meglome wrote: » Personally I'd rather no country had nuclear weapons. Since that isn't possible I'd be happy that no more country's had nuclear weapons. And especially country's with fundamentalist governments of any flavour. No matter what I feel about the US having nuclear weapons they do have strict rules about how they are handled and used, and they have not been used in anger since 1945. I have no idea what Iran would do but it does worry me.
Blue_Lagoon wrote: » forget a REAL Iran WAR with thousands of American troops before November 2012 elections (perhaps never).
IrelandSpirit wrote: » It's arguable, I reckon the US government is as fundamentalist as any they criticise for the same, only we tend to let off because it's in a form we're conditioned to be comfortable with. When I pay close attention to the rhetoric of their presidents, it's pretty obvious where the vast majority of their voting pool lies. Personally, I think Christian fundamentalism is just as scary as Islamic fundamentalism, but that's just my opinion.
IrelandSpirit wrote: » Fact is though, no evidence has been provided that Iran has a nuclear weapons' program. None. In fact, as has been pointed out earlier on this thread, even the US (and other) intelligence service claim that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
IrelandSpirit wrote: » And I agree, personally I'd rather no country had nuclear weapons, the resources spent on 'defence' for one year alone could abolish world poverty entirely, and in an ideal, saner world, it would've been done long ago ... maybe I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Jeboa Safari wrote: » Civilians would inevitably die during an invasion, don't be so stupid. Japanese civilians were being trained to resist an American invasion, even children were being trained to be suicide bombers. The two nukes were the least worse choice the allied commanders could have made.
nullzero wrote: » How stupid do you think I am exactly? I never said civilians wouldn't have died in an invasion, I made the point that there wouldn't have been as many killed as there were by the atomic blasts. Not to mention the long term devestation of nuclear fallout. In my opinion war is the greatest waste of time imaginable, neither an invasion or a nuclear attack should have happened, but I have to disagree with you when you say that a nuclear attack was the lesser of two evils, thats just plain stupid I'm afraid.
Jeboa Safari wrote: » And why exactly is it stupid to say it was the lesser of 2 evils?
meglome wrote: » Wow all this agreement I may have to sit down.
IrelandSpirit wrote: » Ya know, I sometimes think if everybody here ever sat down over a pint or something in fleshspace, we'd all be surprised just how much we do agree ... yeah, even with King Mob
yekahs wrote: » Would never happen, no one would turn up. CT'ers would be too paranoid to turn up and think it was a conspiracy to get them all in one place. Skeptics wouldn't believe it was going to happen. No matter how much evidence you provided, we still wouldn't believe that the meeting was real. :pac:
nullzero wrote: » So the U.S forces would have indiscriminatly killed cilivians is what you're saying? 70,000 died in Hiroshima, between 40,000 and 75,000 in Nagasaki, not to mention the deaths caused by the after affects of the radiation. Use your head will you?
"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." - General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces Under President Truman
I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) 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 this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' " - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children." - Admiral William D. Leahy Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"Some of my conclusions may invoke acorn and even ridicule. "For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945. "And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity." - Stewart L. UdallUS Congressman and Author of "Myths of August"
Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it. - J. Samuel Walker Chief Historian U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
yekahs wrote: » Skeptics wouldn't believe it was going to happen. No matter how much evidence you provided, we still wouldn't believe that the meeting was real. :pac:
Lab_Mouse wrote: » In fairness it would take more than a youtube video to persuade me:)
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Here is a YT vid anyway
Torakx wrote: » I heard about this yesterday evening from a friend in Norway,listening to the radio there he said he heard the US had sent something like 18 more ships. He was proclaiming ww3 was about to start. I will be watching China/N Korea and Russia for more action before i make that statement.
animalhuger wrote: » They were sending ships through Egyipt a few weeks ago but they dident know exactly where they where going. Iran has a right to nuk power for f**k sake they have the I.A.E.A watching EVERYTHING!its just gona be another Iraq!but what they dont realise is Iran is not like the rest of the mid-east it has some flaws but overall its a good country with an ancient history,the people are freindly and dont forget Iran aswell as most mid-east state's are freindly toward Ireland If israel bombs their powwer plants the whole region will unite with Iran. And may be all the euro israeli's will go home and Palestine will be freed israel is not a state!it ended OVER!1000 YEARS AGO! Palestine=Ireland:).
animalhuger wrote: » They were sending ships through Egyipt a few weeks ago but they dident know exactly where they where going. Iran has a right to nuk power for f**k sake they have the I.A.E.A watching EVERYTHING!its just gona be another Iraq!but what they dont realise is Iran is not like the rest of the mid-east it has some flaws but overall its a good country with an ancient history,the people are freindly and dont forget Iran aswell as most mid-east state's are freindly toward Ireland If israel bombs their powwer plants the whole region will unite with Iran. And may be all the euro israeli's will go home and Palestine will be freed israel is not a state!it ended OVER!1000 YEARS AGO!Palestine=Ireland.
meglome wrote: » we're using Fox News as proof now?
Jeboa Safari wrote: » Israel is a state, its been recognised by the majority of the international community. And I doubt there'll be an attack. You may have noticed in the news recently and today, that the US is withdrawing from Iraq, wouldn't be something they'd do if they were going to strike Iran, and Israel isn't capable of attacking Iran on its own. And Palestine != Ireland
IrelandSpirit wrote: » I dunno, the Israeli state appears to operate as a law unto itself and that vid TW posted was pretty clear. 'We have the technology' to strike, basically saying to the Americans that if you don't do it, we will and it's gonna be your fault when we do. Then again, that's if MSM is anything to go by ...
Jeboa Safari wrote: » Theres been plenty of posts here saying that if Israel do this they will come out of it badly. So they're highly unlikely to do it, especially without American help, who are currently downscaling their military instead of building it up.
TalkieWalkie wrote: » It looks better if America don't start the fight this time. They can't be the only ones seen to be protecting us. Aren't America and Israel one and the same anyway ? Amsraelica :P
Of course it would come out badly, but not for the few folks who stand to gain. Doesn't it always turn out badly ? Define badly.
Though if Israel does kick off, America will be 'forced' to join in at some stage. Probably like they did in the last war, on the side most likely to win
Do you mean decreasing their miliyary spending or increasing it at a lower rate?
Jeboa Safari wrote: » As in large parts of Israel destroyed and high civilian casualties from facing at least evenly matched foes. I assume they'd be at least facing Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and increased activity in Palestine. They'd probably face the possibility of losing land too, aswell as being weakened militarily and leaving themselves vulnerable to attacks by their neighbours in the future, including the ones currently friendly to the US
Jeboa Safari wrote: » I for one am glad that America joined the two world wars, if thats the ones you are referring to, and the US was attacked in the second one. And the US can't afford a war now, so they would discourage Israel from going on a suicide mission.
Jeboa Safari wrote: » I mean withdrawing troops from Iraq, not something you'd do if you were preparing for war in the area.
Jeboa Safari wrote: » On the point of decreasing military spending, Britain is decreasing its military spending I believe, probably a few other allies too.
