Is that stuff that JTT says about America true?

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Foofie wrote:

By the way, has it entered your consciousness that the recent drone strike in Yemen was against a U.S. citizen that was proselytizing anti-American rhetoric. Now, I am not implying that any drones are observing you; however, after 9/11 the concept of anti-American activities might be changing in the concept of free speech. Perhaps, you should ruminate on that a bit?

So someone who is peacefully pointing out America's wrongs is as legitimate a target as someone who is actively promoting terrorism. You certainly know how to grab the moral high ground.

I never said that actively promoting terrorism could be the concern. The concern is how anti-American activities are defined. Read up on Senator McCarthy. People just had to go to a Communist sponsored rally for the hungry, and they were suspect, and blacklisted.

The number one rule in journalism is "do not air dirty linen." That could be viewed as anti-American in the future; who knows.

But, you should be quiet on your side of the pond, since Britain already had its day in the sun, and now it is a dottering old parent to the younger U.S., in my opinion.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Well in my opinion we shouldn't let fascists tell us to shut up.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You must be right, what with all those exclamation marks.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Read the rest of the thread Bill with all the links etc.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Of course however if you could come up with any links to your claims I would love to look at them.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Well, why don't you?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Why do I not what?

Offer links to the accepted history of the US WW2 atom bomb program?

That can be found in any fast google search however your claims that capture German Uranium(enrich or non-enrich) was used in the US bombs is something that I had never hear of before.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I'm sorry, I was forgetting your problem with basic English. Here's the link I posted earlier that you ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234

You are claiming that America's altruism is shown by not using the bomb against the USSR. I say it's not altruistic, it's practical. The USSR tested its first bomb in 1949, during peace time. That does not mean that they may not have been able to produce an untested bomb a lot sooner if they were at war.

Using a WMD to force an implacable foe to surrender is one thing. Using it against a one time ally is something else. The ramifications would have been tremendous, not least the chance of sabotage within the ranks.

Choose a better example if you want to show America's altruism. This one doesn't work.

3 Replies

Hmmm, just read through this thread. Thanks to Gracie for the entre.

On the Empirical scale, the worst offender would be the Spanish, followed by the British, with the Dutch coming in a lame third.

The Portuguese made some inroads, as did the Ottomans.

The Germans had a crack at it, as well as the Chinese. The Mongols ruled Middle Earth for quite a stretch, and then the French. Hmmm, who have I missed??? The Japanese had grand plans, as did the Russians.

Oh yeah, the Americans are having a crack at it too. Declared Terra Nullius on an occupied land. Nothing new there either.

Sold out to any taker of bad debt, and now answer to the banksters.

Not sure how that will pan out. Large enough consumer base to dictate terms, but still in hock up to their eyeballs. It's a wait and see game now.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

From your own link.........

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exact characteristics of the uranium remain unknown; it has been suggested by Scalia, and historians Carl Boyd and Akihiko Yoshida that it may not have been weapons-grade material and was instead intended for use as a catalyst in the production of synthetic methanol for aviation fuel.[5][6]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no indication that Germany could produce enrich Uranium and un-enrich Uranium was not in short supply in the US program thank to our Canadians friends on our northern borders.

http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_in_bombs.html

In May 1941, [ Eldorado ] sold Lyman Briggs [the Chairman of Roosevelt's Uranium Committee] six or eight tons of uranium oxide....
It is impossible to know what the company or its president made of this, but it is reasonable to suppose that they knew it had to do with the military applications of uranium.

Early in March 1942, [Eldorado received] an order for 60 tons of uranium oxide, approved by [ Vannevar Bush, ] the head of the US atomic project....

The 60-ton order from the Americans was enough to re-open the mine.... In other, older days the news would have been trumpeted from the rooftops. In March 1942 it was a secret.

Work at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company in St. Louis Missouri ... improved the ... [Canadian] uranium oxide 'to a degree of purity seldom achieved even on a laboratory scale,' as the Manhattan Project later reported.... This breakthrough eliminated a botleneck that might have proved fatal to any hope of constructing a bomb for use in World War II.

1 Reply

@GracieGirl,

GracieGirl wrote:

If it's true, then how come no one's talking about?
If its not true, then why does JTT think it is?

Good grief, GG ... JTT is the reason A2K invented the "ignore" function.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I'm not sure what particular part you mean but JTT is very hyperbolic about it. Nevertheless, if your question is whether America is guilty of various really bad things like war crimes then yes it is true.

But for perspective it's worth noting that pretty much any country that has been active in any way militarily could have the same said of them, and America's record for being the superpower that it is is not that bad (that is, other nations in this position of power have tended to abuse that position a lot more).

Most of the harm which superpowers have done to smaller and weaker countries has come about via banking and money policies, more so than via military intervention.

http://www.webofdebt.com

0 Replies

@BillRM,

That still doesn't mean America's decision not to bomb the Soviets was purely altruistic. In 1945 Truman was president, Roosevelt and Churchill had cottoned on to the sort of man Stalin was, but Truman took a bit longer. What about internal opposition? Stalin was still affectionately known as Uncle Joe in 1945. The Manhattan project was full of Communist sympathisers.

The Soviet Union was vast, the Soviets had the best tanks. Soviet atomic research could may well have produced a bomb prior to 1949. Not bombing the Soviets made sense, it was not altruistic, it was pragmatic.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Big brave Ahnuld wannabe.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The Manhattan project was full of Communist sympathisers

With special note of UK scientists working on the project.

Quote:

What about internal opposition? Stalin was still affectionately known as Uncle Joe in 1945. .

We would had just told George S. Patton to fake an attack on US forces by the Soviets. He would had been happy to do so.

Quote:

Soviet atomic research could may well have produced a bomb prior to 1949

Not even by the Cuba Missile Crisis could the USSR come near to matching our nuclear stock pile or our means of delivering the weapons.

A nuclear device hidden in the middle of Siberian would not be a very useful weapon and if we would get any clue where their uranium enrichment plants was they would had been turn into large holes in the ground.

For one thing you need to place those plants near a very large electric power source and all in all they would be hard to hide even in a large nation.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

It's not a good example. Patton died in 1945 in any event. You're engaging in wishful thinking. Even if the allies had beaten the Soviets, the consequences would have been disastrous.

Quote:

With special note of UK scientists working on the project.

How does this statement forward your argument?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

We came very near to having a nuclear war in any case later on where is would had been far more harmful and once we had destroy the USSR we could had kept the unhappy situation of a growing numbers of counties with some nuclear weapons from occurring.

So what was known to the planners of the time it seems that destroying them might had been a very wise things to do and worth the cost.

Oh if we was planning or even thinking of attacking the USSR Patton would had likely been no where near where he ended up dying in a road accidence.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

How come you're not whining about being off topic, Bill? You should get Roger the dodger and Wandel the propagandist to come and whine and kvetch about these off topic conversations.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

We came very near to having a nuclear war in any case later on where is would had been far more harmful and once we had destroy the USSR we could had kept the unhappy situation of a growing numbers of counties with some nuclear weapons from occurring.

So, you think a full out nuclear war with the Soviets would have been better than facing a potential future war which never actually happened? And you're recommending service in the Peace Corps.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

From the released documents only incredible luck kept a full scale nuclear war from breaking out over the Cuban missile crisis and yes a war with first generation atom weapons would have been far preferable to a 1962 war.

Of course the 1945 planners could not had predicted either our close call in 1962 or that the cold war would end without a nuclear war however they could predict that these weapons would only get more and more powerful and both sides would shortly had roughly the same ability to produce such weapons.

A good solid argument could and was in fact made to end stop the USSR from gaining such weapons at the time.

0 Replies

Is that stuff that JTT says about America true?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know