backtop


Print 195 comment(s) - last by masamasa.. on Jul 19 at 10:55 PM

Hostile regime claims "proof" of U.S. aggression

A nation oft villainized and dubbed as a member of the "Axis of Evil" by a certain former U.S. President, North Korea insists that it's being wrongfully depicted.  At the annual Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum, Foreign Minister Pak Ui-Chun insisted that his country's nuclear weapons program -- which aims to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles -- is merely a defensive tool against agression from the U.S. and neighboring South Korea.

I. North Korea Defends Atomic Weapons Development

North Korea faces a difficult dilemma in that it must choose between aid to its large class of starving poor laborers and furthering its military ambitions.  Famine claimed the lives of as many as 3.5 million North Koreans in the 1990s.  The U.S. had promised North Korea 240,000 tons of food if it froze missile tests, and the country's new leader Kim Jong-un -- Kim Jong-Il's son and successor -- initially agreed on Feb. 29.  

But on April 19 North Korea abruptly went back on its promises with the launch of long-range rocket 13.  The launch, like those before it, ended in failure, with the rocket disintegrating shortly after launch.  Neighboring island Japan had previously announced it was ready to shoot down the rocket, had it travelled over its air space.

Following a heightening of tensions, Minister Ui-Chun cast fuel on flames saying that Washington's objective was to "eliminate the political ideology and system our people have opted for."

As an example of why his nation needed nuclear weapons for "self-defense", Minister Ui-Chun mentioned a recent South Korean and U.S. live-fire excercise, in which a North Korean flag was used for target practice.  He called that "clear proof of the hostile intent of the U.S."

North Korean missil
North Korea's April missile test failed. [Image Source: Pedro Ugarte/AFP/Getty Images]

He said his nation would not back down from atomic weapons development or from space flight.  

His government's public vision is "to explore and utilize the outer space and to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purpose."

Aside from "defensive" weapons, that "peaceful purpose" includes uranium enrichment for use in light-water nuclear power plants.

II. U.S. Counters With Warning

The United States, Japan, and South Korea held a side meeting at the forum to discuss their mutual concerns about North Korea's atomic ambitions.  Their representatives vowed, "Any provocation by North Korea ... will be met with a resolute and coordinated response from the international community.

[We have] deep concern about the well-being of the North Korean people and the grave human rights situation in North Korea."

Talks with North Korea have made little headway since a bit of initial progress in Dec. 2008.  Peace talks tend to be so-called "six party talks" -- discussions which involve Russia and China -- North Korea's allies in the region, and Japan and South Korea -- adversaries of sorts to the secretive totalitarian regime.  The last two players are the U.S. and North Korea itself.

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Article not factally accurate
By Jereb on 7/16/2012 1:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
Honest question, does China and Russia supply aid to NK?


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Article not factally accurate
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 7:22:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
More importantly they do not have a doctrine of interfering in the affairs of countries around the world like America has.

You might want to read your history books on how every country in land occupied by the Russians following WWII "chose" to join the Soviet Union or form Communist countries. What the U.S. does (and I agree it's done some messed up things, especially to Iran) doesn't even come close to what the Russians did. If you're in a U.S. occupied territory, you get to hold an election and vote on whether to remain a U.S. territory (e.g. Guam, Puerto Rico), become a U.S. state (all the states after the 13 original), or to cede from U.S. control and form your own nation (S. Korea, Japan, Philippines, Micronesia, Marshall Islands).

About the only "country" which was screwed over by this system was the Kingdom of Hawaii. Fruit plantation owners shipped over thousands of "workers" to Hawaii until the number of workers exceeded the number of Hawaiian natives, thus tipping the election away from independence and to statehood. Otherwise, all territories are free to leave U.S. control any time the majority of the population votes to do so.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Article not factally accurate
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 8:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you talk about history. You are free to secede from America? That is certainly new.

States are not allowed to secede. Territories are free to do so if the majority of their population so chooses. That's why the Hawaii vote was irrevocable, and screwed over the Kingdom of Hawaii.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 8:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's why the Hawaii vote was irrevocable, and screwed over the Kingdom of Hawaii.


You mean that Hawaii cannot vote against leaving the USA? Then how does it make them free to secede.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 2:28:05 PM , Rating: 4
Territories are free to secede. Once they vote to become a state, they are no longer free to leave. Since all states (aside from the 13 original) were once territories, all were free to make this choice at one point in time.

And as pointed out below, Texas negotiated an exception so they're free to secede and form their own country. Puerto Rico is currently waffling over this, as they like being part of the U.S. but still have ambitions of becoming their own country. Guam and Saipan are also territories which may possibly secede in the future.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By emarston on 7/16/2012 8:34:53 AM , Rating: 2
Texas leave can due to it's conditions prior to entering the Union. I think they are the only one though.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Manch on 7/16/2012 8:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
No conditions were set granting Texas a "right" to secede. The state constitution does say tat Texas is beholden only to the US constitution, not the government, or the president though. The US constitution does not address seccession at all.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Newspapercrane on 7/16/2012 12:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Article not factally accurate
By Manch on 7/16/2012 1:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Texas vs White is contested bc neither the state, nor the US constitution address secession, therefore the ruling in that particular case is considered by some to be null and void. They also point to President Grant readmitting Texas back into the union thru proclamation.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Article not factally accurate
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 10:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
Contract? You have no idea what you are talking about. Only 13 states existed when the federal government of the United States was established. The 13 states voted unanimously to give up sovereign power to a central federal government. From that time forward, territory has been acquired by purchase, war, or application by other sovereign nations to join the United States. Part of that is giving up sovereign claim on the land to the eminent domain of the federal government. These "territories" belong to the federal government. There is simply no choosing by a single area to "leave" the U.S. If put forth by all the states, a democratically voted petition to dissolve the union, would be recognized.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declarat...

Territories conquered in war, if prior to the war, were sovereign nations ARE given back their sovereignty. aka Iraq. Afghanistan. France. Or, they can vote to give up their sovereignty to the U.S. federal government. From that point forward, the land becomes property of the U.S., and as such the U.S. has domain over that land.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Article not factally accurate
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 11:31:38 AM , Rating: 4
This is the progress of history. The Constitution of the US was NOT the first attempt at a central government. The "United States of America" was established in 1776 by that very Declaration. The Declaration is the guiding principle of the democracy of the United States. The Constitution written in 1787 establishes the framework for the current federal government. It is NOT America or this democracy. We the people give consent and authority to the federal government of our OWN free will. "We the people" is America.

Yes. United until we ALL decide otherwise.. Read the Declaration. Dissolving such ties should not be done frivolously:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;"


RE: Article not factally accurate
By KoS on 7/16/2012 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
I won't call you a moron for not knowing your history....unlike yourself doing it earlier.

But...America isn't, never has been a democracy!! It's a Republic!! Get your facts straight before belittling others who do the same.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By ianweck on 7/17/2012 11:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
You care. Quite a bit.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 9:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. I do not even know where to start. How about this:

quote:
From 1946 to 1958, as the site of the Pacific Proving Grounds, the U.S. tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands,[14] including the largest nuclear test the U.S. ever conducted, Castle Bravo.[15] In 1956, the Atomic Energy Commission regarded the Marshall Islands as "by far the most contaminated place in the world".


Same Wiki article:

"From 1956 to August 1998, at least $759 million was paid to the Marshallese Islanders in compensation for their exposure to U.S. nuclear testing."

Whoops. Guess that was a mistake, taking responsibility for our actions. Surely Iran compensates it's women for their brutal sub-class standing.

quote:
Are you suggesting that the Japanese or the South Koreans can vote against the American occupation?


South Korea has voted to remain a free and democratic society. Not one dominated by a single authoritarian government responsible for abusing and controlling it's citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

Any time you want to cut your ties to the Western world, go ahead and ask your beloved leader to stop selling his oil to them. Ask him to give up the money and power he has in controlling that aspect of your country. See what he says.

Either in Jan. of 2013 or 2017, President Obama will simply walk away from the Presidency of this country. His power and financial influence FREELY given up in service of the American people.

Tell me this, what is stopping your King from coming into your home right this second and slapping you in irons and sending you to the gallows... Oh that's right, his rule is absolute... There is nothing preventing him doing that. Sleep well tonight.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/2012 11:52:05 AM , Rating: 1
Nice gringos! You nuke and you compensate. You have also just put a price on America.

I take it that you agree to be compensated up to the amount of $759 million dollars in exchange for receiving 67 nuclear explosion on American soil.

I will make you a better deal though. I will pay $1000 million dollars for all of America as it is. (i.e. not nuked).

Say yes, and it is a deal!

Sub-Class standing of women in Iran? Where did you get that idea from? American experience? I have to agree that in Iran women are regarded differently from the way they are looked upon in America. Suffice it to say, that women in Iran enjoy higher social respect and legal rights than any American woman can ever dream of.

Yes, President Ahmadinejad. A torn in the side of every criminal, racist, Zionist government in the world. That is why we love him to death.

"Tell me this, what is stopping your King from coming into your home right this second and slapping you in irons and sending you to the gallows... Oh that's right, his rule is absolute... There is nothing preventing him doing that. Sleep well tonight."

First of all, we do not have a king. We kicked him out 32 years ago and sent him to live with his masters. He died soon after, but his son is at your service in America. That is how it actually was when America's puppet was ruling Iran. Very interesting question, though. The one that is more appropriate to be asked from Americans. In Iran the police can not hold on to a suspect for more than 48 hours. In cases of terrorism, espionage and treason the period is extended to one month by the order of a special judge. I would like to know of any case that has been treated otherwise. How about America? Have you heard about Patriot Act and its assortment of attachments or that is one BS you don't monitor? It allows for arbitrary arrests on the flimsiest of notions, indefinite detention and finally assassination of Americans. I am sleeping well every night. I don't know about you though. The way you swallow American propaganda and self promotion, I guess you sleep well too. Keep it that way. In fact, sleep all day as well.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By bsd228 on 7/16/2012 3:12:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In Iran the police can not hold on to a suspect for more than 48 hours. In cases of terrorism, espionage and treason the period is extended to one month by the order of a special judge. I would like to know of any case that has been treated otherwise.


Very funny guy. Those hapless hikers that got kidnapped from over the undefined border were held for how long before they were charged with those BS espionage counts? Arrested July 21st, 2009. On November 9th, they were finally charged. Nothing happened at all until the following August, 2010, and it wasn't until the following summer that the kangaroo court convicted them.

Iran has an established practice in recent years of holding foreigners as political prisoners while stalling on the nuclear negotiations.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 3:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
I am surprised that you believe the BS. Do you think any guy will go to Iraq for hiking? That too near the border. A border with a neighbor hostile to the US.

I am surprised how anyone can take hiking at the Iranian border at face value.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By bsd228 on 7/16/2012 10:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
People hike everywhere in the world. Fat keyboard jockeys do not, but normal people do. In the last 3 years I've hiked on 4 different continents.

No need to even reply to TehranBob and mass of lies he just told. But what's your excuse for lying? Beatnik Berkeley types, living in Syria, are CIA spies? Give us a break. Or a shred of evidence...


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/2012 4:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
That is the usual American propaganda. In fact America does not treat the Mexicans that cross its borders for work any better. And these "hikers", were bona fide spies. Trained to obtain information that a certain American terrorist proxy would try to make use of later.

Those hikers were spies, with spy equipment, performing acts of espionage inside Iran. And they were charged within the first month. And a preliminary court did sentence them to imprisonment, and detention until the eventual trial. In which they were convicted of espionage and sentenced to years in prison. The Iranian government could have imprisoned them for the length of their sentence, but released them on humanitarian grounds and act of good faith. That was a mistake. Upon being released they went on fabricating lies for American consumption. Iran should have imprisoned them for the, if I recall correctly, the eight and two years that they were sentenced to.

At any rate, Iran was right in detaining them until the trial was finished, because one of them, a woman, jumped bail and did not return to Iran to stand trial after she was freed on bail.

As I said, acts of espionage, terrorism and treason are a bit different than the usual criminal cases.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 3:46:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I take it that you agree to be compensated up to the amount of $759 million dollars in exchange for receiving 67 nuclear explosion on American soil.


Again, we take responsibility.

quote:
Sub-Class standing of women in Iran? Where did you get that idea from? American experience? I have to agree that in Iran women are regarded differently from the way they are looked upon in America. Suffice it to say, that women in Iran enjoy higher social respect and legal rights than any American woman can ever dream of.


Grow up. This is so blatantly ludicrous, I could almost think you are serious.

...

Believe what you want bro, but King Ahmadinejad is nothing short of a absolute monarch whether you vote or not. Ballots with one name do not an election make. Your King has absolute authority in your country, and as such you have no rights that cannot pissed away on his whim.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/2012 4:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ballots with one name? What does that mean and where do you get that bullshi.. from? Your imagination? Grow up.

Ahmadinejad won both the elections that he contested, fair and square. That is too hard for you and the Zionist America to stomach. Well choke on it. You are truly irrelevant.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/2012 4:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Again, we take responsibility."

Is that a yes? If so, then it is a deal.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 2:34:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
quote:
Are you suggesting that the Japanese or the South Koreans can vote against the American occupation?

South Korea has voted to remain a free and democratic society. Not one dominated by a single authoritarian government responsible for abusing and controlling it's citizens.

It should be pointed out that countries with U.S. military bases are free to ask them to leave at any time. That's what France did shortly after WWII, and the U.S. left. The Philippines did the same in 1991, asking the U.S. to remove its bases. The U.S. did.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By KoS on 7/16/2012 3:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget we pay Cuba to have a naval base on thier land. And if they don't re-new the lease, we would have to leave as well.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 3:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't forget we pay Cuba to have a naval base on thier land. And if they don't re-new the lease, we would have to leave as well.


They have been asking Guantanamo for years. No affirmatives coming their way.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By KoS on 7/16/2012 3:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Then they should take the US to the international court. We say the lease is valid, the Cubans don't.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By KoS on 7/16/2012 3:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A 1934 treaty reaffirmed the lease terms and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it or the U.S. abandoned the base property.[7] The 1903 agreement set the annual lease amount to USD$2,000 in U.S. gold coins.[8] The U.S. continues to send monthly checks for the inflation-adjusted lease amount ($4,085 As of 2007[update][9]) to the Cuban government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_...


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 3:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
US $ 4085 is peanuts.

As the agreement goes, Cuba cannot evict the US even if they wanted to. US is too powerful to be forced. Cuba ends up losing here.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 5:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
At issue here is whether a country's new government is bound by treaties and debts signed by the old government. Yes a country can abrogate old treaties and refuse to pay off old debts. But the damage to its international reputation (essentially it's credit rating) would be so devastating that even Cuba won't do it. Nobody wants to loan money to or be owed favors by a government which has set a precedent that it will nullify treaties, contracts, and debts at its whim.

I actually happen to agree with you on Guantanamo Bay. The paltry lease the U.S. pays for it is basically highway robbery. But that's the terms of the treaty the U.S. and Cuba signed at the end of the 19th century - a time when the U.S. was imperialistic in the Western hemisphere (ever wonder where the term "banana republic" came from?). If the Castro government were on friendly terms with the U.S., I'm fairly certain we'd be willing to renegotiate it. But he isn't, so we keep it to annoy him.


By StevoLincolnite on 7/16/2012 4:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
China is North Korea's most important ally; biggest trading partner and main source of food, arms, and fuel.

However, China wants stability in it's region, having North Koreans starving and jumping ship to China is not something China wants.

With that said, China always supported North Korea, even lending solders to North Korea to fight in the Korean war against South Korea and it's allies.
It makes sense really as North Korea is sort of a buffer-zone between South Korea and it's allies. (Basically every Western power.)


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: Article not factally accurate
By ianweck on 7/17/2012 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 1
Still doesn't make any sense.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Manch on 7/16/2012 6:03:50 AM , Rating: 5
Where do you come up with this bullsh!t? The way you're blowing smoke up the "great leaders" a-hole, makes me think you're his personal fluffer.

NK has continually violated the agreements setup during the 6 party talks and various other negotiations. Between 1995 and 2008, the United States provided North Korea with over $1.3 billion in aid. We stopped when they pulled out of the talks and launched a test missile and then detonated a nuke undeground. Also, there are reports that they have been reselling the food aid that was shipped to them. Talks were restarted, and we agreed to send them 450,000 metric tons of food, on one of the conditions being they stop ballistic missile test, and then a couple months later, they launch one.

The fact is NK would have suffered an even worse fate due to the severe food shortages in the 1990's if the US and other countries had not intervened with aid. They had already lost over 5% of there population during the winters.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Article not factally accurate
By knutjb on 7/16/2012 6:39:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do you think that is a fair settlement? We could just ask the USA or Russia to give up their ballistic missiles for 450,000,000 metric tons of food.

Moral relativism is foolish at best.
quote:
NK values their safety above all else. They would mind a few citizens dying if that is what takes to stop an invasion.
They don't mind letting their population die now why do something different. Name something that NK does that is good in any sense?

NK merely aggravates the western world with China's blessing.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 6:54:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Moral relativism is foolish at best.


Do you think any sensible leader would take up such an offer? No wonder the discussions fail. It is obvious the NK leadership see it biased against them.

quote:
They don't mind letting their population die now why do something different. Name something that NK does that is good in any sense?


They keep militarising and showing to the Iranians that the only way to prevent a US invasion (Iraq, Libya) is a nuclear deterrent.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 7:50:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do you think any sensible leader would take up such an offer? No wonder the discussions fail. It is obvious the NK leadership see it biased against them.

The problem is the NK leadership externalizes blame for their problems, instead of blaming their own failed policies which keep their country in poverty and their citizens on the brink of starvation. Outside countries are trying to offer assistance with strings attached which try to nudge it in the right direction. But because NK refuses to acknowledge they're doing anything wrong, they see these nudges as outside interference and being biased against them.

If you're running a functional country and economy, and an outside country influences it in a way which makes things worse, then you have a legitimate complaint. But if the outside countries are just trying to make things better inside your country, you have no basis for claiming their offers of assistance are biased against you.

quote:
They keep militarising and showing to the Iranians that the only way to prevent a US invasion (Iraq, Libya) is a nuclear deterrent.

When did the U.S. invade Libya? There were a couple air raids (ostensibly in response to Libyan terrorism), and some air-to-air skirmishes nearby in international waters (Libya claims the entire Gulf of Sidra as their territorial waters - far in excess of the internationally recognized 12-mile border). And during the recent revolution the U.S. did everything it could not to put troops on the ground there despite the rebels practically begging for just that. Other than that, I don't know of any U.S. invasion of Libyan territory since WWII (when it was occupied by Italy, which fought on the same side as Germany and Japan).

The U.S. didn't need the cease fire which ended the Korean War. It was well within its power to win the war outright. When Chinese armed forces joined the war on North Korea's side, MacArthur wanted to nuke Chinese cities in retaliation. Truman relieved him of command for that. If the U.S. really wanted to invade North Korea, it could have done so any time in the last 60 years.

North Korea's need for nuclear weapons is based on the paranoid delusion that the U.S. wants to do something it could've done any time in the last half decade but hasn't. Now they have nukes and they (and apparently you) credit the nukes with stopping the U.S. from doing something it never showed any interest in doing during the last 60 years. If you want, I have a rock here that I can sell you for $100 which will make the sun come up every day.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 8:02:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you're running a functional country and economy, and an outside country influences it in a way which makes things worse, then you have a legitimate complaint. But if the outside countries are just trying to make things better inside your country, you have no basis for claiming their offers of assistance are biased against you.


They do see elimination of nukes as making things worse. So both us concur it as a legitimate complaint.

The US needed South Korea as much as the USSR need NK. Both of them went to war through their proxies for their self interests. With the cold war over, the US is quite happy to let NK as the USSR doesn't exist. But they will continue to threaten nuclear states that are not allied to them.

Eg. Saddam Hussien was supported against Iran even though he used chemical weapons on his citizens. Invade Kuwait & soon the US invaded Iraq.

The Taliban was financed by US as long as the USSR was in Afghanistan. 10 years later Taliban becomes a terrorist org.

Gaddhafi came clean on his WMD programs. Once they were sure that he didnt possess any WMD, NATO invaded him.

The USS Ohio unloaded 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the initial stages of the attack. If you call that a skirmish, I have a bridge to sell you.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 5:50:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Taliban was financed by US as long as the USSR was in Afghanistan. 10 years later Taliban becomes a terrorist org.

The type of fundamentalism the Taliban represent is precisely why the U.S. has tried to keep a stranglehold on Iran. It makes no sense for the U.S. to oppose Iran but support the Taliban.

The Afghani opposition against the USSR comprised a wide alliance of tribal leaders and beliefs which the U.S. supported en-masse. Basically everything and the kitchen sink. The Taliban were (at the time) a small, insignificant part of that alliance. It has since been retconned into being the sole opposition in Afghanistan by people wishing to blame it all on the U.S.

quote:
The USS Ohio unloaded 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the initial stages of the attack. If you call that a skirmish, I have a bridge to sell you.

Like I said, there were a couple U.S. air raids in Libya. AFAIK there were no troops on the ground, which most people would agree is required before you can call it an "invasion." There are rumors of a covert op to land a team to kidnap Gaddafi, which the President never green lighted. And also rumors of covert special forces teams helping last year's rebellion.

Here are the Gulf of Sidra skirmishes I was talking about, since apparently you haven't heard of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_inciden...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_inciden...


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Manch on 7/16/2012 6:46:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well, Russia and th US arent starving. The North Koreans are. Their government is spending a lot of their money on Nuclear programs versus feeding their own people.

South Korea values their safety and their freedom. The economic embargoes are meant as a detterent to keep NK from invading the South. As an ally of South Korea, why would we aid NK in achieving econmic prosperity by doing business with them.

Trying to get them to give up a means of invading/decimating the South in exchange for food & energy is a fair trade.

Weve even offered them 2 LWR's & heavy fuel oil(alot that was delivered thru South Korean organizations). They would have recieved all of it if they hadnt decided to balk on the deal and develope nuclear weapons.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 6:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
It is a very weird way of thinking. The people who call the shots are well off. Blocking food aid is not going to effect. They can always snatch what they want from the masses.

The masses who have no voice are the ones starving. Stopping food aid makes a difference to the quantity of food they eat. Whether you keep them on a full stomach or not will have little effect on the country's nuclear program.

The other countries that supply/block aid or only helping/preventing the avg NKorean in his quest for food.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Creig on 7/16/2012 9:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
Then it is up to the population of North Korea to revolt and pull down the current self-serving dictatorship and install a system of government that cares more about their welfare. Maybe something along the lines of a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 10:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
They can't revolt on hungry stomachs.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By DiscoWade on 7/16/2012 6:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
North Korea also has many concentration camps which also provide a strong deterrent against revolt. Soldier obey because if they don't, they will be in the camps too.

http://freekorea.us/camps/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023038...
And Google "North Korea Prison Camps" for even more information.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/2012 9:31:00 AM , Rating: 2
Which part fires you up like that? The part that North Korea blew up a reactor and America in turn stopped shipping food aid and prevented others from doing so too, or the part where America is called what it is?

I can recall a visit by G.W. Bush to South Korea, where in a joint press conference the South Korean president expressed hope that there will soon be a final peace with North Korea, when the chimp interrupted him and said that there will be no peace with North Korea. That actually sums it up. America does not allow peace between North and South Korea. The rest is American bullsh..!


RE: Article not factally accurate
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 10:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That actually sums it up. America does not allow peace between North and South Korea. The rest is American bullsh..!


Because North Korea's idea of peace would mean communist authoritarian takeover of the free people of the South.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/2012 1:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Because North Korea's idea of peace would mean communist authoritarian takeover of the free people of the South. "

You give yourself, and America in general, away there. Peace between two countries does not mean acceptance of the other one's political system as one's own. But that is how America is. It wants to enforce its will and the political system, usually an obedient one to the illegitimate, criminal interests of America wherever and whenever it can. America will find good company of the same sort in the trash bin of history.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Manch on 7/16/2012 11:06:58 AM , Rating: 1
My God, you are an ahmadinejad cock puppet. Infuckincapable of not drinking your own kool-aid

Your story about Bush is bullshit, your hole stance on this is bullshit.

Given that your name is Irantech, pretty much says all I need to know.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 11:17:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
My God, you are an ahmadinejad cock puppet. Infuckincapable of not drinking your own kool-aid


I love it when this happens. When all the American channels are busy focussing on Assad's atrocities no one is paying attention to suppression of Shias in Saudi Arabia. Guess why? Coz SA is America's ally while Syria is Russia's.

No wonder talking of kool aid is just so funny.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/16/2012 12:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
My story about G.W. Bush (aka Chimp) is absolutely correct, and I stand by it.

"My God, you are an ahmadinejad cock puppet."

And you are an American ..., etc...!


RE: Article not factally accurate
By ilt24 on 7/16/2012 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which part fires you up like that?


Your the one who seems fired up here...you also seem to be very misinformed.

While yes N.K. did destroy the cooling tower in 2008, but the next year after the U.N. denounced their missle launch, N.K. kicked out the IAEA inspectors and restarted the reactor.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 11:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
They have learned from Iraq's mistake. Allowing too many foreigners inside your country and letting them loose in a place of national importance is definitely not smart.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By ilt24 on 7/16/2012 11:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
Right they would have just gotten in the way of them restarting their reactor.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 12:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right they would have just gotten in the way of them restarting their reactor.


How stupid of them. They should have started it long back and kept it running. Look at the price they paid!


RE: Article not factally accurate
By ilt24 on 7/16/2012 1:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How stupid of them. They should have started it long back and kept it running. Look at the price they paid!


Not sure what your talking about, they destroyed the cooling tower in June of 2008 and reactivted the facility in April of 2009.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Oops! I was thinking of Iraq.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By ianweck on 7/17/2012 11:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oops.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By Adonlude on 7/16/2012 11:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well at least our country didn't change I'ts name to appease Hitler.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 12:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well at least our country didn't change I'ts name to appease Hitler.


?


RE: Article not factally accurate
By KoS on 7/16/2012 12:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
He's talking about Iran. Iran means Aryian.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
It was called Persia before but why would they try to please Hitler? AFAIK they had no relations.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By KoS on 7/16/2012 1:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Article not factally accurate
By albus on 7/16/2012 2:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The name "Iran", which in Persian means "Land of the Aryans", has been in use natively since the Sassanian era


Hitler has nothing to with the name Iran. It was named Iran before Hitler was born.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By KoS on 7/16/2012 2:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
You seemed to have missed this part...

quote:
By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi's close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states.[8] Germany's modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges.[9]

The Shah went on to ask the international community to use the native name of "Iran" in 1935 to address to his country, which in Persian means 'Land of the Aryans' and refers to Airyanem Vaejah, the Avestan name of the original homeland of the Aryans. Although the country has been known as Iran to the native people themselves for many centuries, Westerners came to know the nation as Persia through Ancient Greek accounts. Iranians were immune to the racial Nuremberg Laws on the grounds that they were pure blooded Aryans. In 1939, Nazi Germany provided Iran with what they called a Germany Scientific Library. The library contained over 7500 books selected "to convince Iranian readers...of the kinship between the National Socialist Reich and the Aryan culture of Iran"(Lenczowski. 1944, p. 161). In various pro-Nazi publications, lectures, speeches, and ceremonies, parallels were drawn between the Shah of Iran and Hitler, and praise the charisma and virtue of the Fuhrerprinzip (Rezun. 1982, p. 29).


Hitler may have not directly asked them to rename their country. They did rename the country to curry favor with Hilter and Germany. Plus Germany was Iran's largest trading partner at the start of WW2.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/17/2012 2:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
Iran is the ancient of name of the country. It has been used consistently ever since Cyrus the Great for over 2,500 years by the successive governments of Iran in their official records and the people of Iran. The name Persia was the name used by the Greeks and in modern times the colonial powers. To say that Reza Pahlavi asked the international bodies to use the name that the government and people of Iran know their country by, for thousands of years to curry favor from "Hitler" is just utter racist nonsense. In fact it tells of the deep psychological problems that the people who claim that nonsense have.


RE: Article not factally accurate
By IranTech on 7/17/2012 3:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
Iran has never changed its name. For over 2,500 year, the name has always been Iran. Persia is the name that was used by the colonial powers and originally the Greeks to refer to Iran. The government of Iran at the time asked the international bodies and the all the countries to use the true name of the country, and not the name used by colonialist. To say that Iran should accept the name that imperial powers use to call it, is racist, degrading, rude and plain ridiculous.


Is this really a big deal?
By createcoms on 7/16/2012 12:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
Surely the US will have developed laser-driven anti-ICBM tech soon enough? Then everybody focuses (pun intended) on getting their own laser measures and countermeasures. Terminator's coming baby!




RE: Is this really a big deal?
By MechanicalTechie on 7/16/2012 2:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
So how does that prevent a nuke hidden on a oil tanker sailed into a port and then triggered?

Ya goose there is no such thing as total protection...


RE: Is this really a big deal?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/16/2012 6:58:18 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ya goose there is no such thing as total protection...


Which is why I was born.


RE: Is this really a big deal?
By kattanna on 7/16/2012 9:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
LOL


RE: Is this really a big deal?
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 2:29:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ya goose there is no such thing as total protection...


Tell that to the TSA and the Patriot Act. Tell that to all the Americans living in fear every day because our Government insists we need to.

Everything our Government tells us is true, right? ;)

I'd rather place my protection in my own hands than give it up to someone else.


RE: Is this really a big deal?
By jeffkro on 7/16/2012 7:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
How you going to protect yourself from a nuke? Live in a bomb shelter?


RE: Is this really a big deal?
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 8:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
Zombies don't use Nukes.


RE: Is this really a big deal?
By ARoyalF on 7/16/2012 10:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Stop, drop, and roll or duck and cover?


RE: Is this really a big deal?
By delphinus100 on 7/16/2012 6:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
In that scenario, they'd have the enjoyment of nuking just one US target for about 30 minutes...

No defense anywhere has to be total or perfect, just good enough to not make it worth the attacker's while, and/or seriously increase his uncertainty of achieving whatever it was he sought.


By stm1185 on 7/15/2012 11:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's time to build our Doomsday weapon!!!

But make sure not to tell the world about it.




Japan
By silverblue on 7/16/2012 8:48:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neighboring island Japan


Wait, what?

Japan is an island nation, an archipelago of thousands of islands. I think "nation" may have been more appropriate here.

(sorry, I know I'm being anal...)




It's easy to mock North Korea
By GatoRat on 7/16/2012 8:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
but the US does the same thing; blowing threats way out of proportion to justify massive spending. Our attack submarine fleet is but one example of this. Unfortunately, with all these weapons lying around, our politicians can't resist the urge the use them.




About as much as...
By masamasa on 7/19/2012 10:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
..their piggy leader needs burgers to defend himself from starvation.




fail
By el33t on 7/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: fail
By cokbun on 7/16/2012 1:07:53 AM , Rating: 3
its meant to be "their mishizzle failed"


RE: fail
By drlumen on 7/16/2012 1:57:32 AM , Rating: 5
Let me get that for you... "their mishizzle fizzled"


RE: fail
By GrammarPolice on 7/16/2012 9:11:42 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"their mishizzle fizzled"


I'll accept this.


RE: fail
By chick0n on 7/16/2012 7:48:44 AM , Rating: 1
It saids "Jason Mick" @ top of the page

that explains it all.

this article fails as much as the spelling ...


RE: fail
By Helbore on 7/16/2012 8:18:45 AM , Rating: 4
Saids?


RE: fail
By albus on 7/16/2012 8:22:42 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
SAIDS - The rare combination of gonorrhea chipalis herpes and AIDs all in one...otherwise known as SAIDs (super AIDs). This is usually caried by monkeys, or people who have sex with monkeys and then return it back to their native land to spread. Monkey, however, are immune to the disease seeing that they have been living with it for many years, but humans are not so keen to this disease.


From http://www.urbandictionary.com


On 6 August 1945
By MechanicalTechie on 7/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: On 6 August 1945
By StevoLincolnite on 7/16/2012 12:58:14 AM , Rating: 4
Well, lets be honest.
If the North Koreans did use nuclear weapons in an aggressive manner... The world will probably turn North Korea into the worlds largest car park.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Jereb on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: On 6 August 1945
By stardude692001 on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: On 6 August 1945
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 6:52:56 AM , Rating: 5
Canada: lots of oil, no nukes. U.S. hasn't invaded.
Mexico: lots of oil, no nukes. U.S. hasn't invaded.
Saudi Arabia: lots of oil, no nukes. U.S. hasn't invaded.
Kuwait: lots of oil, no nukes. U.S. hasn't invaded.
UAE: lots of oil, no nukes. U.S. hasn't invaded.
Norway: lots of oil, no nukes. U.S. hasn't invaded.
Brazil: lots of oil, no nukes. U.S. hasn't invaded.

Libya: lots of oil, no nukes. U.S. did its damnedest not to send troops there even when its rebels were begging for outside intervention.

Venezuela: lots of oil, no nukes, and is a major thorn in the U.S.' side in Latin American. The U.S. hasn't invaded, and in fact keeps their economy afloat by buying their oil (it has a high sulfur content, and the U.S. refineries are one of the few which can process it).

In fact, going through the list of major oil producing countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
The only one the U.S. has invaded is Iraq (though Kuwait might technically qualify too).


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: On 6 August 1945
By drewsup on 7/16/2012 11:30:32 AM , Rating: 5
Holy Sh1t,
The US invaded Libya? When did that happen???
Oh that's right, IT NEVER DID, did you conveniently forget that fact?
Now the US did BOMB Libya to enforce UN sanctions back in the mid 80's, but invasion by definition implies troops on the ground, taking land, QED, the US did not invade Libya.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: On 6 August 1945
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 2:05:06 PM , Rating: 3
And he earned every bit of it, too. Especially the strike Reagan sent upon them.

But, did we take their oil? Did we occupy them? NO!

(That is, unless you try and pass off on us some absurd sci-fi theory that through reverse meson decay we managed to turn the space-time continuum into reverse and siphoned the creamy, black ale from them via a concentrated neutrino beam).

It just hasn't happened. Keep trying harder, conspiracy theorists.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: On 6 August 1945
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 2:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about America earning 9/11 because they wrecked Afghanistan?


We didn't wreck Afghanistan. You can thank the Soviets for that. We only supplied the resistance weapons to fight the Communist oppression.

quote:
Kindly consult BP.


Nice acronym. Do you even know what BP stands for? I'll give you one guess, no, zero guesses. I'll tell you!

British Petroleum.

Their address:

1 St. James's Square
London, SW1Y 4PD

That doesn't look like America to me.

Try harder, I expect more of you if you're going to succeed here on Dailtech.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 2:28:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We didn't wreck Afghanistan. You can thank the Soviets for that. We only supplied the resistance weapons to fight the Communist oppression.


Exactly. You made them a fundamentalist state rather than a communist state. The Afghanis deeply resent the Americans. Under communism they had education, jobs & non discrimination against women. Now they dont. How is fundamentalism better than communism? America had no plans to bring democracy. They were happy to bring Afghanistan to the brink of a religious war.

quote:

Nice acronym. Do you even know what BP stands for? I'll give you one guess, no, zero guesses. I'll tell you!

British Petroleum.

Their address:

1 St. James's Square
London, SW1Y 4PD

That doesn't look like America to me.

Try harder, I expect more of you if you're going to succeed here on Dailtech.


Read up on the US assistance in the war. For starters, the USS Ohio unloaded 154 Tomahawks on the first day of the war.
The British followed up with a paltry 4. Its no secret that the US helped the Britsh & the French. I know what BP stands for.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 2:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know what BP stands for.


If you did, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement.

Also,

quote:
Read up on the US assistance in the war. For starters, the USS Ohio unloaded 154 Tomahawks on the first day of the war.


Pay better attention to what I wrote. I talked about the Reagan bombing of Libya in 1986. Were you even alive then and of school age? (1-12)

I didn't respond at all to your comment about Tomahawks because it wasn't worthy of one. I see no Libyan occupation so get over it.

quote:
The Afghanis deeply resent the Americans.


That's their problem. If you can't see how oppressive Communism is/was then you can't be helped. Try living under Communism for a while before you comment. I know many who have and not a single one misses it.

Yes, we used Afghanistan as a tool, a tool to fight the Cold War indirectly. That's how you fight a Cold War, by the way. I still say if the people stood up for themselves, they'd be better off. I can't help the fact that women are beaten routinely over there, daughters are "honor killed," people are stoned to death and refused education. It is their own fault and has always been such in the thousands of years the repulsive "gang" of Islam has devoured lives.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 2:54:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you did, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement.


I wrote about BP & oil contracts. Everybody knows Britain, France & USA attacked Libya.

quote:
Pay better attention to what I wrote. I talked about the Reagan bombing of Libya in 1986. Were you even alive then and of school age? (1-12) I didn't respond at all to your comment about Tomahawks because it wasn't worthy of one. I see no Libyan occupation so get over it.


Why would they occupy it? There objectives were oil and if they got it there is no point in prolonging it.

quote:
That's their problem. If you can't see how oppressive Communism is/was then you can't be helped. Try living under Communism for a while before you comment. I know many who have and not a single one misses it.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Everything you say about communism is an order of magnitude worse under fundamentalism. You would cherish communism if you lived under fundamentalism.

quote:
Yes, we used Afghanistan as a tool, a tool to fight the Cold War indirectly. That's how you fight a Cold War, by the way. I still say if the people stood up for themselves, they'd be better off. I can't help the fact that women are beaten routinely over there, daughters are "honor killed," people are stoned to death and refused education. It is their own fault and has always been such in the thousands of years the repulsive "gang" of Islam has devoured lives.


You are simply blabbing without a clue. Afganis stood for their govt because they knew Taliban was worse. If you get your head out of your ass you would realize that USSR was better than Taliban. The Afganis hate being used as tools. They were getting rid of I can't help the fact that women are beaten routinely over there, daughters are "honor killed," people are stoned to death and refused education. but America supported Taliban.

Do you get it? America supported Taliban in the 80s who introduced stoning, honor killing. No wonder Afganis were not too happy.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By KoS on 7/16/2012 3:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
We didn't support the Taliban in the 80's. There was no such thing.

It was the Pakistians who founded the Taliban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

2+2=5?


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 3:20:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We didn't support the Taliban in the 80's. There was no such thing.

Who fought the Soviets with Stingers & guns? It was not the Americans. The Mujahideen was funded & supplied by the Pakistanis overtly & CIA covertly. Pakistan does not manufacture stingers. Nor do they have tons of cash lying around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghani...

quote:
It was the Pakistians who founded the Taliban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban


The Pakistani economy was in deep shit trying to make nukes in the 80s. Like Iran currently. The US provided financial assistance. Like how its paying billions of $ every year.

quote:
2+2=5?


Thank you. That was most enlighting.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 4:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wrote about BP & oil contracts. Everybody knows Britain, France & USA attacked Libya.


I'm sorry that you really believe this. It is utterly wrong, though.

Didn't you know there was a revolution going on in Libya and Gaddafi was murdering the resistance forces? The UN came to their aid, not just us. Now, I hate the UN, but in this case, the UN was behind the support of the revolutionaries.

With the way you think, I bet you'd argue France's aid to the America when we were under British rule was unwarranted, also! After all, we'd be much better off under Parliamentary rule here than having the freedoms afforded to us under the Constitution.

I'm asking you a pointed question now and I expect an exact reply:

Are you an American Citizen and do you live in the United States? I await your answer.

Also, you didn't tell me your age or if you were alive. So, how old are you?

quote:
There objectives were oil and if they got it there is no point in prolonging it.


You are a loon. You used "there" wrong, it should have been "their."

quote:
You would cherish communism if you lived under fundamentalism.


No I wouldn't. I would cherish neither.

On one hand we have a Religiously controlled state that tells me how to do everything in my life based on whatever the Religion dictates.

On the other hand we have a State run State (there always is someone at the top in Communism) that tells me how to do everything in my life based on whatever they dictate--along with the absolute abolishment of all Religion.

NEITHER system affords me freedoms. NEITHER is good. Both are evil and oppressive. If you can't see that, you need to look harder.

Also, who are you to say they would be better off or not? Maybe they were better off BEFORE the Soviets tried to instill a Communist regime? Have you thought of that?

The only moral to this story is America should pull out of all countries and let the world rot. When they come crying for our aid, we should ignore them and mind our own business. Only then will they see how much we've helped fight evil.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By croc on 7/16/2012 10:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
"The only moral to this story is America should pull out of all countries and let the world rot. When they come crying for our aid, we should ignore them and mind our own business. Only then will they see how much we've helped fight evil."

Oh Yes! Please! And don't forget the oceans, either. Keep your navies in your own waters for once. Maybe then the world will finally get some peace. (I doubt that, but at least we'll have to bash someone other than the yanks.)


RE: On 6 August 1945
By tamalero on 7/16/2012 11:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
Mexico is pretty much controlled.. they are at the "we dont give a damn what you do as long you sell us cheap oil".

also Kuwait was invaded, but not with the US.. guess who paid the bill for the US defense?


RE: On 6 August 1945
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 2:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mexico is pretty much controlled.. they are at the "we dont give a damn what you do as long you sell us cheap oil".


Controlled? Really? What about all those secret tunnels that we know nothing about underneath our border they use to smuggle drugs through?

What about all the murderous death squads killing people in Northern Mexico?

We control them?

I'd say maybe the only claim to control you could shoulder on Mexico is Carlos Slim. I'd say he controls more of the country than we have ever.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By GrammarPolice on 7/16/2012 9:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
*their


RE: On 6 August 1945
By MechanicalTechie on 7/16/2012 1:24:10 AM , Rating: 4
As more and more country strives for nuclear deterrence then higher is the probability of one being triggered... either by accident, stolen by third parties or just some fruit loop wanting to be forever remembered.

Look at Pakistan.. a state on the brink of failure, populated by religious martyrs... how much do you trust them not to use the H-bomb if given the chance.

FYI - It was the father of Pakistani nuclear program Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Khan that provided materials and support to NK.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 7:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
The Germans were working on fission years before we started. What people forget is that at the time it was very unclear if we would ever win that war. Many thought we were going to lose. To allow the Germans to posses a doomsday weapon, unmatched by the free world, would have been unacceptable. We HAD to be first, at all costs.

This might sound very nationalistic of me, and people will snort, but it obviously WAS safer for the United States to create and deploy the first nuclear weapons than for some fascist dictatorship to, hell bent on world domination.

Pandora's Box was opened either way, with or without our involvement. What the United States has done with it's Nuclear Deterrent advantage, was usher in some of the longest periods of sustained global peace in the history of mankind.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Paj on 7/16/2012 8:05:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
What the United States has done with it's Nuclear Deterrent advantage, was usher in some of the longest periods of sustained global peace in the history of mankind.


In Europe, maybe. Everywhere else, not so much.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
You can't create Peace in an Islamic region. It will never happen.

In the land of brigands and thugs where they worship the ultimate gang leader (Mohammed), peace is about as close as we are to reaching Andromeda tomorrow.

Even if we brandish our nuclear weapons and wave them in their faces, do you think it will deter them? They have nothing to lose. They also have nothing to gain in their own little cesspool of existence--other than mighty oil, oil that other thugs control.

They haven't tasted what it'd be like to be free from the oppressive rule of Islamic Law. If they had, maybe, perhaps, they'd throw their silly, nasty, antiquated monstrosity of a "religion" out in the trash.

I'm sure there is some peace buried in it somewhere. The fact that I know the untranslated version of the Qur'an holds some dark, sinister idealogies overshadows that inkling completely.

There will never be peace in the Middle East until the world builds a fence around them and allows them to blow each other into oblivion. That is the only way the cresting dunes of sand will blow with the peaceful winds of errant sand wafting through their cities, nary the sound of another child or stray animal. Death is their only peace and they've shown us they are quite determined towards that.

I wish I could be more positive but I can't. History has shown us this is fact.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 9:23:15 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
longest periods of sustained global peace in the history of mankind.


Wow. You truly are ignorant.

The U.S. and the Soviet Union were essentially at war from 1950 - 1991. Starting with Korea, then continuously in Indo-China for about 15 years. Off and on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, South America, Africa. Just because no one "nuked" anyone doesn't mean this has been anything close to sustained peace.

The Germans were not blood thirsty maniacs. Once achieved, the Nazi's would not have started nuking any and everyone, just because they could. Hitler had very specific goals to unite Europe under one regime. On top of that, our goals were not about stopping Nazi rule of Germany. No one knew of the concentration camps and other genocidal atrocities until after we invaded Germany. WWII was simply another Industrial war, fighting over limited resources and colonial dominance. My stick is bigger than yours. Starting with WWI, the industrial war machine was on a mission to find newer and better ways of killing people, culminating in the nuclear weapons.

Our motives were no nobler than any other war machine. Kill as many of them with minimal casualties.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 10:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
What is wrong with you? Churchill was just as bad, or worst, than Hitler?

There's just no way to even talk to someone with that opinion. That's an indefensible statement, and radically extremist.

Hitler "demonized" himself just fine. Yes both sides used propaganda heavily, but the facts speak for themselves if you bothered to avail yourself of them.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 11:29:20 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not saying Churchill was perfect, or the UK was for that matter. But it seems like you're avoiding the simple fact that Churchill did NOT commit military forces to invade it's neighbors and occupy their lands. Churchill did NOT violate and ignore the Treaty of Versailles and start a military buildup. Any idiot could tell you who was the "bad guy" between him and Hitler. Oh and that Holocaust thing? Yeaaah.

This is why I hate people like you who engage in moral relativistic arguments. You can twist EVERYTHING to such a point that it's all shades of grey, and nothing is objective. I bet you could sit here and make a convincing argument that a child rapist is no worst than Gandhi.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 11:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
UK had the largest land empire. Do you think that swathes of Asia, Africa & Australia were conquered by sweets & toy guns?


Yes because when discussing Churchill, it's important to bring up shit that happened hundreds of years before he was born.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: On 6 August 1945
By The0ne on 7/16/2012 12:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, give it up. You're losing this argument simply because you don't know jack sht about your history. Stop making a fool out of yourself with Albus.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By theapparition on 7/16/2012 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
Cracks me up that revisionists like to think if we'd never developed "the bomb" that no one else would have. As you correctly stated, the Germans were quite far along in their heavy water experiments. If Germany's outcome was slightly different, we could be talking about the worlds largest parking lot where London sits now instead of hosting the Olympics. Possibly even NY and Washington since their V3 testing was promising as well.

But we are the bad guy. No matter that we told Japan to surrender or face our terrible new weapon. No matter that after the first bomb, the Japanese Empire still refused surrender and lied to their citizens telling them it was a gas explosion in Hiroshima. And no matter that experts agree that the two atomic weapons saved hundreds of thousands of other lives by bringing the war to a close rather than a long drawn out conventional bombing campaign.

But of course we're the bad guys. The rest of the world just wants to go on killing each other and their own citizens, who are we to dare question that?


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 10:24:33 AM , Rating: 1
As I said, our war machine was more effective than their's. Do not delude yourself. The H-bomb was the most effective weapon for killing and destroying as many of them, without killing as many of us. So we used it.

"Scaring" them to surrender, was not the goal. Destroying two of their manufacturing centers was. Period.

150,000 plus people incinerated without even a second's chance to escape or survive or surrender is NOT noble. Regardless of the secondary outcomes.

If this is acceptable warfare, why the need for smart weapons?? Why put any of our troops on the ground, anywhere. Surely we have the ordinance/capability to send nations like Iraq into surrender without losing a single soldier on our side. Simply bomb them into surrender... Why not? Because civilian casualties like Japan ARE NOT acceptable.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It does not say, American men are created equal.

Either one life is precious or none of them are.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 10:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
Oh it figures, this is what you're getting at. We can't talk about 'nukes without some liberal beating that dead horse now can we.

quote:
Either one life is precious or none of them are.


http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

Here's how the Japanese Empire viewed the lives of others.

I wonder if you see what an ass you look like right now. And how is the Bill of Rights even part of this, only a twisted mind like yours would even make that connection lol.

Stop pretending to be so angry and indignant over something that happened before you were born, to a people you have no connection to. Take your hindsight and moral relativism and shove them up your ass.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 11:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
I love the bubble boys...

I didn't say it, Thomas Jefferson did.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 11:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
Again, how is wrapping yourself in the flag of Thomas Jefferson make you NOT a dumbass for having those extreme revisionist opinions?

You realize, of course, the Constitution and related documents are NOT handbooks for how to conduct wars with a foreign power, right?

Forget the nukes, going by your argument we shouldn't have even entered the war in the first place. Even after Pearl. Because there was simply no way to fight a war back then WITHOUT civilian casualties and collateral damage.

BS, I've known you for a while now. Your problem is that you just hate America. And this is yet another opportunity to attack the US in whatever way, regardless of how wrong it is, how much history you need to rewrite.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 11:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
"You realize, of course, the Constitution and related documents are NOT handbooks for how to conduct wars with a foreign power, right?"

Dumb ass. That's not the Constitution.

I am the hater of America, but you don't even know the Declaration of Independence?? This declaration is the very basis for every principle that this democracy was founded on.

You my friend are the one pissing all over America by saying that killing people outside our borders is justified simply because why? we are better than them?


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 11:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
I said "related documents". wtf is your problem? How about we just discuss this without you and your immature rantings and insults?

Point is, what in the HELL do those statements have to do with nuclear weapons and WWII? I'll tell you what, NOTHING. They have ZERO relevance in this discussion and I believe, somewhere in that mind of yours, you know this.

If you were at least quoting from the LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict), that would be something. But Thomas Jefferson!!??

quote:
You my friend are the one pissing all over America by saying that killing people outside our borders is justified simply because why? we are better than them?


Yeah and you know what, none of us actually said that. I'm not even going to give my opinions on that, because it's damn obvious you've made up your mind. That America was/is an Imperialistic military aggressor bla bla bla, heard it before.

So aside from seething misplaced anger, your arguments boil down to hindsight, moral relativism, and revisionism. There's absolutely no place where I can find common ground with you, so how about we agree to disagree.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 11:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder if you see what an ass you look like right now. And how is the Bill of Rights even part of this, only a twisted mind like yours would even make that connection lol.


You said it. Not me. lol

lol
lol
lol


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 12:01:18 PM , Rating: 1
It was an obvious mistake with no ability to correct it. But thankfully for you, it's given you an out so you can continue to ignore discussion points that disprove your statements, and allow you to engage in ad-hom attacks.

Do me a favor, go talk to a historian or lawyer or -god forbid- a military official and tell them that the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Thomas Jefferson etc etc, should have governed our actions in WWII regarding the Japanese.

And when you're walking home with a steak pressed to your face, because of the massive bitchslap you received, don't say I didn't warn you.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 12:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Point is, what in the HELL do those statements have to do with nuclear weapons and WWII?


If you do not understand, you cannot possible know. You are an abuser of the democracy we all share. Your ignorance is EXACTLY what is wrong with the nation. The Declaration has everything to do with ANY discussion on the federal government and it's behavior.

The very statement sets the premise for the authority the federal government of the U.S. has. We the people GIVE the the government the right to act on OUR behalf. It states very clearly what a democracy is and the duty those living in a democracy have toward that government.

In a democracy, if my government murders 10,000 civilians in a war of aggression, it is if I have murdered 10,000 civilians. I have to question how, why, etc.. I have given my sovereign rights as a human being to this government and it acts on my behalf. Good or bad. It is my duty, to monitor and evaluate its conduct in the world.

If you cannot understand that, then I cannot make it any more clear.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 12:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Except this isn't a Democracy. In a Democracy we would have voted to go to war or not. In a Republic, our Representatives in Congress voted on our behalf to go to war.

They also set up rules for armed conflict and how war could be conducted. Because, AGAIN, those are NOT covered in the Constitution. The Constitution is a framework of laws and principles that establish the function, nature, offices, powers, and limits of a government.

You're making a very broad, and ignorant, argument to satisfy your leftist sensibilities.

If it helps you cope, do you realize how many Japanese and Americans would have died if we attempted to force a surrender using conventional means? We're talking MILLIONS of deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Es...

I grow weary of this debate. It happened, there's no changing it. /shrug.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 12:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
And I just wonder BS, give me this much. Do you feel that ANY responsibility of the war, and resulting actions, falls on others besides the United States? Did the Axis play ANY part at all?

You mention leaders making decisions on our behalf. Well, the same goes for the enemy. Japan committed itself, AND it's citizens, to a total-war effort with the free world. Do you feel they share any responsibility for how the war went? Just a little?

Reading your posts, one comes away with a very one-sided view of things.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 2:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
I never condemned our involvement in the war. I question our conduct in using nuclear weapons, knowing hundreds of thousands of civilians would die, instantly.

Read that again. Our conduct is what I question. How our government values the lives of other citizens of the world directly reflects on our morality, our way of life. Run to the bottom of this page for a second and look at this clown from Iran. He believes, America is scum. Why? Pure jealously? Doubtful. For us to be this noble ideal you hold of us of America the Great, how we fight wars, how we settle disputes, how we clean up after, are ALL relevant questions.

You would have us retaliate in kind with Japan and it's suicide bombers? You would have us round up people in concentration camps and murder them for being racially different?? Or fire off nukes at everyone around us during, simply because they might if they had the technology?? These are not the actions of enlightened people. And the world sees it as such.

We do not need to look to others for how we ought to behave. If we are to be the greatest people on earth, we must conduct ourselves that way ALL the time. Sometimes that may be difficult, sometimes that may cost lives, those decisions are never easy.

Will their be death in war? Even civilian, Yes. Should we do our best to limit it. Of course. But to blindly say, yes, end the war with as few American deaths as possible. No matter the cost to others.. That is NOT acceptable to me. Nor should it be to any freedom loving human being.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 4:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
We conducted ourselves to the very highest standards in WWII. The choice we were faced with was a true lose/lose. You obviously didn't read the death projections I linked you if we had invaded Japan conventionally to end the war, but it wasn't just OUR side that would have suffered. Millions of more Japanese would have died.

quote:
Sometimes that may be difficult, sometimes that may cost lives, those decisions are never easy.


Difficult? You're comments have not seemed to acknowledge what a difficult decision this was. In your mind, we just wanted to go bomb a bunch of 'Nips because we loved killing people. You're being very flippant about the entire affair. The true gravity of those times are lost on you.

quote:
Will their be death in war? Even civilian, Yes. Should we do our best to limit it. Of course.


And that's what we did! Even you admitted we picked those targets because of their military value. It's not like we bombed Tokyo. We were trying to end the war, one we didn't start I might add.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 5:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
And in other historic news, this was my 10,000'th post on Daily Tech!


RE: On 6 August 1945
By knutjb on 7/17/2012 3:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
Learn a little history before going off on a rant of cluelessness. LeMay ran out of incendiaries which were far nastier than the nukes. The rules followed in WWII were far different than today. Be careful when using your morals of today when judging actions of the past. Japan would have held off for years fighting just like they did on all the islands to keep us from forcing a full surrender on the Emperor. Look it up yourself that was their plan. The Nukes ENDED WWII. The positive outcome from their use is those images have sunk in with people and made their use exceptionally unpalatable for most politicians. I guess the biggest irony is look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and compare them to Detroit. Who really won...

Don't be delusional, civilians are killed in every war, we try harder than any other country to minimize harm to them. If we had half a clue we would have made it clear to Syria that they were headed down the wrong path before it became the mass murder it is. We messed around in Libya because a thousand people were kind and what a travesty on human life that is. Syria is over 16,000. Sometimes dropping bombs save more civilians than it kills. Look at Kosovo, Clinton's best moment.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 4:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
We live in a society based on democratic principles. (I did not use the big D textbook definition.) I am talking about the founding principles of this country. It was decided, in 1787 that a representative government would work best. The facts are that the government and its officials are acting on my behalf. And the system is such that I could garner enough democratic support to oust any officials I decide are not adhering to my view of how the government should act. Right or wrong.

Again, instead of actually taking on my point, you deflect the argument to a point you can prove that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The discussion is: as a member of a democratic nation, I am responsible for the actions of the government that I have enabled. I am responsible for every death at the hands of that government. Justified or otherwise. It is my responsibility to keep that government in check.

It doesn't matter if I didn't vote for the guy in office. I could have moved people to vote for someone else, but I didn't. I could have run myself, but didn't. I could leave this country forever, but don't.

To me, ending the war quickly to avoid the deaths of soldiers, is not acceptable when it involves murdering men, women, and children without regard. No moral human being could.

Soldiers are trained to fight and die. Soldiers' service is in part, to willingly give their lives for the American people. If they are willing to provide this sacrifice, we as American citizens should take our responsibility to this government with at least as much dedication. Part of that is holding our government officials accountable, holding ourselves accountable .. That's what it means to American. Not this BS attitude that I am free to do whatever the frak I want whenever I want... One can live like that here, but that's not what defines America. Not even close. And sadly you will never understand that.

America is defined by willing sacrifice for others. We have the choice to live absent selfish lives, but we choose to better everyone.. Sometimes at our own expense. That's what it means to be American.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 5:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
Oh come off that. How old are you again? Nobody is holding you responsible for something that happened in the goddamn 1940's. Stop being ridiculous. Talk about a soapbox!

quote:
America is defined by willing sacrifice for others. We have the choice to live absent selfish lives, but we choose to better everyone.. Sometimes at our own expense. That's what it means to be American.


We sacrificed our best and brightest so countless billions could live free. We could have stayed over here in relative safety, but we didn't.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By knutjb on 7/17/2012 4:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is holding you responsible for something that happened in the goddamn 1940's. Stop being ridiculous. Talk about a soapbox!
Have you seen what is being taught in schools today? The far left educational hierarchy has slowly "corrected" history to make us look and feel bad for history we had no control over. He just needs to spend a few weeks watching the BBCs World at War. Perfect, no but very good if not the best of all WWII documentaries. I feel bad for him, he hears details but has no sense of context in which place events in history.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: On 6 August 1945
By Manch on 7/16/2012 10:56:55 AM , Rating: 1
Right...we didnt want to end the war, we wanted to destroy two of their manufacturing centers, so after they surrendered, we could help rebuild it with better tech instead of that bamboo crap they used, but we wanted to do it on our dime so eventually they could become a global manufacturing powerhouse and pull high tech jobs away from the US so we could then use to count towards restitution for all the evil killing we did when we dropped the bombs.

I can make up shit too!


RE: On 6 August 1945
By kingmotley on 7/16/2012 10:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
150,000 plus people incinerated without even a second's chance to escape or survive or surrender is NOT noble. Regardless of the secondary outcomes.


If by a second's chance, you mean multiple warnings by dropping 5 million leaflets on Hiroshima, and radio broadcasts of the impending bombing of the city 5 DAYS in advance, then yes, without a second's chance.

The following is the text from one of these leaflets initially dropped on Hiroshima:
quote:
Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.


And the followup before Nagasaki, 3 days in advance:
quote:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate. We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city. Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan. You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 11:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this is acceptable warfare, why the need for smart weapons?? Why put any of our troops on the ground, anywhere. Surely we have the ordinance/capability to send nations like Iraq into surrender without losing a single soldier on our side. Simply bomb them into surrender... Why not? Because civilian casualties like Japan ARE NOT acceptable.


Again, just keep ranting about acceptable civilian casualty without answering a simple question.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 2:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing you never experienced Japanese occupation first-hand. My parents and grandparents did. My grandmother hated them til the day she died (they raped and killed her sister and niece in her house). My dad has a story about walking to school with other elementary school kids when a Japanese plane decided to strafe them just for fun.

For hundreds of millions of people under Japanese occupation, the "mere" ~150k civilian casualties in Japan due to the atomic bombings were a completely acceptable price for hastening the end of a Japanese occupation which was killing nearly a million civilians a year.

Smart weapons are developed so we have a full range of proportional responses available. If a military controls a country and oppresses the civilians, or an armed force hides among a civilian population, you need better targeting to avoid casualties among innocents. But when an entire country has been mobilized to support the military, a quick and brutal end to the war is nearly always preferable to dragging it out. While you wring your hands over potentially killing Japanese innocents and waffle over ending the war quickly, you would've allowed Japan to continue killing more civilians.

Were the atomic bombings humane? Of course not. But their net result was that they saved millions of lives. Your stance is the classic opportunity cost error of comparing to nothing. You justify your stance by saying the bombings killed/injured 150k and so shouldn't have been done. But you conveniently phrase it so had your choice been chosen, you bear no responsibility for the casualties which would have occurred if the bombs hadn't been dropped.

Opportunity costs don't work that way. You have to compare between two realistic outcomes. Not compare to nothing (basically a fantasy where nobody dies).


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 11:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
Great idea. We tell Iran make a bomb & before launching it at Israel, send everyone leaflets/emails/SMS that the evil zionists are paying for their sins. 2 days later BOOM


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 5:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well if Israel ever invades and occupies Iran, and kills hundreds to thousands of Iranians every day as part of that occupation, then I think Iran would be completely justified launching a nuke at Israel. And I'd have a lot of respect for Iran if they dropped leaflets/SMS prior to the nuke.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By drewsup on 7/16/2012 11:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
"As I said, our war machine was more effective than their's. Do not delude yourself. The H-bomb was the most effective weapon for killing and destroying as many of them, without killing as many of us. So we used it."
The US has NEVER used an H-bomb in ANY conflict. Read your history.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 11:44:14 AM , Rating: 1
Grow up. The nuclear bombs used in WWII. Whatever their mechanism.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 12:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeeeah that's not hypocritical at all. You jump on someone for making a mistake, but you can talk all day about weapons and not even get them right.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By theapparition on 7/16/2012 12:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Why argue with zealots. No matter how correct you are, he'll continue to spout his hate.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By MZperX on 7/16/2012 12:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
BSMonitor wrote:
quote:
"The H-bomb was the most effective weapon for killing and destroying as many of them, without killing as many of us. So we used it."


No we didn't. An "H-bomb" is a hydrogen bomb, that is a thermonuclear (fusion) weapon. To my knowledge no nation has ever used an H-bomb against an adversary. The bombs you are referring to were two fission bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man, which are sometimes called Atomic Bombs or "A-bombs" colloquially.

It's an important distinction both chronologically (i.e. there was no H-bomb at the time those two cities were bombed) and in terms of destructive power. An H-bomb is a far more powerful weapon.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
150,000 plus people incinerated without even a second's chance to escape or survive or surrender is NOT noble. Regardless of the secondary outcomes.


So slaughtering their entire populace through a full-blown ground invasion would have been more humane?

What about Nanking? Was that noble because the Japanese didn't use Nukes, too?

We killed a lot of civilians, yes, but we spared the entire country by forcing the hand of surrender.

I suggest you stop reading your biased, revisionist textbooks and open your eyes to the bleak realities that are truly "self-evident."


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 3:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
There is no way to know nuking them would force a surrender. There is also no way to know how close they were to surrender before those bombs were even dropped. I would argue it was equally likely a confrontation with USSR could ensue in using these weapons.

Who says a full blown invasion was even necessary.

The point is, using a nuclear device of any kind targets civilians. Period. And that is morally questionable at best. At worst, it is murder. The country above all that cherishes every human being's freedom, is so willing to sacrifice civilians??

Grow up with the text book BS. I don't need one to form my own opinion of the events.. The only principle I need was clearly and eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson. All men are created equal. Not all American men. Those people that worked in factories in Japan for their country are no different than my grandparents working in Detroit for ours. For someone like that to be literally incinerated, for the sparing of soldiers, is not acceptable.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By MrBlastman on 7/16/2012 5:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who says a full blown invasion was even necessary.


Do you understand Shintoism at all? It was an honor for the Japanese to die for their Emperor and by doing so, they were guaranteed an afterlife.

They would have fought to the death, every last one of them, beyond the simple kamikaze. It would have lead to a complete eradication of Japan.

I say that would be a trajedy far worse than what happened when we bombed them. To imagine a world now without Japanese culture and influence to me is a World missing something valuable.

Yet, if we had not dropped the bombs, this very well might be the case now. No Japanese culture. No Japanese industry. No Japanese electronics and so on. A complete section of our world wiped out.

We spared them from this and we kept a great sect of a society around so they could have another shot at showing the World how great the Japanese could be--without warmongering.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By tayb on 7/16/2012 10:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
The cold war, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq Part 1, Iraq Part 2, and Afghanistan is global peace? And that is just the nonsense that the United States has been involved in. I think you meant sustained peace in Europe, at least that's mostly true.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 10:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
Study your history. Those conflicts wouldn't even make the list in earlier times. I'm not stating an opinion, it's a fact. Despite our perspective, the second half of the 20'th century to today, has been uncharacteristically less violent than previous times. We're living in one of the most peaceful times in human history, globally speaking.

You people really have no idea do you?


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 10:36:04 AM , Rating: 1
If you believe the sun rises in Europe and sets in the US, then yes, the world has not seen a war since the atomic age began.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 10:50:21 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh..

It would really behoove some of you to do a simple Google search before instantly proclaiming someone wrong because you don't agree with the message.

I never said "wars", by the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-les...


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 10:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
Says the king of hypocrisy ...


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 11:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks to modern technology colateral damage has decreased. Carpet bombing and destroying entire towns & cities is less common. But the wars have often been outsourced to proxies who continue to suffer. Vietnam suffered in 1970s cause of the battle between USA & USSR. So did Afghanistan and continues to this day.

It is just easier to press a button and watch a few people down miles away.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 11:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Bubble boys like to talk about their personal freedom to say and act how they feel without consideration for the cost of that freedom. It's ok to impose death on less fortunate so long as it is not me doing the imposing of that death.

"I'd rather rant how tough I am on the internet than pick up a gun and stand in line with the marines or army members."

It's these people that treat our soldiers lives with careless disregard that is the disgrace to our military and their sacrifice.

"After all, it's not my trailer that will get nuked by the next USSR, it'll be Washington, or Annapolis, or West Point.... And I don't live there."


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 11:23:24 AM , Rating: 2
I would use the word desensitized. As long as my freedom is not affected, I am quite satisfied with whats going on. That is why you will see the demonization of Hitler more than others. There were worse people out there but he was the only one who could probably affect America.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 11:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
Bubble boys? BS when the only one agreeing with you is albus, that would make ANYONE stop and take stock of where their position is.

But you're a loon, and you've always been a loon here. Enjoy being in denial.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 11:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of monster stories, did your daddy read you stories of "evil hippy gay liberals" and their ridiculous notion of thinking rationally about the world??

Loon = rational.. I'll take it.

Some day you will wake up and know that you are not perfect. And neither is everything you "believe" in. aka been told to be true.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 12:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
You've been anything BUT rational here.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Manch on 7/16/2012 1:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
ummm...

evil hippy gay liberals = Monsters


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 11:56:24 AM , Rating: 2
If you think that the Fox News crowd will agree with you. Then you are of course right. But then you are following the same history taught in schools which helps keep the masses beleiving that America is the beacon of liberty & freedom.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By KoS on 7/16/2012 12:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Curious...is there another country a greater beacon of liberty and freedom?

Not to say ours is the greatest, right now. American's beacon is diming, diming fast. :(


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 12:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Curious...is there another country a greater beacon of liberty and freedom?


There never was one. Its all PR material anyway. Spreading democracy? Ask the Vietnamese, Afghanis & Iraqis. I would rather live in a place where I can walk freely without being bombed from the skies.

quote:
Not to say ours is the greatest, right now. American's beacon is diming, diming fast. :(


It would be better if America keeps the liberty & freedom inside the country. Most of the world is too tired to face B 52s & Tomahawks.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 1:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would be better if America keeps the liberty & freedom inside the country.


We tried that twice, didn't work out so well. The result were these two incidents called World War One, and World War Two.

If we reverted to an isolationist policy, the resulting deaths and atrocities that would fill the vacuum would trump anything we've done.

quote:
Ask the Vietnamese, Afghanis & Iraqis.


Ok and ask the entirety of Europe, South Korea, Asia that we liberated from the Japanese and countless others.

And Iraq? How exactly were they better off under Saddam again?

And more importantly, the most significant contribution to world peace was the forming of the United States itself and NOT submitting to British rule. Can you imagine what history would have been like with the British Empire extending to North America and beyond?


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 1:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We tried that twice, didn't work out so well. The result were these two incidents called World War One, and World War Two.


You dont know your history do you? America was with Britain throughout WW I. Read up on the ship Lusitania.

WW II started in 1939. America only entered when Pearl Harbor happened. Thats 2 years later and millions dead.

quote:
If we reverted to an isolationist policy, the resulting deaths and atrocities that would fill the vacuum would trump anything we've done


The world has governed itself for thousands of years. America only interdicts when it suits its interests. Nobody liberated Vietnam when the French were ruling them. Let communists come & suddenly America starts freedom of Vietnam by dropping bombs from B 52s.

quote:
Ok and ask the entirety of Europe, South Korea, Asia that we liberated from the Japanese and countless others.


Europe is quite capable of freeing itself. Last time I checked UK, Germany, France & Russia were European. North Korea itself feels threatened by the US. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? North Korea faces it everyday.

You liberated Asia & Japan? Which history book is this?

quote:
And Iraq? How exactly were they better off under Saddam again?


Exactly, not supplying arms to Saddam in the 80s would have helped.

quote:
And more importantly, the most significant contribution to world peace was the forming of the United States itself and NOT submitting to British rule. Can you imagine what history would have been like with the British Empire extending to North America and beyond?


I have got news for you. The British America did extend to North America and beyond (Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, Arabia etc)


RE: On 6 August 1945
By KoS on 7/16/2012 1:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
NK and US are still at War. No formal declaration otherwise has been made. Ahh, poor NK, they feel threatened. Then they should surrender, problem solved.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
Nice thinking. So they should surrender? Last time the US did not surrender but you expect NK to do the same. lol


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 1:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The world has governed itself for thousands of years.


Might wanna look into how it "governed" itself. I think what we have now is far more preferable. But that's just my opinion.

quote:
WW II started in 1939. America only entered when Pearl Harbor happened. Thats 2 years later and millions dead.


How does this make me wrong? Point is, it started. WWII would not have started today, because we would have intervened WAY sooner. That's what we do, intervene on the worlds behalf so regional conflicts don't blow up into massive world wars.

quote:
Europe is quite capable of freeing itself. Last time I checked UK, Germany, France & Russia were European.


You mean today or back then? Do you even understand the context of the discussion? Europe was not proving to be very capable of freeing itself without American involvement, thank you much.

quote:
You liberated Asia & Japan? Which history book is this?


Wow....we freed Asian FROM Japan. Hello? What history books do YOU read! By 1941 they had conquered all of Southeast Asia and much of Eastern China!

quote:
I have got news for you. The British America did extend to North America and beyond


Can you read and understand context? When we declared and fought for independence, the single largest expansion of the Imperialistic British Empire was stopped cold. In terms of landmass, resources, and strategic value we cannot overstate how important it was for North America to not fall under British rule.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 2:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Might wanna look into how it "governed" itself. I think what we have now is far more preferable. But that's just my opinion.


Do you think civilization started in 1789? Though America has made things easier for itself, it has often come at the expense of others.

quote:
How does this make me wrong? Point is, it started. WWII would not have started today, because we would have intervened WAY sooner. That's what we do, intervene on the worlds behalf so regional conflicts don't blow up into massive world wars.


America did not enter so that regional conflicts don't blow up into massive world wars. They fought to save their asses. Just like Britain, France, Russia and others. All of them went to war when they felt threatened. America did the same.

quote:
You mean today or back then? Do you even understand the context of the discussion? Europe was not proving to be very capable of freeing itself without American involvement, thank you much.


I hope you have seen a map of the world. Now try locating Russia or the USSR. Which continent are they in? Where is Moscow? Which country is located to the north of France?
This place is Europe. America entered the European theater after the Soviet Union had turned the tables. The Nazis were retreating.

quote:
Wow....we freed Asian FROM Japan. Hello? What history books do YOU read! By 1941 they had conquered all of Southeast Asia and much of Eastern China!


LOL. Do you know Asian history? Japan simply took the mantle. Asia was already under British, French & Dutch control. America did not intervene because they were allies. Japan took over. Even then America did not intervene. America intervened only when Japan attaked Pearl Harbor. Not to liberate Asia but to defeat the Japanese.

America did not say a word when Indo China went to the French post WW2. They only intervened after Vietnam freed itself from the French so that Vietnam did not turn communist. All of us know how that went.

quote:
Can you read and understand context? When we declared and fought for independence, the single largest expansion of the Imperialistic British Empire was stopped cold. In terms of landmass, resources, and strategic value we cannot overstate how important it was for North America to not fall under British rule.


Gandhi was from India. The jewel of the crown. I daresay the Americans assisted the British in suppressing India as it was a very resourceful and strategically located. No American help freed India and nor did America tried to free other colonies. The British were allies.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By nick2000 on 7/17/2012 12:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
America did not say a word when Indo China went to the French post WW2. They only intervened after Vietnam freed itself from the French so that Vietnam did not turn communist.

Indo China had been a French colony for a long time when the Japanese forces invaded. Their first action was to behead every single French soldier they found.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By KoS on 7/16/2012 1:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
You are talking about too different things. Spreading democracy is different than being a beacon for liberty and freedom.

Being a beacon of libtery and freedom implies people should come here where those values already reside. Spreading democracy is the opposite, we go to where there isn't freedom and liberty and open the doors to it.

I would much rather be a beacon than a spreader.

In your last comment, don't speak for the world. Don't be so sure that people don't want our Tomahawks or B-52s. Case in point, during the second Gulf War. I don't remember the travel magazine. A reporter went to Libya to review travel locations in Libya. At one of his stops, at a local eatery, he interviewed a few of the locals. On the TV was coverage of US and what was going on in Iraq. To a man, they wished the US would do the same to Libya that they did or were doing in Iraq. I'm really surprised he kept that piece in his article.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 1:48:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You are talking about too different things. Spreading democracy is different than being a beacon for liberty and freedom


I agree.

quote:
Being a beacon of libtery and freedom implies people should come here where those values already reside. Spreading democracy is the opposite, we go to where there isn't freedom and liberty and open the doors to it.


Agree with the first part. Not so for the second part. Case in point: Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba etc

quote:
I would much rather be a beacon than a spreader.


No shit

quote:
In your last comment, don't speak for the world. Don't be so sure that people don't want our Tomahawks or B-52s. Case in point, during the second Gulf War. I don't remember the travel magazine. A reporter went to Libya to review travel locations in Libya. At one of his stops, at a local eatery, he interviewed a few of the locals. On the TV was coverage of US and what was going on in Iraq. To a man, they wished the US would do the same to Libya that they did or were doing in Iraq. I'm really surprised he kept that piece in his article.


Iran faced it before. Lots of oil. But no friendly govt. Guess what? Oust the democaratic leader and install the autocratic Shah. Libya's case is similar. Loads of oil. BP was salivating. They tried to cut deals with him. When they saw that they could have the whole cake, he was ousted as well.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By KoS on 7/16/2012 2:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
Please don't jump all over the place. The example of the Libya people I gave was during the Bush era, not during Obamas. They saw what was happening in Iraq and wished it would happen to them in the there and now.

quote:
Agree with the first part. Not so for the second part. Case in point: Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba etc


Not sure what you were trying to say. But you gave examples of spreading democracy which line up with my definition of spreading democracy. So you agree with both parts after all.

The funny thing about it, we wouldn't have been in Afganistan or even Iraq if the Taliban would have handed over OBL like we asked!


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 2:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please don't jump all over the place. The example of the Libya people I gave was during the Bush era, not during Obamas. They saw what was happening in Iraq and wished it would happen to them in the there and now.


I am afraid for all his faults Gaddhafi was not a radical Islamist. Let's see whether Libya improves or the forecasts prove right.

quote:
Not sure what you were trying to say. But you gave examples of spreading democracy which line up with my definition of spreading democracy. So you agree with both parts after all


Spreading democracy via carpet bombing? I would rather avoid it.

quote:
The funny thing about it, we wouldn't have been in Afganistan or even Iraq if the Taliban would have handed over OBL like we asked!


Whats funnier is that if America had not started with spreading democracy to Afghanistan in the 80s, there would be no Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Whats even funnier is that Taliban or OBL have nothing to do with Iraq.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By KoS on 7/16/2012 2:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Can you put 2+2 together and get 4?

Nowhere was it mentioned Gaddhafi and radical Islamists.

And my point stands. If the Taliban had handed over OBL. The US would have had no standing in going into Afganistan. And why did we going into Afganistan? To get OBL. Or was it for oil??!!

Nor would we would have gone into Iraq due to the "War on Terrorism" if we had OBL in hand. A little side note which people over look with Iraq. One of the stated reasons OBL wanted to attack the US was because of our troops being in the holy land, Saudi Arabia. And why did we have troops in Saudi Arabia, Iraq!

Are you sure OBL and/or Taliban had nothing to do with Iraq? Outside of what I stated above. Look up Salim Pak. Surely only Iraqs were getting training at said faclility?


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 2:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you put 2+2 together and get 4?


???

quote:
Nowhere was it mentioned Gaddhafi and radical Islamists.


I said Gaddhafi was not a humanitarian intervention. It was for Libya's resources.

quote:
And my point stands. If the Taliban had handed over OBL. The US would have had no standing in going into Afganistan. And why did we going into Afganistan? To get OBL. Or was it for oil??!!


America helped OBL & Taliban terrorise Afghanistan cause it suited USA. They were attacked only after 9/11. Read up on the rise of Al Qaeda.

quote:
Nor would we would have gone into Iraq due to the "War on Terrorism" if we had OBL in hand. A little side note which people over look with Iraq. One of the stated reasons OBL wanted to attack the US was because of our troops being in the holy land, Saudi Arabia. And why did we have troops in Saudi Arabia, Iraq!


Nobody said OBL was hidden in Iraq. The offical statement which turned out to be a lie was WMD.

Iraq was a US ally until it invaded Kuwait. In fact the US supported Iraq against Iran in the Iran - Iraq war. If Iraq was the real reason, why are the troops still there?

quote:
Are you sure OBL and/or Taliban had nothing to do with Iraq? Outside of what I stated above. Look up Salim Pak. Surely only Iraqs were getting training at said faclility?


Saddan Hussein hated the Taliban & Al Qaeda. He did not need the Islamists to undermine his authority. If you are really concerned about AQ, the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia trained by Pakistan. The US never invaded the real shelterer of terrorists.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By KoS on 7/16/2012 3:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Reading compression for a loss.

Keep dreaming the US helped OBL and the Taliban terrorize the Afganis.

Afganistan, yes was attacked only after the Taliban refused to hand over OBL. Look up the news clips of Bush telling the Talbian hand over OBL or else. And the else was war!

Again you miss the point, no where did I say you or anyone else believe or claim OBL was in Iraq. Again, if the Taliban would have handed over OBL, they would still be in power in Afganistan and we wouldn't have gone into Iraq either. No fly zones from then until who knows.

Again, again....we had troops in Saudi Arabia because of the actions Iraq took against it's neighbors. We also ran the no-fly zone operation out of Saudia Arabia. Hence troops still there after we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Hence why OBL was mad at the US, one of his stated reasons forming Al Qaeda and for attacking the US. Whether or not it was the embassies in Africa, USS Cole and 9/11.

I'm sure you have heard the term enemy of my enemy is my friend? Iran and Iraq were enemies, corrrect? Then why, after fight a 8 years war, did Iraq sent some of it's fighter jets over to Iran during the first Gulf War? IN otherwords, don't be so quick to dismiss something.

I'm not worried about anything. Just pointing out how incorrect you are. And just maybe there is a different way of looking at things.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 3:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you know about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. How hard America tried to make it USSR's Vietnam. They succeeded with the help of the Mujahideen that was terrorising the Afghanis.

The American govt supported the terrorists against Afgani govt. This Mujahideen dislodged the secular govt wit American help & made it a fundamnetalist state. The US was supporting them till USSR fell.

Bush was quite happy to kill OBL. Everyone knows that OBL's rise was aided by US money via Pakistan.

The Taliban was not in Iraq. It was in Afganistan. OBL was found in Pakistan. Why was Iraq invaded? Why is Pakistan safe?

Read about Shia & Sunnis in Iraq & Iran. Saddam Hussein was helped against Iran. The pilots did not want to risk fight a losing against superior US forces. Hence they preferred to escape rather than get themselves killed.

I suggest you read foreign media and their viewpoints before speaking about the US since you are unlikely to get anti US in American media. The only stuff that is discussed are domestic issues. Major news sources toe the official line when it comes to foreign news.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By KoS on 7/16/2012 4:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
Never mind...it's like talking to a wall!

Funny I back mine up with sources...and yours? You seem so assured of everything you say. Yet, your pointed out to be wrong and then the twisting logic and facts begins.

Again look up Salim Pak, there were foreigners trained as well as Iraqis. So you are trying to tell me nobody there were associated one form or another with the Taliban or Al Qeada?

Lastly I speak when and where ever I want. I don't need anyones permission. Nor do I need help with my news sources. I get my news from everywhere. Frankly, you need to bone up on the news as well.

One last thing...you mentioned, one time, Iraq and the lie of WMD for the justification of war. Another example of picking and chosing certain partial facts to paint a different picture of reality.

You do realize that wasn't the sole reason for going into Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution


RE: On 6 August 1945
By albus on 7/16/2012 4:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
I am not surprised by your answers.

I have access to American, Russian as well as Indian, Pakistani & Arabic media.

The cultural garden you are living in is quite astounding. The difference between terrorist, freedom fighter and mercenary seems to be lost on you. The Taliban is composed of the ragtag Mujahideen that formed the bulk of the resistance against Soviets.

If 1 guy was trained in Iraq, 20000 are being trained in Pakistan, 1 guy does not cause an invasion.

As for the Iraq resolution, can Iraq impose a no fly zone over USA for invading a sovereign nation? Its no secret that the UN resolution was imposed coz the US wanted to invade Iraq. BTW, the US invasion was not under UN mandate. Should we have the Iraqis over run Washington D C ?


RE: On 6 August 1945
By Solandri on 7/16/2012 6:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for the Iraq resolution, can Iraq impose a no fly zone over USA for invading a sovereign nation?

If the U.S. government started using its military to attack unarmed or inadequately armed dissident and civilians in certain regions of the U.S., I would be completely OK with Iraq leading a call for a UN-enforced no-fly zone over the affected parts of the U.S.

quote:
Its no secret that the UN resolution was imposed coz the US wanted to invade Iraq.

The no-fly zones over Iraq was imposed following the first Gulf War (where Iraq was removed from Kuwait). Saddam started using his air force to put down a Kurdish rebellion in the north, and a Shia rebellion in the south in areas under UN occupation at the end of the war.

The no-fly zones were imposed for precisely the opposite reason of what you state - because the U.S. didn't want to invade Iraq. It wanted the two rebellions to succeed and depose Saddam without the commitment of any U.S. ground troops. Unfortunately they left attack helicopters out of the wording, and so Saddam successfully quelled those uprisings.

quote:
BTW, the US invasion was not under UN mandate.

Agreed the second Gulf War did not have a UN mandate. That's why I opposed it.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 10:57:14 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/korean_war.ht...

1.8 Million Korean military KIA.
3 Million Korean civilians.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/vietnam-war-statisti...

1.5 Million military KIA in Vietnam.
2 Million wounded in Vietnam.
4 Million civilian casualties.


RE: On 6 August 1945
By BSMonitor on 7/16/2012 10:30:44 AM , Rating: 1
Right, unless you were in the Eastern Block after the fall of the USSR.

Or simply were stuck there after they started building the walls. Then every day was a struggle to survive.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki