|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 8, 2013 16:30:27 GMT -5
Thanks for that vid, Dis.
All adds up to me. In large part, it's a result of the U.S. getting rid of integral intelligence on what makes the ideology of fanatical, militant Islam tick.
We can no longer allow them the same "respect for religion" that is duly granted benign, peaceful sects.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 11, 2013 19:54:55 GMT -5
Cooler heads seem to be prevailing....for now. Meanwhile, in other Middle East news today.... DATELINE: BAGHDAD, SEPT. 11, 2013A co-ordinated car and suicide bomb attack on a Shi'ite mosque in the Iraqi capital killed at least 33 people on Wednesday evening, police and medical sources said.
Worshippers were leaving the mosque after evening prayers when the car bomb exploded, and as onlookers rushed to help the wounded, a suicide bomber blew himself up in their midst.
Policemen saw a second man fumbling to detonate an explosive belt and managed to stop him, but an angry mob overcame them and stabbed the would-be-suicide bomber to death.
A further 55 people were wounded, some critically, in the blasts, which took place in the northwestern Kasra district of Baghdad. No doubt Sunni Muslims attacking Shi'ite Muslims...and why? Because they don't follow Islam the "proper" way. And what gets men to do something that heinous? Indoctrination with the promise of martyrdom....oh...AND the virgins. Can't forget the virgins. Who says sex doesn't sell? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 11, 2013 23:25:33 GMT -5
Cooler heads seem to be prevailing....for now. Meanwhile, in other Middle East news today.... DATELINE: BAGHDAD, SEPT. 11, 2013A co-ordinated car and suicide bomb attack on a Shi'ite mosque in the Iraqi capital killed at least 33 people on Wednesday evening, police and medical sources said.
Worshippers were leaving the mosque after evening prayers when the car bomb exploded, and as onlookers rushed to help the wounded, a suicide bomber blew himself up in their midst.
Policemen saw a second man fumbling to detonate an explosive belt and managed to stop him, but an angry mob overcame them and stabbed the would-be-suicide bomber to death.
A further 55 people were wounded, some critically, in the blasts, which took place in the northwestern Kasra district of Baghdad. No doubt Sunni Muslims attacking Shi'ite Muslims...and why? Because they don't follow Islam the "proper" way. And what gets men to do something that heinous? Indoctrination with the promise of martyrdom....oh...AND the virgins. Can't forget the virgins. Who says sex doesn't sell? Drop a few bombs on Damascus from a carrier! No boots on the ground! Can somebody explain the difference between that and Pearl Harbor? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 12, 2013 1:20:14 GMT -5
Differences...Syria would know it's coming....officially.
And they're being offered diplomacy first....even though rational discourse would have a tough time reasoning with the mindset of jihad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 12, 2013 5:48:59 GMT -5
Drop a few bombs on Damascus from a carrier! No boots on the ground! Can somebody explain the difference between that and Pearl Harbor? The reponse. The response to Pearl Harbour was dropping 2 A-bombs on Japan when the war was all but over. There was no real need to bomb Japan, other than the Americans wanted vengenence. The response to bombing Syria, like Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Some of Syria's friends have nuclear weapons, and that region may escalate into WWIII. I still sit on the fence on this issue. I don't trust Russia to live up to their proposal. Syria has admitted to having chemical weapons. What to do? What to do? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 12, 2013 12:53:37 GMT -5
Drop a few bombs on Damascus from a carrier! No boots on the ground! Can somebody explain the difference between that and Pearl Harbor? The reponse. The response to Pearl Harbour was dropping 2 A-bombs on Japan when the war was all but over. There was no real need to bomb Japan, other than the Americans wanted vengenence. The response to bombing Syria, like Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Some of Syria's friends have nuclear weapons, and that region may escalate into WWIII. I still sit on the fence on this issue. I don't trust Russia to live up to their proposal. Syria has admitted to having chemical weapons. What to do? What to do? You like stats? Look up loses per square mile when the American tried to push back the Japanese. Absolute human meat grinding. Ergo the bombs. As for sitting on the fence, in this case, it's the best place. I'm sitting there too. I want Assad dead. I want the crazies dead. So get a pillow and bring a chess board..... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 12, 2013 21:32:49 GMT -5
The reponse. The response to Pearl Harbour was dropping 2 A-bombs on Japan when the war was all but over. There was no real need to bomb Japan, other than the Americans wanted vengenence. The response to bombing Syria, like Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Some of Syria's friends have nuclear weapons, and that region may escalate into WWIII. I still sit on the fence on this issue. I don't trust Russia to live up to their proposal. Syria has admitted to having chemical weapons. What to do? What to do? You like stats? Look up loses per square mile when the American tried to push back the Japanese. Absolute human meat grinding. Ergo the bombs. As for sitting on the fence, in this case, it's the best place. I'm sitting there too. I want Assad dead. I want the crazies dead. So get a pillow and bring a chess board..... And yet Eisenhower said "In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…." Most historians agree, that the bombs weren't dropped to save lives. They were dropped because of the Soviet Union. The Sovits were amassing armies throughout Eastern Europe in August 1945, and just four days prior to the bombs being dropped, the US and Soviets left a meeting on bad terms. The Russians were suppose to launch a ground attack on Japan on August 6, but the Americans did not want the Soviets getting credit for ending the war. So, to show their strength to the Soviets, they used the A bomb. Ironically, this obviously sped the Russians development of nuclear weapons a lot faster than it would have if they did not use the A bomb. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 13, 2013 1:45:42 GMT -5
No Skilly, "most historians" don't agree. Don't pull the "the experts agree with me" argument. Historians are all over the place on this and mostly based on their bias.
Iwo Jima, Okinawa and the islands were slaughter houses for American, native islanders and Japanese. 100,000 Japanese, 100,000 Okinawan's and 12,500 Americans died in Okinawa alone. So do the math if you are a general and looking at taking mainland Japan.
The a'bombs were intended to break the Japanese will to fight...and it did. In days.
Wiki...
Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsugō, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations.[10] Four veteran divisions were withdrawn from the Kwantung Army in Manchuria in March 1945 to strengthen the forces in Japan,[11] and 45 new divisions were activated between February and May 1945. Most were immobile formations for coastal defense, but 16 were high quality mobile divisions.[12] In all, there were 2.3 million Japanese Army troops prepared to defend the Japanese home islands, another 4 million Army and Navy employees, and a civilian militia of 28 million men and women. Casualty predictions varied widely, but were extremely high. The Vice Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff, Vice Admiral Takijirō Ōnishi, predicted up to 20 million Japanese deaths.[13]
A study from 15 June 1945 by the Joint War Plans Committee,[14] who provided planning information to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated that Olympic would result in between 130,000 and 220,000 US-casualties of which U.S. dead would be the range from 25,000 to 46,000. Delivered on 15 June 1945 after insight gained from the Battle of Okinawa, the study noted Japan's inadequate defenses due to the very effective sea blockade and the American firebombing campaign. The Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General of the Army George Marshall and General of the Army Douglas MacArthur signed documents agreeing with the Joint War Plans Committee estimate.[15]
The Americans were alarmed by the Japanese build up, which was accurately tracked through Ultra intelligence.[16] United States Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was sufficiently concerned about high American estimates of probable casualties to commission his own study by Quincy Wright and William Shockley. Wright and Shockley spoke with Colonels James McCormack and Dean Rusk, and examined casualty forecasts by Michael E. DeBakey and Gilbert Beebe. Wright and Shockley estimated the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese casualties would have been around 5 to 10 million
Today, given the same circumstances, I would support their use.
Anywho....back on topic. It looks like Putin has stolen obama's lunch, dinner and breakfast. There is no chance in hell that obama is going to...."bomb baby bomb".
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 13, 2013 8:45:42 GMT -5
No Skilly, "most historians" don't agree. Don't pull the "the experts agree with me" argument. Historians are all over the place on this and mostly based on their bias. This is going to completely sidetrack this thread ... but ok, if you don't agree with the historians, will you agree with the actual decision makers and people involved? I won't dispute the death toll, nor the possible death toll to continue a war with Japan. Japan only stayed in the war after the German surrender because the Allies wanted to put an end to Emperors in Japan. From what I've read, the Japanese were trying to negoiate peace with the Allies, in June 1945. They gave the Soviet Union (who was not at War with Japan at the time) specific proposals to achieve peace and in return they offered the Soviets territorial concessions. But the Soviets never got back to them on how the Allies viewed these peace terms. So Japan was willing to end the war through diplomatic means two months before the bombs were dropped. The Japanese were looking to end the war, no one would listen to them. The Soviets, when they signed at Yalta, agreed they would enter the War with Japan only after Germany was defeated. The Russian said they were prepared to invade Machuria on August 5th, but they were told to hold off until August 8th ... And yet both these men agreed that the US should not drop the bomb on Japanese cities ... some US generals were arguing that dropping the bombs in a highly foreseted area outside Tokyo would suffice ... For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):
I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…
It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…
General George Marshall agreed:
Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.And McCarthur? Well he wasn't even consulted about the bomb being dropped .... MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. And Stimson was not concerned about casualties ... he was concerned that the bomb would not be effective enough, because the US Air Force would have Japan "bombed out" The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 14, 2013 3:09:38 GMT -5
I won't dispute the death toll, nor the possible death toll to continue a war with Japan. Those crazy numbers of dead is all that matters. As for the Japanese offering to "negotiate peace", the Americans wanted unconditional surrender in the Potsdam Declaration and not a repeat of the Treaty Of Versaille. On the other hand, the Japanese were trying the oldest trick on the "surrender" book. That is to surrender on their terms to live and fight another day. Americans didn't bite. They bombed. And it worked. Wiki....
While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders, (the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, also known as the "Big Six"), were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese. If you are in doubt, here are the exact words as an "offer" for negotiated peace.....July 12.... His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.And this response for the Potsdam Declaration....July 27.... I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the warAnd then...... August 6, Hiroshima. August 9, Nagasaki. August 10, Japan accepts Potsdam terms of unconditional surrender. END OF WAR. Everything else is meaningless. The best way to look at any action is to see what results it achieves. It's 68 years and counting that Japan, a historically vicious warrior nation has lived in peace. |
|
