Justice and an Illegal war.

[limerickman]

Succinctly phrased by Ben Johnson......

The irony of the war is that the United States defied the will of UN leaders in order to consolidate the power of the UN. By defying Kofi Annan, George W. Bush rescued the organization’s discredited threats from the quicksand of its own reticence. A dozen years of idle requests and toothless entreaties brought the Security Council well-earned disregard. Only when Coalition forces “unilaterally” enforced the UN’s resolutions did the world come to see the Hudson’s most prestigious debate society occasionally means action.

I hear what both you and 390000 are saying but in the case of Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction for Iraq to handover.

The question of Iraq was multi-faceted.
(1) the case was made that there were WMD by the politicians. Despite intelligence warnings, in the case of Britain, which made it clear, that no
substantive information could be found to bolster the conclusion that there
was WMD in Iraq.

(2) Two very senior Bush aides (O'Neill and Richard Clarke) have stated that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush concluded that Iraq "must have had some involvement in that attack" : despite the fact that there was no evidence linking Hussein to the attack, despite the fact that the bombers were Saudi Arabian, despite the fact that all intelligence shows that Bin Laden
would never align himself with Saddam - who in BinLadens interview with Robert Fisk in 1996 "is a bad Muslim".

Yes the UN may appear to issue directives which are not enforced.
But in the case of Iraq, there were no WMD that could be handed over to the UN or others.
It is immaterial whether or not the UN could/couldn't enforce it's directives.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq could not deliver what it never had.
And the premise for going to war was that Bush/Blair suggested that Iraq had WMD and was prepared to use WMD.
In the USA's case, Bush also added the lie that SH somehow had a part to play in Sept 11th.
This was also proven to be a lie.

 

[wanderer390000]

I hear what both you and 390000 are saying but in the case of Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction for Iraq to handover.

The question of Iraq was multi-faceted.
(1) the case was made that there were WMD by the politicians. Despite intelligence warnings, in the case of Britain, which made it clear, that no
substantive information could be found to bolster the conclusion that there
was WMD in Iraq.

(2) Two very senior Bush aides (O'Neill and Richard Clarke) have stated that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush concluded that Iraq "must have had some involvement in that attack" : despite the fact that there was no evidence linking Hussein to the attack, despite the fact that the bombers were Saudi Arabian, despite the fact that all intelligence shows that Bin Laden
would never align himself with Saddam - who in BinLadens interview with Robert Fisk in 1996 "is a bad Muslim".

Yes the UN may appear to issue directives which are not enforced.
But in the case of Iraq, there were no WMD that could be handed over to the UN or others.
It is immaterial whether or not the UN could/couldn't enforce it's directives.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq could not deliver what it never had.
And the premise for going to war was that Bush/Blair suggested that Iraq had WMD and was prepared to use WMD.
In the USA's case, Bush also added the lie that SH somehow had a part to play in Sept 11th.
This was also proven to be a lie.

(1) the case was made that there were WMD when S\H bomb the kurds

(2)"It is immaterial whether or not the UN could/couldn't enforce it's directives".
Then what use is the UN , what use is giving directives that you can not inforced
(3) If they ahd no WMD why did they stop the UN going in BTW tell the kurds they never had them mate
(4) Iraq has link to benkaden look at who is in Iraq now

 

[wanderer390000]

[

.

. The big bully pushing the little guy around. No one seemed to mind when the Soviet Union was a world power and went in to Afghanistan. It only seems to matter when the United States does something.

Well the Afghans did! My take on this is perception .The Soviets were perceived (at least by most Americans) as the be agressors and non-sympsthetic to anything but there own agenda therefore they were expected to be bad boys and heartless as a schoolyard bully but if a perceived honor student and choirboy that was say a football player started smacking people around then that might cause an ouroar.

4. If countries are to be ruled by international law see response to question #1. Then what happens when something is illegal under international law but not in the country the illegal act was committed. How about having the international law people come in ****** them up and have an international law trial. Then put them in an international prision (Who will fund that one).

We have been moving toward a unified world economy for years now due to communication and travel technology. A "World Order Government". Scary thought and concept. I personally am not over the states rights issue.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you 100 % why is it that only the USA has got to follow international law , I see so many people comign here talking about international law is it lawfull to shoot kids in the back as they run away
in war both side must follow rules if they don;t then treat them like they treat you. for me nothing the USA is bad enougth
I would just NUKE them

 

[zapper]

I hear what both you and 390000 are saying but in the case of Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction for Iraq to handover.

The question of Iraq was multi-faceted.
(1) the case was made that there were WMD by the politicians. Despite intelligence warnings, in the case of Britain, which made it clear, that no
substantive information could be found to bolster the conclusion that there
was WMD in Iraq.

(2) Two very senior Bush aides (O'Neill and Richard Clarke) have stated that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush concluded that Iraq "must have had some involvement in that attack" : despite the fact that there was no evidence linking Hussein to the attack, despite the fact that the bombers were Saudi Arabian, despite the fact that all intelligence shows that Bin Laden
would never align himself with Saddam - who in BinLadens interview with Robert Fisk in 1996 "is a bad Muslim".

Yes the UN may appear to issue directives which are not enforced.
But in the case of Iraq, there were no WMD that could be handed over to the UN or others.
It is immaterial whether or not the UN could/couldn't enforce it's directives.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq could not deliver what it never had.
And the premise for going to war was that Bush/Blair suggested that Iraq had WMD and was prepared to use WMD.
In the USA's case, Bush also added the lie that SH somehow had a part to play in Sept 11th.
This was also proven to be a lie.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan"

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction! ."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, ! 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[lokstah]

"Don't stay in bed, unless you can make money in bed."
- George Burns (1896-1996)

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."
- Yoda ('The Empire Strikes Back')

"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell."
- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."
- Warren Zevon (1947-2003)

"No one can earn a million dollars honestly."
- William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)

"From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."
- Groucho Marx (1895-1977)

"Vote early and vote often."
- Al Capone (1899-1947)

"I'm Batman."
- Batman

 

[zapper]

"Don't stay in bed, unless you can make money in bed."
- George Burns (1896-1996)

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."
- Yoda ('The Empire Strikes Back')

"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell."
- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."
- Warren Zevon (1947-2003)

"No one can earn a million dollars honestly."
- William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)

"From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."
- Groucho Marx (1895-1977)

"Vote early and vote often."
- Al Capone (1899-1947)

"I'm Batman."
- Batman

Interesting quotes..I might add that they truly define the Democratic party.

 

[limerickman]

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan"

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction! ."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, ! 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Zapper :

The only real information that the above information proves is :
1.That both sides in the USA political debate discussed SH
2.That both sides were entirely wrong about SH capabilities.

Look, your country has had unfettered access to the entire Iraq region since
March 2003.
As I write in Sept 2004, your country has still been unable to provide an
hard evidence to show WMD :
No documentation from within Iraq has been uncovered by your country showing the records of WMD program.
No physical evidence from within Iraq has been uncovered by your country
of WMD stockpiles.
Your country hasn't produced reports of radioactivity of Uranium (and essential ingredient) for the making of WMD (radioactivity denoting the presence of Uranium is emitted for hundreds, if not, thousands of years).

It's a falsehood to hold that WMD were ever in Iraq.
The lie of the Bush goverment has been exposed.
18 months of unfettered access - and not one scintilla of proof of any WMD.

The issue here is judgement.
And unknowingly, you have, by listing those quotes, shown how inept Bush was.
Both sides of the house made statements about SH and WMD.
But it wasn't Clinton who made the decision to go to war in Iraq.
It was Bush.
This decision to go to war, was premised upon intelligence that was found to be wanting.
Bush however knew that the intelligence was wanting because his predecessor did not act on that intelligence.
What's more, Bush and his people deliberately ommitted to tell the nation that the intellegence was flaw.
Instead, Colin Powell doctored evidence in February 2003 to try to bolster the weak intelligence.

Bush's decision has cost 12,000 lives directly and thousands of seriosly injured people.
By going to war, Bush has also deliberately taken resources away from hunting down Al Qaeda.
In my view, these reasons alone are ample evidence that Bush is not competent enough to do his job.

 

[jhuskey]

[I would just NUKE them [/QUOTE]

Well thats one way to end a conflict turn the Middle east into a parking lot but who decides who gets it first.And do we stop there.
What would be the criteria for such a strike and would it be selective or total genocide.
Heres another quote.

"I am become death,shatterer of worlds". Robert Oppenheimer(father of the A-Bomb) quoted from the ,Bhagavad Gita, after witnessing the Atomic test.

 

[lokstah]

Well thats one way to end a conflict turn the Middle east into a parking lot but who decides who gets it first.And do we stop there.
What would be the criteria for such a strike and would it be selective or total genocide. Heres another quote.

"I am become death,shatterer of worlds". Robert Oppenheimer(father of the A-Bomb) quoted from the ,Bhagavad Gita, after witnessing the Atomic test.

I hate it when people use lines like nuke 'em all. It makes my head ache; I can't comprehend the thought process. Makes me question if the persons that resort to that kind of talk are the same species as I am.

 

[limerickman]

[I would just NUKE them

Well thats one way to end a conflict turn the Middle east into a parking lot but who decides who gets it first.And do we stop there.
What would be the criteria for such a strike and would it be selective or total genocide.
Heres another quote.

"I am become death,shatterer of worlds". Robert Oppenheimer(father of the A-Bomb) quoted from the ,Bhagavad Gita, after witnessing the Atomic test.[/QUOTE]

Oppenheimer did use those words - and freely admitted that he had helped to open Pandoras box.
It haunted him for his remaining days.

Nuke them.
It is a terrible saying and it evokes terrible consequences.
Look at Japan today - thousands of people still suffering from the attacks in 1945.
Birth defects - hereditary genetic problems.
The USA, in fairness, provide substantial financial assistance but nearly 70 years later, the effects of those two nuclear bombs still resonate.

 

[wanderer390000]

Zapper :

The only real information that the above information proves is :
1.That both sides in the USA political debate discussed SH
2.That both sides were entirely wrong about SH capabilities.

Look, your country has had unfettered access to the entire Iraq region since
March 2003.
As I write in Sept 2004, your country has still been unable to provide an
hard evidence to show WMD :
No documentation from within Iraq has been uncovered by your country showing the records of WMD program.
No physical evidence from within Iraq has been uncovered by your country
of WMD stockpiles.
Your country hasn't produced reports of radioactivity of Uranium (and essential ingredient) for the making of WMD (radioactivity denoting the presence of Uranium is emitted for hundreds, if not, thousands of years).

It's a falsehood to hold that WMD were ever in Iraq.
The lie of the Bush goverment has been exposed.
18 months of unfettered access - and not one scintilla of proof of any WMD.

The issue here is judgement.
And unknowingly, you have, by listing those quotes, shown how inept Bush was.
Both sides of the house made statements about SH and WMD.
But it wasn't Clinton who made the decision to go to war in Iraq.
It was Bush.
This decision to go to war, was premised upon intelligence that was found to be wanting.
Bush however knew that the intelligence was wanting because his predecessor did not act on that intelligence.
What's more, Bush and his people deliberately ommitted to tell the nation that the intellegence was flaw.
Instead, Colin Powell doctored evidence in February 2003 to try to bolster the weak intelligence.

Bush's decision has cost 12,000 lives directly and thousands of seriosly injured people.
By going to war, Bush has also deliberately taken resources away from hunting down Al Qaeda.
In my view, these reasons alone are ample evidence that Bush is not competent enough to do his job.

"It's a falsehood to hold that WMD were ever in Iraq" what more proof do you need . did you not see the kurd laying there dead after S\H used them or were you on another planet he allso had 10 years to hide them if he had any more. evne if he did not have many how would you like one going off in NY all it would take is 1 to make sep 11 small WAKE UP

 

[wanderer390000]

Well thats one way to end a conflict turn the Middle east into a parking lot but who decides who gets it first.And do we stop there.
What would be the criteria for such a strike and would it be selective or total genocide.
Heres another quote.

"I am become death,shatterer of worlds". Robert Oppenheimer(father of the A-Bomb) quoted from the ,Bhagavad Gita, after witnessing the Atomic test.

Oppenheimer did use those words - and freely admitted that he had helped to open Pandoras box.
It haunted him for his remaining days.

Nuke them.
It is a terrible saying and it evokes terrible consequences.
Look at Japan today - thousands of people still suffering from the attacks in 1945.
Birth defects - hereditary genetic problems.
The USA, in fairness, provide substantial financial assistance but nearly 70 years later, the effects of those two nuclear bombs still resonate.[/QUOTE]
limerickman vbmenu_register("postmenu_1369790", true); how come you never tell us the real reson the war had to be fougth.the UN did not do it job rigth i repeat the UN did not do it job if they had they would have found no WMD and no war would have had to be fougth.as for japan if they had not atack USA there would have never have had to be NUKED as i said before if you waite for the UN to make the world safe you won't be safe long with out the USA help the UN is useless any way as far as i know there were many people saying Iraq HAD WMD even the UN before the war i seem to remeber them saying they will be able to disarmed him by useing inspectors why if they knew there was no WMD were they even there any one can look back and change history it take a smart person to look forward and change the furture for the better

 

[lokstah]

"It's a falsehood to hold that WMD were ever in Iraq" what more proof do you need . did you not see the kurd laying there dead after S\H used them or were you on another planet

A misstatement from limerickman; calm down. There's no doubt Hussein had WMDs at some point (naturally; we were willing partners in his efforts against Iran, where they were used freely). Also, few folks that I know doubt that he, like every other a-hole despot on the planet, actively sought to develop them on and off throughout his "career," and probably wouldn't have turned them down if anyone had sent him a coupon. It's the nature of these guys; the planet is peppered with them.

The question relates to the most effective strategy for dealing with that unfortunate facet of modern life. "Nuking them" is one strategy you've proposed; a sure-fire ticket to hell if I've ever heard one (any political ambitions, wanderer39000?). To your credit, though, it wouldn't leave quite so many angry, beheading-happy young Muslims to contend with. That oversight, some might argue, can make things even more dangerous...

Oh well. Bring 'em on, right?

 

[Bikerman2004]

Nuke them.
It is a terrible saying and it evokes terrible consequences.
Look at Japan today - thousands of people still suffering from the attacks in 1945.
Birth defects - hereditary genetic problems.
The USA, in fairness, provide substantial financial assistance but nearly 70 years later, the effects of those two nuclear bombs still resonate.

Pearl Harbor still reasonates after 70 years.

 

[lokstah]

Pearl Harbor still reasonates after 70 years.

So, incidentally, does Hiroshima. Terrible human loss, lots of it, between '39 and '46. Hawaii, Russia, Central and Western Europe, China, Japan... lots of graves.

 

[pomod]

Pearl Harbor still reasonates after 70 years.

Pearl Harbour, without justifying the attack, was at least military target. The Atomic bomb that dropped on Hiroshima detonated over a hospital, in an densely populated urban area. In addition, little or no information was provided to the victims, a disproportionate number were civilians, as to what even hit them, no medical attention was allowed to them, other than to observe the long term effects of the radiation. The victims of the A-bomb were in a sense, guinea pigs. Did the bomb end the War in the Pacific? Not really, or maybe a few weeks earlier than it would have anyway (Japan had essentially given up, but for negotiating the status of Emperor) Was it a retaliation for Pearl Harbour? Probably, seeing the decision to drop it on Japan rather than Germany was made in the spring of '42 shortly after the attack. Was it a flexing of muscle to Stalin who was more a concern to the US than Japan at that point? Yes. Was it a war crime? Definitely; as was the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities (over 130 000 people died in a single night in Tokyo alone). Robert McNamara himself admitted as much. Japan was far from blameless in the WWII, and committed it's fair share of atrocities to be sure, but, make no mistake, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was much more a political decision than a strategically military one and in my opinion is right up there with the holocaust as one of the most shameful and cowardice acts of the last century.

Anyone who proclaims "just Nuke 'em" as a solution to anything is simply, an ignorant asshole.

 

[lokstah]

Anyone who proclaims "just Nuke 'em" as a solution to anything is simply, an ignorant asshole.

Any inevitably controversial debate over Hiroshima aside (though I don't disagree with you), this statement is undeniable. Anyone who utters "just nuke 'em" with any seriousness doesn't deserve to have much influence in this life.

 

[Jakebrake]

.(Japan had essentially given up, but for negotiating the status of Emperor)

On the contrary, Japan had not essentially given up, rather, they were digging their heels in even deeper. By August 1945, the war with Japan showed signs of continuing indefinitely. As American forces advanced closer to the Japanese mainland, the Japanese refusal to surrender did not diminish but increased. In the summer of 1945, Japan had more than 2 million soldiers and 30 million citizens who were prepared to choose "death over dishonor." This point had already been established by the kamikaze pilots and Japanese soldiers who fought at and Iwo Jima.

 

[wanderer390000]

Any inevitably controversial debate over Hiroshima aside (though I don't disagree with you), this statement is undeniable. Anyone who utters "just nuke 'em" with any seriousness doesn't deserve to have much influence in this life.

Serouly when i said just nuke them i did not think any one would be silly enougth to take me serouly but i see a few did ( this say more about you then me).what i ment was to get tuff USA and Russia , China shoud get together and disarm the smaller countrys so they can spend the money on food rather them arms with something like NATO to defend the country that join.

But the main point here IS and STIlL is (is this war legal) as i said before if the UN had done thier job the USA would not have had to find resons to invade

Better safe then dead

I allso have notice here that rather the debate people make personal attacks like go back to school but they never back up what this say no ONE has came on here and said anything to make me change my mind about the UN
rather then find fault in my spelling

 

[wanderer390000]

Pearl Harbour, without justifying the attack, was at least military target. The Atomic bomb that dropped on Hiroshima detonated over a hospital, in an densely populated urban area. In addition, little or no information was provided to the victims, a disproportionate number were civilians, as to what even hit them, no medical attention was allowed to them, other than to observe the long term effects of the radiation. The victims of the A-bomb were in a sense, guinea pigs. Did the bomb end the War in the Pacific? Not really, or maybe a few weeks earlier than it would have anyway (Japan had essentially given up, but for negotiating the status of Emperor) Was it a retaliation for Pearl Harbour? Probably, seeing the decision to drop it on Japan rather than Germany was made in the spring of '42 shortly after the attack. Was it a flexing of muscle to Stalin who was more a concern to the US than Japan at that point? Yes. Was it a war crime? Definitely; as was the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities (over 130 000 people died in a single night in Tokyo alone). Robert McNamara himself admitted as much. Japan was far from blameless in the WWII, and committed it's fair share of atrocities to be sure, but, make no mistake, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was much more a political decision than a strategically military one and in my opinion is right up there with the holocaust as one of the most shameful and cowardice acts of the last century.

Anyone who proclaims "just Nuke 'em" as a solution to anything is simply, an ignorant asshole.

"Pearl Harbour, without justifying the attack, was at least military target" as so many people said before you must follow internatatial law, the japs attack perl harbor before they decared war on the USA (or at the same time)

As for killing women and kids both side droped bombs on citys (heard of the bombong on london) is it better to be kill by a normal bomb then a NUKE

More wars have been ended by NUKE then started

Anyone who proclaims "just Nuke 'em" as a solution to anything is simply, an ignorant asshole.[/ as for this read my other reply