simply showing Japanese scientists a nuke go off in the Nevada desert(or wherever they do it) would be enough to secure their surrender.

mmmm, bear in mind that there was a number of days between Nuclear strikes PRECISELY for this reason - to show the destructiuve power and to force a surrender.

also bear in mind that no-one at the time had any idea of what the long term consequnces of the weapons would be.

bear in mind that military and cilivilian US leader took the view that the bombs would shorten the war, and avoid an troop invasion of the Japenese mainland, and thtat this ultimately whould save US lives. Thier prime responsibility being to the US people

GavinS

Lads, lads, lads

War is war is war.

Its a brutal horrible thing that has gone on for a very long time. In war, nothing is out - that is why it is called war. :-)

Sure, it is the victors who write the history books, but no matter what happens in war, it is justifiable - not to you or me - but to the nature of humanity.

We are the ones who are not yet mature enough to survive without armed conflict - so we just have to live with a whole crapload of horrible things.

Gav

Its a brutal horrible thing that has gone on for a very long time. In war, nothing is out - that is why it is called war. :-)

Atcually thats not strictly true, since during the 1500-1900's there was a code of conduct when it came to fighting where civilians were involved. Its only from WW1 onwards that warfare has included Civilians since Air-power could now target Industrial Areas (areas where there were civilians by default).

Sure, it is the victors who write the history books, but no matter what happens in war, it is justifiable - not to you or me - but to the nature of humanity.

Again i disagree. Maybe that was so 500 years ago, however with the advent of International Communications, and closeness of countries to one another, makes such an outcome unlikely. Should America/Britain defeat Iraq, they'll write up their own history, However, so will the countries not involved in the conflict.

We are the ones who are not yet mature enough to survive without armed conflict - so we just have to live with a whole crapload of horrible things.

I'm one of those people who don't believe that the Human Race will ever give up warfare. Grand we'll get more & more destructive, however i do believe there will come a time, if we survive that warfare will not be so destructive & wasteful of life.
(However thats a thread for Humanities or Sci-Fi, not Politics).

Hellrazer

There are a lot of valid arguments here about whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets.And whether the US was guilty of crimes against humanity and should be tried accordingly but Im not going to comment on those arguments---You all know my slight Anti-US views.

BUT
The subject line of the thread reads""like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" - Americas Iraq Attack Plan".

What would peoples opinions be if the US DID use atomic weapons in Iraq?????Would that be considered a warcrime or is any attack on Iraq a war crime seeing as the Iraqis have no weapons,no decent medical system and the people have been worn into the ground due to the UN sanctions.
In my opinion any attack on Iraq in its current situation where it could not defend itself is a crime against humanity.
Richie

Victor

Originally posted by Hellrazer
seeing as the Iraqis have no weapons

They have lots of weapons (although the possession of WMD is open to debate).

Originally posted by Hellrazer
In my opinion any attack on Iraq in its current situation where it could not defend itself is a crime against humanity.

No, it isn't. Please look up the definition of "crime against humanity".

Please look up the definition of "crime against humanity".

As time goes by, what is considered as being a "crime against Humanity" will change considering what is being done.

What would peoples opinions be if the US DID use atomic weapons in Iraq?????

My personal feeling is that its a concept left alone. I don't mean not to be discussed but for the americans not to do. Its like "Pandoras Box". Lets face it, America has been walking over countries over the past few years whenever Nuclear warfare is mentioned. For them to use it themselves, would be like a thumbs up to the use of nuclear weapons whenever theres a conventional war. I'm against its use. Not so much because for the life that would be lost in Iraq, but for the possiblities of it being used more often by more than one country.

In my opinion any attack on Iraq in its current situation where it could not defend itself is a crime against humanity.

In this i disagree. If Iraq can't defend itself, then the war would be over quickly. iraq can defend itself against current conventional weapons. However if America used nuclear weapons, i have a feeling that all the Arab Nations would rise against the US. Most european countries would suddenly turn away from the US, and the UN would find itself united against a country that has used Nuclear weapons.

Question though; was the sept 11 attack a crime against humanity in your eyes, or was it just a terrible day for the world?

Hellrazer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellrazer
seeing as the Iraqis have no weapons

---

Quote "They have lots of weapons (although the possession of WMD is open to debate)."


What type of defence have the Iraqis against carpet bombs,cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons.They may not have weapons of mass destruction but do they even have weapons with which to defend themselves against a US onslaught?????


quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellrazer
In my opinion any attack on Iraq in its current situation where it could not defend itself is a crime against humanity.

---

Quote"No, it isn't. Please look up the definition of "crime against humanity"."

Victor I did say "In my opinion"Im not strictly using the UN defination of "war crime/crimes against humanity".Its an opinion thats all and Im asking for other peoples"opinions"


***Edit****
Klaz.Sept 11 WAS a crime against humanity but also a sad day for the world.Any attack where the target is/was civilians is a crime against humanity.Or any attack designed to bring a whole country to its knees or take the heart out of the people is also a crime against humanity.Basically taking the humanity out of the people to the point where even their dignity is gone is a war crime.And this is what the US plan on doing to Iraq in the coming weeks.
Richie

Borzoi

Originally posted by Hellrazer

The subject line of the thread reads""like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" - Americas Iraq Attack Plan".

What would peoples opinions be if the US DID use atomic weapons in Iraq?????

As far as I understand it the US has a stated poliicy:
They will not use a Weapon of Mass Destruction in a first strike
attack.

But the only WMDs they have are nukes.

So if Saddam was to use WMD's intheatre, the US response could include nukes.

My opinion is that this is unlikely - on either side, and the scenario would really dictate the response.

But interesting question:)

Victor

Originally posted by Borzoi
But the only WMDs they have are nukes.

No they are not. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

The Saint

Every time the US has a military campaign the commit crimes against humanity. Cutting off water and electricity supplies is akin to biological warefare. This was done in the last gulf war and it caused multiple thousands of deaths. They plan on doing this again this time which will lead to massive civilian deaths. This a crime against humanity.

Clintons Cat

this article from USAWC in 1994 might help to explain the concept of Shock and Awe better,the acceleration of the tactics since the first gulf war,from a prolonged airwar offensive to overwhelming localised attacks.
It seems hard to remember but during the airwar phase of Afganistan and Kosovo there was considerable consternation that the airwar was failing to deliver results and public opinion was begining to "wobble".
Shock and Awe seems to be a development to refine the delivery of the perfect Soundbite War

There is, however, one lesson at this early phase of discovery about CNN war that policymakers and military commanders, and those who would advise and inform them, should learn. They must communicate the goals of policies and the objectives of military operations clearly and simply enough so that the widest of audiences can envision the ways and the means being used to reach those goals. This understanding needs to extend from the President down to the average citizen and the most junior soldier. The operational ways and means must be clear and simple--how the operation is happening--so individuals can understand how they personally are being affected. The policy goals and motives for the operation need to be equally clear and simple, but also compelling, so that citizens and allies alike will want to be a part of these operations, while our adversaries will feel powerless to escape the inevitable outcome if they oppose our goals. If policymakers and military leaders draw these pictures and convey this strategic understanding, they should have little fear of video on the battlefields of future CNN wars. The operations, tactics, and images of future CNN wars will follow from these visions. Soldiers, civilians, even enemies, will know why and how we do what we must. We can let them tell the story. And that is how to win CNN wars.

Winning CNN Wars

One thing that can be sure of is plenty of Nice neat cutaway graphics of the latest refinement of the A10 or daisy cutter and full colour wallcharts to plot the positions for the folks back home.

DriftingRain

So winning the war for the good guys should excuse any atrocities comitted? This is effectively what you're trying to argue here.

So what you are saying that the pre-meditated, sneaky tactics that japan used to attack all the innocent people at Pearl Harbor, (btw the US wasn't even in the WW2 then) isn't an atrocy? There were nurses, doctors, lawyers, and even innocent childern on that island. So are they gonna get tried for a war crime?

Its a brutal horrible thing that has gone on for a very long time. In war, nothing is out - that is why it is called war. :-)

Thank you for saying that. I totally agree. If iraq pointed a big ol missle (that they say they have distroyed) at Ireland wouldn't you wanna Shock and Awe them too?

Let's just put it this way. America has never had much bloodshead on it's homeland and we really don't wanna see that happen. I have personally seen enough of it to last a lifetime from 9-11. Countries have got to learn to get along and have peace. We have got to quit fighting for land, money, and damed oil! I know this is never possible but I wish it were. I don't wanna see anyones home torn apart, or see anyones brother or sister die at the concept of war. It's such a touchy subject to be placed on a post, But don't blame the US for everything that has happened, it is just as much our fault as it is Germanys and Englands, and Frances....ect.... War is War...it's dirty and it's ulgy and no one like it! Let's just leave it at that!

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
No they are not.

Yes, they are. The US is a signatory of both the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (which prohibits the development, production and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons) and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The US ceased offensive research into and production of chemical and biological weapons in 1969. All biological stockpiles were destroyed by May 1972. Under congressional mandate, all US chemical weapon stockpiles are being systematically destroyed, to be completed by 2004.

DriftingRain

The US ceased offensive research into and production of chemical and biological weapons in 1969. All biological stockpiles were destroyed by May 1972. Under congressional mandate, all US chemical weapon stockpiles are being systematically destroyed, to be completed by 2004.

QUOTE]Yes, they are. [/QUOTE]


I agree with you!
I live less than 60 miles from the Anniston Army Depot. They are destroying them as we speak. We have the "code" thing going on here, in case of an accident occuring while the depot is destroying these wepons.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
Yes, they are. The US is a signatory of both the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (which prohibits the development, production and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons) and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Apparently it didnt include the prohibition of helping other nations develop these weapons. After all - it is from the US, after this treaty you set so much stock by, that Saddam acquired assistance on his WMD development from the US.

jc

Shinji

So what you are saying that the pre-meditated, sneaky tactics that japan used to attack all the innocent people at Pearl Harbor, (btw the US wasn't even in the WW2 then) isn't an atrocy?

Pearl Harbour was a military base. The Japanese attack was aimed at weakening the American Pacific fleet, which the Japanese believed was massing in Pearl Harbour with the intent on launching an attack on Japanese interests in the Pacific.

Were they right? We'll never know. There's certainly a strong case which says that America would have used World War 2 as an excuse to extend its dominance of the Pacific sphere; at the end of the day, that's exactly what happened, but the Japanese provided the excuse themselves by launching a pre-emptive assault on the American fleet.

The attack on Pearl Harbour was NOT an attack on civilians. However, modern military rules suggest that yes, a warning should have been given so that civilians could have been moved out of the naval base. I'm not sure whether this convention existed at the time of the Pearl Harbour attack - anyone know?

I get a little bit tired of hearing Americans compare an attack on a naval base to dropping a nuclear bomb on a city full of civilians.

mayhem#

This link was posted in the broadband forum, but it is the best illustraton of the type of war we're delaing with that I have seen so far....

http://72ndstreet.com/videos/AC130_GunshipMed.wmv

E.

DriftingRain

I get a little bit tired of hearing Americans compare an attack on a naval base to dropping a nuclear bomb on a city full of civilians.

REALLY??? Well, i am getting tired of everytime I read a post lately everyone seems to be bashing the US. Most bashing it in cartain things as illiteracy, and stupid statements....but geezzzz folks....War is bad and I'm getting tired of hearing about the past...You can only learn from your mistakes and I hope america learned from theirs. I am not gonna sit here and say that america would never do that again because I don't know it to be fact...and this forum is to be all about facts! I am sorry most of you hate us but goodness!

There's certainly a strong case which says that America would have used World War 2 as an excuse to extend its dominance of the Pacific sphere;

The fact that Japan tried to blow Hawaii (Pearl harbor) totally off the map...That needs no excuse!

The Saint

"The fact that Japan tried to blow Hawaii (Pearl harbor) totally off the map...That needs no excuse!"

So you compare hitting a military target to killing hundreds of thousands of people?

DriftingRain

So you compare hitting a military target to killing hundreds of thousands of people?

I am getting tired of posting here. WAR IS WAR! We were retaliating. I don't think any WW's have been faught in ireland?? Am I correct?

The Saint

"War is bad and I'm getting tired of hearing about the past..."

So why keep bringing up what Saddam did 12 years ago?



"You can only learn from your mistakes and I hope america learned from theirs"

I dont think so. They continue to support and arm terrorists and oppressive regimes.

"I am sorry most of you hate us but goodness! "

I dont think anyone hate ye, I think people hate your government and its policies which causes things like Sept 11 and Saddam and much suffering to millions of people around the world.

The Saint

"WAR IS WAR!"

Yes it is.

"We were retaliating."

To what? When did Saddam ever attack America.

"I don't think any WW's have been faught in ireland?? Am I correct?"

Yes that is correct, but I dont recall there being a WW fought in America either.

DriftingRain

I think Ireland has had its fair share of terrorist type people have you not....[URL=http://]www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/6477/worldwars.html[/URL]

We are the top dollar givers to developing countries how can you say we don't help other countries out and that we cause so much suffering?...[URL=http://]www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/developingnations/developingworld.html[/URL]

I dont think so. They continue to support and arm terrorists and oppressive regimes.

That is soooo not true. Why do you think we have the "War on terrorism" going on here, almost all other countries have joined in this with the US.

[URL=http://]www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011220-11.html[/URL]

I hope some of these links help you understand where I am coming from.
I was also commenting that we were rataliating from pearl harbor in the WW, not anything to do with sadamm!

Moriarty

Originally posted by daveirl
Wrong.

Well, according to usamriid all stockpiles of biological weapons were destroyed by mid 1972, with all offensive research & development outlawed by 1975. There is no mention of the US restarting its biological or chemical weapons programs in the past 5 years. I am more inclined to believe them.

According to this document, US policy on these weapons has not changed at all since the 1970s.

A substantial body of evidence dating back to the Nixon administration demonstrates that the United States government has consistently maintained that all types of biological and toxin weapons, including those described as non-lethal weapons, are prohibited by the US unilateral renunciation of biological weapons, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and more recent domestic legislation implementing the BTWC and outlawing the possession of all biological weapons in the United States."

From 1969 through the present, US policy has repeatedly and umabiguously renounced all biological and toxin weapons. ... There should be no doubt that declaratory US policy and US criminal law forbid the possession and use of any and all biological and toxin weapons.

Again, i am more inclined to believe them.

<edit: It is important to note that the document i refer to is dated November 2002, months after the article you refer to was printed. There is no mention that US policy has changed within the past year. Just because they refused to sign a new convention does mean they are reactivating their chemical &/ biological weapons programs, as you implied.>

Originally posted by bonkey
Apparently it didnt include the prohibition of helping other nations develop these weapons. After all - it is from the US, after this treaty you set so much stock by, that Saddam acquired assistance on his WMD development from the US.

It probably didnt. I make no attempt to defend US policy, past or present, i was only pointing out a mistake.