Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Dresden IMO was payback and I suppose revenge for the bombings by Germany of defenseless cities in Europe as well as the nightly bombings of London. And let's not forget the rockets.
IMO the Germans were just reaping what they had sown.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Or also like the firebombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities by the US.

There were a lot of war factories spread throughout the cities.

Also, after the first few napalm raids killed lots of civilians, the Japanese learned to flee their cities whenever radar showed large fleets of bombers heading toward their area.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

>I'll concede Dresden was illegal if you will concede Nagasaki was unnecessary.

My general view is that both A-bombs were probably unnecessary, but this wasn't apparent to us until after the war was over.

It's a little hard to be completely sure. Since the Soviet entry into the war and both A-bombings occurred so closely together, it is hard to conclusively tell which event had what impact on the Japanese leaders.

However, those Japanese leaders who were seeking to convince the Soviets to pressure us into giving them better terms, were completely undercut when the Soviets went to war against Japan. It is a reasonable supposition that Soviet entry into the war alone would have achieved surrender.

0 Replies

You guys have enough problems understanding the present. Yet you seem to think you can read the minds of people in the past.
The US was entirely justified in using the atomic bomb. It's use saved millions of lives. Both Japanese and American.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

My general view is that both A-bombs were probably unnecessary, but this wasn't apparent to us until after the war was over.

It's a little hard to be completely sure. Since the Soviet entry into the war and both A-bombings occurred so closely together, it is hard to conclusively tell which event had what impact on the Japanese leaders.

However, those Japanese leaders who were seeking to convince the Soviets to pressure us into giving them better terms, were completely undercut when the Soviets went to war against Japan. It is a reasonable supposition that Soviet entry into the war alone would have achieved surrender.

au1929 wrote:

You guys have enough problems understanding the present. Yet you seem to think you can read the minds of people in the past.
The US was entirely justified in using the atomic bomb. It's use saved millions of lives. Both Japanese and American.

Believing lies makes it so much easier to live with yourself.

"Douglas McArthur, who had run much of the Pacific campaign, didn't expect an invasion would be needed; Admiral Leahy, ..., was later adamant that there had been no need for an atomic bomb; Curtis LeMay, ... agreed. Even Eisenhower, ... was strongly hostile to it ... on two counts. First the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

["E=MC2 - A biography of the world's most famous equation" by David Bodanis]

LeMay himself was later quoted saying that "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders."

LeMay referred to his nightime incendiary attacks as "fire jobs." The Japanese nicknamed him "brutal LeMay". LeMay was quite aware of both the brutality of his actions and the Japanese opinion of him - he once remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

"Douglas McArthur, who had run much of the Pacific campaign, didn't expect an invasion would be needed;

I question this.

Every history book I've read shows him pushing as hard as he could for an invasion.

JTT wrote:

Admiral Leahy, ..., was later adamant that there had been no need for an atomic bomb; Curtis LeMay, ... agreed.

Hindsight sure is nice.

I have the same advantage of hindsight that they do, and I also tend towards the view that it wasn't necessary.

But no one had the advantage of hindsight when the bombs were being dropped.

JTT wrote:

Even Eisenhower, ... was strongly hostile to it ... on two counts. First the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Ike claims to have opposed the bombs on those grounds, but his claims are so riddled with holes that it is clear that he was making it up in an attempt to bolster his historical image.

0 Replies

Russia and China have agreed to bring the issue before the UN security council.

Quote:

UPDATE 1-Russia and China to urge Iran to obey IAEA

MOSCOW, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Russian and Chinese diplomats will visit Tehran soon on behalf of the major powers to urge Iran to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Russian media quoted Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying on Tuesday.

The five permanent U.N. Security Council members, who also include Britain, France and the United States, decided on Tuesday to ask the International Atomic Energy Agency to pass Iran's case to the Council.

"I expect representatives of the leadership of the Russian Foreign Ministry with Chinese colleagues to visit Tehran to explain the agreements adopted in London and to urge Iran to give precise answers to the questions that the IAEA has presented," RIA Novosti news agency quoted Lavrov as saying.

Russia and China had been reluctant to escalate the case, and the deal from London talks stopped short of recommending a formal referral of Iran to the Council, where it could have then faced economic sanctions.

Iran says it only wants nuclear technology to generate electricity, not make atomic weapons as the West believes.

Russia has strong commercial and diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic. The Kremlin has suggested setting up a joint venture with Iran to carry out sensitive uranium enrichment on Russian soil.

0 Replies

i suppose there is the question of; at what point does it become counter productive to attack any country that develops nuclear capabilities ?

not a big fan of the mullahs. and i'm pretty disappointed that the reform groups in iran have traded in their beliefs for "good jobs, money and we can do what we want as long as we stay out of politics" (as a panel of iranian students i saw interviewed stated, all in agreement..).

even without the interests of china and russia in iran, seems like an attack by israel or the u.s. would take the moderate and liberal iranians to the aid of the mullahs, even if only in the defense of their country.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

even without the interests of china and russia in iran, seems like an attack by israel or the u.s. would take the moderate and liberal iranians to the aid of the mullahs, even if only in the defense of their country.

Not necessarily. Why would the students/moderates/liberal Iranians back their oppressors rather than take advantage to achieve their own goals? While I'm sure they don't welcome bombs in their homeland; wouldn't they be the most likely to cooperate in the building of the very democracy they've desired all along? Especially when you consider the commitment to success in such an endeavor being demonstrated in their neighborhood as we speak. Greed can do funny things to a conscience, but if it's commitment to country that drives their reaction, I'd say your suggestion is unlikely. Sure, many Iranians would protest violently to any Israeli or US interference... but I don't think the resistance would come from the groups you're suggesting.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
even without the interests of china and russia in iran, seems like an attack by israel or the u.s. would take the moderate and liberal iranians to the aid of the mullahs, even if only in the defense of their country.

Not necessarily. Why would the students/moderates/liberal Iranians back their oppressors rather than take advantage to achieve their own goals?

hmm, that's the problem i have with them. from what they were saying, they don't really see amanadjad (however the hell ya spell it Laughing

) as the oppressor. they see a politician they don't like.

i knew quite a few expat persians in the early 1980s. the contrast in the student's headspace is quite dramatic.

here's hoping that we don't have to take this theory to the test lab.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

hmm, that's the problem i have with them. from what they were saying, they don't really see amanadjad (however the hell ya spell it ) as the oppressor. they see a politician they don't like.

That's a problem you'll always run into when people analyze from the outside--the outsiders looking in can only see an Islamic monster, and can't assess it from any other point of view.

Quote:

i knew quite a few expat persians in the early 1980s. the contrast in the student's headspace is quite dramatic.

The Persians i knew in the late 70s were mostly from affluent backgrounds and were pretty hedonistic. After 1979, most of them were scrambling to find ways to avoid going back. Those who really cared had gone back at the first hint of revolution.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

hmm, that's the problem i have with them. from what they were saying, they don't really see amanadjad (however the hell ya spell it ) as the oppressor. they see a politician they don't like.

No argument here. I believe, and more over, believe they believe that their oppressors are the reason a politician they don't like is in power.:wink: That doesn't effect my opinion that they wouldn't volunteer to defend their oppressors in any great numbers. It just doesn't add up.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

here's hoping that we don't have to take this theory to the test lab.

(Clink) Cheers...

0 Replies

Nationalism
There is nothing that brings people together more than an attack on their sovereignty. In this instance even more so since it will also be considered as an attack on their religion.
Every war needs a common enemy. He who attacks will supply the need. They will not be greeted with flowers and adoring crowds

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
hmm, that's the problem i have with them. from what they were saying, they don't really see amanadjad (however the hell ya spell it ) as the oppressor. they see a politician they don't like.

That's a problem you'll always run into when people analyze from the outside--the outsiders looking in can only see an Islamic monster, and can't assess it from any other point of view.

Quote:
i knew quite a few expat persians in the early 1980s. the contrast in the student's headspace is quite dramatic.

The Persians i knew in the late 70s were mostly from affluent backgrounds and were pretty hedonistic. After 1979, most of them were scrambling to find ways to avoid going back. Those who really cared had gone back at the first hint of revolution.

i understand what you mean about the outsider's view, set. and there is more than a little bit of merit in the comment.

in the this case of iran, ahmadinejad (hah! spelled it right ! Smile

) himself is forming the impressions left with the rest of the world.

i don't know if he's a monster or a blowhard. either way, running around calling for the eradication of israel, or any other sovereign nation, is not a good thing.

also, his mixture of self righteous religiousness while flipping the rest of us off are not qualities that i appreciate in one of the world's leaders. i don't like it in our leaders, why would i like it in the iranian ?

**

again, some agreement on persians i met. several were pretty ready for the party. good thing! i liked partying with 'em. totally out of control and a lot of fun. in contrast to the afghans, who were not happy campers at all.

some were interested in staying in the u.s., but generally, the idea was to go back to iran.

0 Replies

Set's comment was a translucent attempt at baiting me into taking offense to the suggestion I was incapable at viewing the issue with anything but a cartoonish Islamic-Monster enemy. Since his assessment was no more accurate than it was relevant to our discussion; I ignored it... and should probably continue to ignore it as the thinly veiled insult is was.

AU, I agree with your assessment of Nationalism providing strange bedfellows in many an instance, but do not believe that it's necessarily a foregone conclusion here. IMO, the citizens of Iran who oppose theocratic rule exist in sufficient numbers to embrace an opportunity to fulfill their quest for self-determination and moreover believe they would. The tired "flowers and adoring crowds" statement, while certainly accurate, nevertheless does nothing to dissuade me from believing that the mutual enemies of the Theocratic oppressors could become the "strange bedfellows", as opposed to the oppressors themselves.

0 Replies

Isn't that a bit like arguing that the terrorists who attacked the US and the Democrats who oppose a Bush-led America are "natural bedfellows"?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Isn't that a bit like arguing that the terrorists who attacked the US and the Democrats who oppose a Bush-led America are "natural bedfellows"?

That would require quite an imagination since the Democrats require no assistance to overthrow the Bush administration (which already has an expiration date anyway), other than a popular vote of the people. Were Bush & Co. to jail/torture/murder members of the opposition party; there could be a flimsy comparison had the attacks had a shot at resulting in Bush's removal. I find this a bit too far-fetched to even consider... though a few in the lunatic fringe seem to believe just that. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Set's comment was a translucent attempt at baiting me into taking offense to the suggestion I was incapable at viewing the issue with anything but a cartoonish Islamic-Monster enemy. Since his assessment was no more accurate than it was relevant to our discussion; I ignored it... and should probably continue to ignore it as the thinly veiled insult is was.

AU, I agree with your assessment of Nationalism providing strange bedfellows in many an instance, but do not believe that it's necessarily a foregone conclusion here. IMO, the citizens of Iran who oppose theocratic rule exist in sufficient numbers to embrace an opportunity to fulfill their quest for self-determination and moreover believe they would. The tired "flowers and adoring crowds" statement, while certainly accurate, nevertheless does nothing to dissuade me from believing that the mutual enemies of the Theocratic oppressors could become the "strange bedfellows", as opposed to the oppressors themselves.

I recall these same arguments when talking about how the free Iraqis would surely not elect an Islamic style government. I remember the often quoted Jodi Foster movie, "Accused" thrown around repeatedly.

The middle east are having elections all over the place, but they are electing the "Theocratci oppressors." Why would you believe those in Iran would be any different?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

old europe wrote:
Isn't that a bit like arguing that the terrorists who attacked the US and the Democrats who oppose a Bush-led America are "natural bedfellows"?
That would require quite an imagination since the Democrats require no assistance to overthrow the Bush administration (which already has an expiration date anyway), other than a popular vote of the people. Were Bush & Co. to jail/torture/murder members of the opposition party; there could be a flimsy comparison had the attacks had a shot at resulting in Bush's removal. I find this a bit too far-fetched to even consider... though a few in the lunatic fringe seem to believe just that. :wink:

Unless I'm very mistaken, the same is true for the opposition in Iran. I mean they, too, could overthrow the current administration simply by popular vote. That does obviously not encompass the Ayatollah, but nevertheless.

Plus the whole nuclear research topic seems to be quite a unifying cause. As mentioned before, even that part of the Iranian population that never would have voted for Ahmadinejad doesn't really oppose Iran's ambitions towards making use of nuclear power. And that's not necessarily limited to civilian use, but includes an Iranian bomb, too. Understandable, to a degree. People just argue, "See, there are Pakistan and India and Israel who have the bomb. So why shouldn't we have one?" Makes sense, doesn't it?

So if a foreign power would destroy the capability Iran has to work towards those ambitions, do you really think that the people would be overly grateful?

0 Replies

Overly grateful? No. Nothing I've written could reasonably be interpreted to mean that. Potential reluctant alliance would be more accurate.

The elections in Iran are certainly fairer than they were in Saddam's Iraq, but still a far cry from "free" elections. OE, I think you know that. If not; the knowledge is readily available both on this site and on the web in general.

Revel, I do not presume to know what type of leader would be elected in Iran. It is my desire that they be allowed to choose for themselves, without interference from the Mullahs. Surely you share that desire.

Perhaps you don't realize it; but Iraq already has a reluctant alliance with the U.S. Cooperative efforts between their growing Military and ours are improving all the time. It was the Iraqi forces that provided security for their elections (the U.S. was only on standby to assist if necessary) and their turn out rivaled our own, despite the criminal element's threats. I've never seen an American leaving the voting booth that looked half as excited about it as the average Iraqi. Don't let your anti-war politics overshadow humanity's natural desire for self-determination.

0 Replies

Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know