[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You just completely shifted the argument there in exactly the exasperating manner that the Bush regime does. They tell you it was the right thing to do and then when you point out that there weren't any WMD, then they say but we thought there were. Sure you thought there were and you were wrong. Reality my friend. You were wrong. Now if you want to come and say, "But we made the same mistake everyone else made," then you forfeit the right to say it wasn't a mistake." It can't be the same mistake everyone else made and not be a mistake at the same time! And everyone concedes that it was a mistake to believe that Iraq had WMD. It's obvious that that was a mistake!

I believed he had WMD at the time. There are different levels of belief. There are things you know for certain, there are things you are pretty sure of, there are things you think might be true and there are things you doubt. I was at the second or third level. It made sense that he would have them. Sane people only start killing when they are absodamnferkinglutely sure. And that my friend is the difference between George Bush and Chirac. No, not sanity; they're both insane; George Bush started killing people and Jacques Chirac said I will not kill people until I am more certain.

So technically Chirac was mistaken. Bush was mistaken and he made a mistake. A mistake that lead to the deaths of thousands of people.

OK, first of all it is not Bush "regime." Let's try to keep this civilized. Please also don't sink to yOyO's level with the personal attacks.

Second: the intelligence was clearly mistaken. We all agree on that. That's not the question.

Third, it is also not the question that everyone agreed before the war that Iraq had WMD.

The question is what do we learn from this episode? One lesson is that you should never act unless you know for certain in a metaphysical way that what you are going in to preempt is there. The problem is that metaphysical certainty is impossible. That's what I mean about how what we know now doesn't justify or not justify a decision we made then. Decision are made on the basis of what you know at the time. Not on what you find out 18 months later after a full scale invasion and archeaological dig through the archives of a regime that would never have granted that kind of access to any inspectors.

So, how do we deal with this dilemma prospectively? Because, after all, we do live in the real world where decisions will always be based on incomplete information.

One answer is that you never ever preempt no matter how solid the evidence appears to be and no matter how much consensus around the world there is. After all, there could always be a tiny bit of doubt that actually the lunatic you are trying to disarm is actually not armed at all -- he's just trying to fool you into thinking he is armed when he isn't.

The problem with that perfect standard is if you are wrong, a sh1tload of people could die. I don't think you quite comprehend how destructive weapons of mass destruction are. The numbers would dwarf even the numbers who died in Iraq's torture chambers. You let any threat keep growing until it is simply too late to deal with it.

I don't think that trade off it worth the risk. If in doubt I am hitting first. If you don't like that, then don't make me so nervous.

And finally, the decision that was right for other reasons that we haven't diuscussed here but have discussed in the past is still the right one.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by y0y0:
I thought Bush was the one that didn't do nuances? "We don't do nuances in texas" were his words if I remember correctly?

And what is your thing with "Think more broadly", "Think on a subnational level", "Think of the big picture", "Stop being so unnuanced" in any case? Have you been taking marketing or politcial PR classes and need some practice?

"Think different"

Yet, in spite of your "WELL REASONED LOGIC" (lololololol)
the fact remains the Bush Administration IS adopting a strategy of NEGOTIATION with regards to N. Korea.

y0y0, I'm starting to see evidence your scope is limited to only that which you can see, taste, touch, hear or feel.

Let me guess, YOU'RE FROM MISSOURI! (The "Show Me" State.)

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

I don't think that trade off it worth the risk. If in doubt I am hitting first. If you don't like that, then don't make me so nervous.

And finally, the decision that was right for other reasons that we haven't diuscussed here but have discussed in the past is still the right one.

LOL...good thing you weren't in charge during the Cold war.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Second: the intelligence was clearly mistaken. We all agree on that. That's not the question.

I don't think that trade off it worth the risk. If in doubt I am hitting first. If you don't like that, then don't make me so nervous.

The question of whether Saddam had or hadn't WMD's was brought upon himself as a result of his past misdeeds and behaviors.

He had to keep Iran at bay by intentionally misleading them into believing he had WMD's.

The US had to assume he did have WMD's (as Saddam's ruse had to be sufficiently viable to fool Iran, so was the US fooled...to Saddams detriment) and could be a threat to use them at any time.

The US had to believe he was a threat because of his past littany of aggression and abuses and UN violations.

Once the US understood he hadn't any WMDs so did Iran.

Iran could have finally defeated Iraq since it had a seriously reduced conventional military capability and no WMD's.

The US recognized the imbalance in power in the Iran/Iraq equation -- and perhaps even had signs of Iran preparing to make an actual move on Iraq -- and had to do something to stabilize the region (i.e. keeping Iran at bay, not with a fictional deterrent, but a real one) and thus killed several birds with one stone.

BTW: Saddam probably got better than he deserved.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
No, I find his posts to be not only literate but thoughtful and he REGULARLY HAS to shift the emphasis in order to get his often irrational and/or deluded opposition to argue THE POINT and SOMEWHAT intelligently!

He obviously puts great care into researching his points and consistently displays a masterful command of the issue being discussed.

Anyone who has a problem with that MAY simply be tired of his being right, more often than not.

You're being a bit irriational and deluded there. KarlG was referring to my post, not Simey's.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Nicko:
LOL...good thing you weren't in charge during the Cold war.

I'd say that about YOU!

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was the effective policy and it worked well enough. Simey understands this. YOU DON'T.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yet, in spite of your "WELL REASONED LOGIC" (lololololol)
the fact remains the Bush Administration IS adopting a strategy of NEGOTIATION with regards to N. Korea.

y0y0, I'm starting to see evidence your scope is limited to only that which you can see, taste, touch, hear or feel.

Let me guess, YOU'RE FROM MISSOURI! (The "Show Me" State.)

Ahh! So they do now do nuances? Tsk tsk. What will the Texans and above all Spliffdaddy think of them?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by y0y0:
You're being a bit irriational and deluded there. KarlG was referring to my post, not Simey's.

Uh oh...I'm starting to remember my Grandad's advice again.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I'd say that about YOU!

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was the effective policy and it worked well enough. Simey understands this. YOU DON'T.

MAD is what both the Iranians and the North Koreans are aiming for. That's the reason the Bush administration is doing the nuance thing with the North Koreans. It beomes a little tougher to be the Texas cowboy when the other side can do to you what you can do to them.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Uh oh...I'm starting to remember my Grandad's advice again.

You're right. I misread your post and missed the "No" in the first sentence.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

Oh, but that's right, you're intentionally missing the point.

Nah ... I think we just have different points.

Lots dead on both sides. Lots of money spent. No end in sight to the number of US military and Iraqi civilian deaths. Now, the only thing positive that can be said about it was that it was a successful "fact check" mission ? The most major war since Vietnam has verified that we were completely wrong about everything regarding Iraq and its WMD threat. Other people (Chirac, Clinton) were wrong too. But they weren't foolish enough to start a major war over it to prove that point.

This war is the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam. Simey made a good point about hindsight. In this case, the hindsight is that we f#cked up -- totally and completely f#cked up. The sort of "fact checking" that our military and CIA have performed does nothing but show that we were the fools in this play and flushed lives and money down the toilet in the process.

Would any of you have supported this war if we knew then what we know now ? Do you think that major military operations are the way to go about "verifying" information that could be pursued vigorously by other means ?

There is a truth in the matter: Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was building no WMD
There is speculation: Iraq might have started WMD production again if sanctions were lifted. In other words, as long as we kept sanctions imposed we were every bit as safe from Iraqi WMD as we are now by going in full throttle and leveling the place.

Your cake analogy is a good one and points to the major difference between this administration's foreign policy and the foreign policy that was pursued for 60 years prior to it. Seeing the ingredients for baking a cake <> a cake is being baked. This administration leapt to the conclusion that a cake must be being baked. Their conclusion was wrong. It was our soldiers and the Iraqi people who have tested their incorrect hypothesis in blood.

I sit here, mouth agape, that anyone still thinks that Iraq is "a success" by any measure. It was a complete and utter failure of our intelligence gathering, our foreign policy, and has made us out to be the biggest war-mongering imbeciles on the planet. This whole operation has been an utter, unmitigated catastrophe on every front (other than that we've finally gotten to the bottom of how deeply and profoundly wrong we were). I can't believe that with everything that has come out, some people have now reverted to arguing that starting a war whose only positive outcome was to gather intelligence is good policy and counts as a "success". If my husband or wife were in a coffin for what turned out to be nothing but an intelligence gathering mission (that proved us wrong), I'd be pretty profoundly pissed-off and the chicken-hawks who's intelligence bumbling and hair-triggers caused that situation.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, first of all it is not Bush "regime." Let's try to keep this civilized. Please also don't sink to yOyO's level with the personal attacks.

First off, "regime" is not an insult.

Regime: Mode or system of rule or management; character of government, or of the prevailing social system.

Secondly what personal attack? There isn't a single personal attack in my post. I wouldn't dream of personally attacking you.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Second: the intelligence was clearly mistaken. We all agree on that. That's not the question.

Third, it is also not the question that everyone agreed before the war that Iraq had WMD.

Yes, Bush was mistaken in believing Iraq had WMD. Your question skips over the central question though which is was it a mistake to invade Iraq the way Bush did. The question isn't was it a mistake to invade Iraq ever but whether it was a mistake on March 19, 2003 before the inspectors had given their report, before the US's allies had been persuaded, before the US had convinced them to invade under a different pretence.

One we have answered that question, then we should look at what we can learn. Kerry mentions "judgement" in his speeches. That's what that second question tests and what it reveals is that Bush lacks judgement. He failed to properly weigh up the threats and the risks of different courses of action and balance them properly. He took huge risks that have endangered America, left thousands of people dead and the threat didn't require it.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The question is what do we learn from this episode? One lesson is that you should never act unless you know for certain in a metaphysical way that what you are going in to preempt is there. The problem is that metaphysical certainty is impossible. That's what I mean about how what we know now doesn't justify or not justify a decision we made then. Decision are made on the basis of what you know at the time. Not on what you find out 18 months later after a full scale invasion and archeaological dig through the archives of a regime that would never have granted that kind of access to any inspectors.

The thing is we knew at the time that there was a reasonable chance that he didn't have weapons. Again, it's a judgement question. Other world leaders had it, Bush didn't. They all worked off the same facts ... Well actually they didn't because Bush was being fed intelligence that no one else believed like the tubes story (Australia had told the US it was BS), like the Yellowcake story (everyone including UNSCOM and the IAEA had told the US it was BS), like the mobile labs and drones (UNSCOM told the US they were BS). But for argument's sake, let's say they all had the same information. The others exercised better judgement on that information. That's key. I agree information is often incomplete. Being a good leader means taking calculated risks and getting it right. Bush failed.

Now personally I believe he failed because there was either a concerted effort on his part to find information to back up his plan or his Administration had their own agenda and was feeding him that information. Because it is just too hard for me to believe that some of the screwups were honest mistakes - the student's thesis, the yellowcake thing, WMD under palm trees in Western Iraq?

The reality is that lots of countries that make us very nervous have WMD. Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, heck Russia a leaking sieve. Deal with it. No one wants these weapons being used and no one wants them getting into the hands of psychopaths. But the most effective way of preventing that from happening is to create order not destroy it. The most effective way, as the Cold War demonstrates, of preventing states from resorting to weapons is to strengthen international institutions not weaken them. The most effective way of destroying WMD as Lybia, Ukraine, South Africa, Iraq proves is through diplomacy and inspections not war. War breeds war. War makes people desire weapons. The last thing a world in which WMD are present needs, is a cowboy. When everyone else is screaming, "Don't do it," you need to take a step back and say, I could be wrong here. That is the problem with Bush. He lacks judgement. The threshold wasn't met for any number of people and leaders all over the world that also don't want to see their families die in a mushroom cloud. They didn't think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and they were right. The problem here is not where do you draw the line. Most people draw the line in the same place. The problem here is that one guy didn't have the judgement to know that he crossed the line yet.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was the effective policy and it worked well enough. Simey understands this. YOU DON'T.

MAD and the associated policy of containment was just making the best of a bad strategic situation. It's not the kind of position you want to be in if you have any alternative (other than death or surrender).

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
MAD and the associated policy of containment was just making the best of a bad strategic situation. It's not the kind of position you want to be in if you have any alternative (other than death or surrender).

Yes, Simey is right, I think ABW meant Balance of Power.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Secondly what personal attack? There isn't a single personal attack in my post. I wouldn't dream of personally attacking you.
Yes, Bush was mistaken in believing Iraq had WMD. Your question skips over the central question though which is was it a mistake to invade Iraq the way Bush did. The question isn't was it a mistake to invade Iraq ever but whether it was a mistake on March 19, 2003 before the inspectors had given their report, before the US's allies had been persuaded, before the US had convinced them to invade under a different pretence.

One basic problem is that the US made the mistake of going to the UN to get permission from people who had already made up their minds not to give permission. Going to them simply legitimized their obstruction. I think had we understood that France, Russia, and Germany would never under any circumstances have authorized the US to remove Saddam, then we never would have gone down that route. So yes, I agree it was a mistake to go on March 19, 2003. We should have gone much earlier.

Second, going to the UN forced the US to frame the argument in much too narrow a way. The UN Charter only deals in issues in a very narrow and legalistic way. We started down the road of niggling issues of current WMD stockpiles when in fact the issues were much broader in scope.

[Edit: corrected date]

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by y0y0:
MAD is what both the Iranians and the North Koreans are aiming for. That's the reason the Bush administration is doing the nuance thing with the North Koreans. It beomes a little tougher to be the Texas cowboy when the other side can do to you what you can do to them.

My bottom line is that if the US will be adversely impacted, or (in our own self interest) have to clean up a mess, no matter who's at the bottom of the mess, we'd damn well better become part of the situation.

As Simey pointed out, different situations DO call for different methods. As you pointed out, (a point I, myself made some time ago) we haven't attacked countries that have nukes.

The N. Koreans shouldn't have nukes. Iran shouldn't have nukes. The US should. Israel should. GB should. As far as the other nations that have them, someone should make their case for having them. And I don't buy the argument that if ONE country has them, then EVERY country should.

Our esteemed President Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick." I believe we have the biggest stick and should deny that stick to anyone else, if at all possible.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The US should [have nukes]. Israel should [have nukes].

Why?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Why?

Because we've had them for a very long time and can prove that we're safe with them? When the French gave Israel their nukes (yeah, that is damned funny), it was a huge risk, but it didn't backfire. Letting any other country have them at this point would be foolish in the extreme.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Why?

We are the leader of the free world. If the crap hits the fan, I'd want (and the world would expect) US to clean it up. No one else would or could.

NO ONE ELSE has proven the same level of concern or respect for others or is willing to fight for the freedoms and liberties that we have.

Israel, because if the crap hits the fan there, and all their neighbors including an enemy that has repeatedly declared that first and foremost they want to eliminate Israel entirely- that taking Haifa and Tel-Aviv/Jaffa is more important that having an independent state, decide to act on their hatred, Israel will have the final word.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Because we've had them for a very long time and can prove that we're safe with them?

Nuclear weapons have only been used in combat once. That use was neither safe nor responsible.

How many other nations have used nuclear weapons irresponsibly?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
MAD and the associated policy of containment was just making the best of a bad strategic situation. It's not the kind of position you want to be in if you have any alternative (other than death or surrender).

I thought this went without saying, but in retrospect, especially in light of SOME folks' willingness to make themselves look silly just to win a point, I understand and agree your qualifier needed to be stated.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We are the leader of the free world. If the crap hits the fan, I'd want (and the world would expect) US to clean it up. No one else would or could.

What does having nuclear weapons have to do with cleaning up messes? If anything, I think nuclear weapons just result in bigger messes.

By the way, and off topic, you never answered my question of what caused you to convert from Bush to Kerry, before you converted from Kerry to Bush.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Nuclear weapons have only been used in combat once. That use was neither safe nor responsible.

How many other nations have used nuclear weapons irresponsibly?

Let's NOT start this mental masturbation.

I'll state it was to save lives and stop a war that was started by Japan.

You'll state it was used on two non-military targets.

I'll say it spared many more lives on both sides.

You'll say that claim has been refuted.

OK?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I'll say it spared many more lives on both sides.

Actually, I'll just ask you how it spared lives

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
What does having nuclear weapons have to do with cleaning up messes? If anything, I think nuclear weapons just result in bigger messes.

By the way, and off topic, you never answered my question of what caused you to convert from Bush to Kerry, before you converted from Kerry to Bush.

If you ever have kids, or lead people you'll agree it's vital that you have a conversation ender. Talk and mischief and chaos can be tolerated ONLY up to a certain point. Beyond that point, they have to know you can and will drop the hammer.

I thought I had. I've listed the link to my political conversion timeline post of 9/21/04 so often, I thought you'd have run across it.

From the start of the Bush Administration I was supportive. On 9/11 I was SUPPORTIVE. When Howard Stern was fined by the FCC and Clear Channel Communications removed him from 6 of it's stations after Stern changed HIS support to Kerry, I was outraged at the suspected Bush strings behind this move, which I saw as a threat to the 1st Amendment.

Then I watched F 9/11 and was ANTI-BUSH.

Then in September I read the PNAC plan and the Lee Harris essay in "Policy Review."

So, from March 04 til September 04, I was anti-Bush and sorta pro-Kerry. Now, my fervent hope and prayer is that Bush's aggressive policy will rid the world of all the nasty cancers that threaten peace and freedom and prosperity for all and create a new climate of tranquility. As we have seen, diplomacy and the UN won't do it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Actually, I'll just ask you how it spared lives

Fanatical subjects of the Emperor were prepared to fight to the death...military AND civilians...in the upcoming invasion of Japan.

Allied forces were prepared to use every bit of force needed to defeat them.

Some sources estimate 2 million + lives would have been lost.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs killed less than 300,000 immediately or in the few months afterwards.

The war ended. Lives saved.

[aberdeenwriter]

Once again, by popular demand, is a reprint outlining my political flip flop from 2000 until now.
_________________________________________
Author Topic: Why do THEY hate US?
aberdeenwriter
Elite Member

Posts: 905
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Registered: Aug 2004
Status: Online
Posted on : 09-21-2004 03:57 PM __
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by voodoo:
Perhaps, either way I don't mind. At least he's polite. Then he could be a sort of a typical average US swing voter - a notion I find very interesting because I don't recall to have discussed with such a being before. He was on Kerry's side when Kerry had better polls than Bush and when Kerry began losing ground he began thinking about maybe Bush wasn't that bad and then when Bush had better polls than Kerry he read one article posted by Zimphire and FLIP.

Of course it is entirely possible that one article can affect one so much but it didn't really mention the Iraq campaign which aberdeenwriter suddenly fully supports (maybe he always did??) but hey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think he was all along on the neo-con-side, but used this forum to stage a "from left to right"-flipping, in order to persuade some left-ones to do the same, all for the beloved Bush-campaign. Ah, what a blessing the election-year is.

Taliesin
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neo-con, Abram Shulsky admits, "truth is not the goal" of intelligence operations, but "victory."

Mwhaaa haaa haaaaa! <diabolical laugh>

But seriously folks...

When, in the course of political events, it becomes necessary to flip-flop, a decent respect for the opinion of MacNN-kind suggest one should declare the causes which impel them to the flip-flop.

Here's a timeline of my political thoughts and feelings since November 2000 to this year.

11/07/00 - Voted Gore. (Previous votes went to Dems, Repubs, and Perot.) Viewed results with a shrug. New President deserves our support.

9/11/01 - WAR! President deserves our support. Employed by a Clear Channel radio station.

2/23/04 - Howard Stern fined by FCC after "King Of All Media" withdrew support for Bush Administration. Smacked of censorship, right-wing manipulation of 1st Amendment and possible collusion by Clear Channel when CC removed Stern show from 6 markets. OUTRAGE at Bush Administration.

6/27/04 - "Fahrenheit 9/11." Convinced of need to remove President Bush from office.

8/16/04 - 1st MacNN post.

9/8/04 - Discovered PNAC website.

9/11/04 - Nominated for first "Golden Troll"

9/12/04 - Awarded "Golden Troll" for a different post.

9/14/04 - After reading rightweb site (critical of Bush Administration) describing the New American Century plan, I was excited by the boldness of the plan but wondered if it could work and what the dangers of such a plan would be. Still for Kerry.

9/18/04 - Started thread, (Why do THEY hate US?) to further explore radical Islamic terrorism. Personal belief was that a more enlightened foreign policy and smart, strong leadership was the key to defusing terrorism. Had to search my soul to find my one non-negotiable issue: PEACE. Saw the possibility of peace through NAC plan as well as Kerry plan. Still leaning toward Kerry.

9/19/04 - Read article posted by Zimphire; "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" by Lee Harris and was blown away! I was disabused of my previous belief about the cause and solution for Islamic terrorism. FLIP-FLOP COMPLETED! I do not support many of the President's policies and yet I believe he will best deliver peace through global dominance. Because of his strong plans to make US & the world safe for democracy and his aggressive WOT, I now support BUSH.

9/20/04 - Awarded a coveted, "SMACKDOWN!!" for posted reply to MacNN member questioning my switch to Bush.

I hope this helps explain my conversion.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Nuclear weapons have only been used in combat once. That use was neither safe nor responsible.

How many other nations have used nuclear weapons irresponsibly?

And, you're wanting to spread them around MORE so that others can have a crack at using them? That's wise...

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Because we've had them for a very long time and can prove that we're safe with them? When the French gave Israel their nukes (yeah, that is damned funny), it was a huge risk, but it didn't backfire. Letting any other country have them at this point would be foolish in the extreme.

Well let's see now...isn't the U.S. the only country to ever use them?

Not that I disagree with their use on Japan. It was a legitimate use to save hundreds of thousands of allied lives lost if they had to invade Japan.

But there is the problem of a few bombs the U.S. has lost here and there. Must be some they aren't telling us about too.

I think they are finally trying to find the one on the southern U.S. coast that they lost some years back. Dang thing fell out of a plane. Woooooops.....

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Well let's see now...isn't the U.S. the only country to ever use them?

Not that I disagree with their use on Japan. It was a legitimate use to save hundreds of thousands of allied lives lost if they had to invade Japan.

But there is the problem of a few bombs the U.S. has lost here and there. Must be some they aren't telling us about too.

I think they are finally trying to find the one on the southern U.S. coast that they lost some years back. Dang thing fell out of a plane. Woooooops.....

and letting others have them, inreasing the number out there, is a good idea? I know about the one lost in the GoM, under about 10K' of water, but what others are you referring to?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and letting others have them, inreasing the number out there, is a good idea? I know about the one lost in the GoM, under about 10K' of water, but what others are you referring to?

You said the U.S. was safe, well wooopsie daisy!

And they had to close down some lab in the desert somewhere in the southwest cuz stuff was walking away. What lab was that....ooopsie!

[kido]

Interesting historical note about the creation of the nuclear weapons that were eventually used to end the war with Japan, the original push to create these weapons was because of Germany, not Japan. FDR authorized the Manhattan Project based on the recommendations of many of the world's leading scientists who feared that Germany was pursuing atomic weapons and was close to creating them using heavy water. In reality, the German atomic program was in shambles with Allied bombings destroying the heavy water processing plants and Germans scientists either defecting or not able to do the research. But, they reported to German command that they were on schedule and right up until the fall of Berlin, Hitler thought and communicated orders to use their fictional atomic bomb on London. Luckily, he was misled, but the Allies took the threat very seriously, as they should have.

kido

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
You said the U.S. was safe, well wooopsie daisy!

And they had to close down some lab in the desert somewhere in the southwest cuz stuff was walking away. What lab was that....ooopsie!

And you think letting other countries have nukes is a good idea? And compared to other countries' programs, it's very safe.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by kido:
Interesting historical note about the creation of the nuclear weapons that were eventually used to end the war with Japan, the original push to create these weapons was because of Germany, not Japan. FDR authorized the Manhattan Project based on the recommendations of many of the world's leading scientists who feared that Germany was pursuing atomic weapons and was close to creating them using heavy water. In reality, the German atomic program was in shambles with Allied bombings destroying the heavy water processing plants and Germans scientists either defecting or not able to do the research. But, they reported to German command that they were on schedule and right up until the fall of Berlin, Hitler thought and communicated orders to use their fictional atomic bomb on London. Luckily, he was misled, but the Allies took the threat very seriously, as they should have.

kido

You 'never' fail to add an important bit of information or perspective to an issue.

The dynamic to which kido refers is the same one which prompted the US to invade Iraq.

Perception is everything.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Fanatical subjects of the Emperor were prepared to fight to the death...military AND civilians...in the upcoming invasion of Japan.

Allied forces were prepared to use every bit of force needed to defeat them.

Some sources estimate 2 million + lives would have been lost.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs killed less than 300,000 immediately or in the few months afterwards.

The war ended. Lives saved.

How did killing over 250,000 Japanese civilians end the war?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
And you think letting other countries have nukes is a good idea? And compared to other countries' programs, it's very safe.

Personally, I'd prefer no one have nuclear weapons. But, if one nation is going to have them, my second choice would be to see a balance of power.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
How did killing over 250,000 Japanese civilians end the war?

The Japanese did not want to continue losing those numbers of people and cities (with the dropping of only TWO BOMBS) and they wisely decided to surrender.

All the lives that would have been lost (on both sides) in the expected invasion were spared.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Personally, I'd prefer no one have nuclear weapons. But, if one nation is going to have them, my second choice would be to see a balance of power.

You must be too young to really remember the Cold War. It was scary, and dangerous, with the same kind of balance of power that lead to WW-I. I wouldn't be nostalgic for that.

[idjeff]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
How did killing over 250,000 Japanese civilians end the war?

Are you serious?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The Japanese did not want to continue losing those numbers of people and cities (with the dropping of only TWO BOMBS) and they wisely decided to surrender.

All the lives that would have been lost (on both sides) in the expected invasion were spared.

So, targetting civilians is ok as long as you kill less than might have been estimated to be killed otherwise in a possible worst case scenario?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by idjeff:
Are you serious?

Be kind. My guess is he just didn't know the timeline of events.

Aug. 9 Hiroshima, Aug. 14 Nagasaki.

A few days later, surrender.

EDIT: I just read his response. Sadly, not ignorant. It's MUCH worse. He's been "liberalized."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You must be too young to really remember the Cold War. It was scary, and dangerous, with the same kind of balance of power that lead to WW-I. I wouldn't be nostalgic for that.

I know that the Cold War was a preferable scenario to either the US or USSR being the only nation having nuclear weapons.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
No, not in and of itself. However the reality is HE DID and DESPERATELY SO!

I dare you to refute this.

Just reread my post. I agree that he probably would have disarmed if given the chance to, but the UN sanctions and the UN inspections were keeping him from doing that.

I dare you to refute this
(If you are not certain, just `read' the report by Dulfer )

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by idjeff:
Are you serious?

I'm just wanting to hear aberdeen justify the use of terrorism as a means to ending WWII

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
EDIT: I just read his response. Sadly, not ignorant. It's MUCH worse. He's been "liberalized."

I believe you were once "liberalized" before you were "reconservatized". Why, again, did you change from being a Bush supporter to a Kerry supporter, before you changed from being a Kerry supporter to a Bush supporter?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...

So you are rewriting history based on your hindsight. But here is the absurdity of your position. The only way we know that Saddam "complied with the UN" is because we removed the regime and invaded the country. It's that invasion that gives you this certainty. But for the invasion we would still be guessing. You can never ever have the degree of certainty before that you have after, and conseqently you can never decide retroactively based on hindsight.

Based on what we knew at the time, Saddam was a threat and was in violation of his obligations. Based on what we now know, the second the inspectors left and the sanctions were lifted, he intended to go back to developing WMD. And you would have trustingly facilitated him.

Well, the point is that before invading another sovereign nation, the reason `to make sure that the reports issued by the UN weapons inspectors are indeed accurate' is just not good enough. The intelligence presented by the US failed to convince most other important allies as well as the UN weapons inspectors themselves. So `based on what we knew' is `based on what the Bush administration was thinking' at most, because most important allies did not agree with the US' assessment.

If you consequently follow your argument, an invasion of Iran and North Korea would be justified as well. Similarly, the US could invade any country that fails to comply with America's standards of non-proliferation. Strange enough, Pakistan was never on that list, and now they do have nuclear capabilities.

Thirdly, there was no talk about lifting the sanctions when the crisis about Iraq began (and escalated), so your argument to `he would revive all his programs and continue where he left off' is misleading.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I know that the Cold War was a preferable scenario to either the US or USSR being the only nation having nuclear weapons.

The USSR? What is this "USSR" (runs to history book) Oh, THAT.

Sorry, I think the current situation is far preferable. Both the US and Russia (and China, and France, the UK, etc) have nuclear weapons, but they are no longer on hair-trigger alert any more. That was a really dangerous situation. The US once even went to nuclear alert because a flock of birds appeared on NORAD's radar. Scary!

No, if you want a reminder of how wonderfully safe and stable bilateral nuclear standoffs are, just look at India and Pakistan. You really think that is a good thing?

I also remind you that the US had a nuclear monopoly from 1945, after the defeat of Japan, to 1949, when the Soviet Union exploded their first bomb. The US did not act irresponsibly in any way. In fact, it's probably the only thing that stopped Western Europe from being invaded.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Thirdly, there was no talk about lifting the sanctions when the crisis about Iraq began (and escalated),

Go back and read some newspapers from 1999 and 2000. There was lot's of talk about lifting sanctions. Have a guess which two countries were in favor of lifting them?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I know that the Cold War was a preferable scenario to either the US or USSR being the only nation having nuclear weapons.

In another thread, TODAY, you wrote the following:

"Speculation of possible futures is not fact and cannot be used to justify war."

But that's EXACTLY what you are doing here. Mr. Kerry, er, I mean Wiskedjak.

Furthermore, despite the fact there were no COLD WAR BATTLES per se, there were HUNDREDS of thousands of lives lost in the Cold War.

It was a struggle between Communism and Freedom!

Surprised? Try Viet-Nam, just to name possibly the one you've heard of.

You say you know the world was better off by having had a Cold War, but in reality you are merely SPECULATING.

Your assertion is bothersome.

Finally, re: the use of the A-Bombs on Japan.

I SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU this argument was going to result as it has, but you tricked me into it.

Alright, by doing so you just used up any good will you may have had in my book.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Go back and read some newspapers from 1999 and 2000. There was lot's of talk about lifting sanctions. Have a guess which two countries were in favor of lifting them?

Reread my post. I said at the time the crisis escalated, and I would roughly date that back to 2002-2003. You also imply that possible resumption of `sleeping' WMD programs and (apart from things buried in scientists' backyards), at least the material would have to be bought again. I don't think this would have gone unnoticed, the country would have been under surveillance by all major powers.

So even after partially lifting the sanctions to ease the suffering of the Iraqi population, Hussein's capabilities to develop WMDs would be very limited at best.