Discussion:
Should we blow the sh*t out of Iran? Yes or No
(too old to reply)
swabbie
2006-01-03 03:15:14 UTC
Permalink
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
Nev
2006-01-03 04:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Hey "swabbie", you ever heard of putting "OT" at the begining of the subject
line?

No?

Then what's your "Should we blow...." have to do with drum & bugle corps
discussion?

Nothing, you say?

Blow somewhere else.
Big Rich Soprano
2006-01-03 06:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nev
Hey "swabbie", you ever heard of putting "OT" at the begining of the subject
line?
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!,,
Nev
2006-01-03 07:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
Lawrence Glickman
2006-01-03 08:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
George W Bush will make that decision, just like he decided regarding
Afghanistan and Iraq. And right this second, in-country type folks
are pinpointing the Iranian targets for the satellite-guided-missiles.

Don't plan on moving to Iran in the forseeable future.

Lg
m.s.
redc1c4
2006-01-03 09:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
George W Bush will make that decision, just like he decided regarding
Afghanistan and Iraq. And right this second, in-country type folks
are pinpointing the Iranian targets for the satellite-guided-missiles.
Don't plan on moving to Iran in the forseeable future.
Lg
m.s.
why not? the glow in the dark feature should save me bundles on
my electrical bills.....

redc1c4,
is there anything important downwind from Iran? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Phil Earnhardt
2006-01-03 09:32:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:36:17 -0600, Lawrence Glickman
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
George W Bush will make that decision, just like he decided regarding
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not really. No such actions couldn't have been taken without the
approval of teh Senate.
Post by Lawrence Glickman
And right this second, in-country type folks
are pinpointing the Iranian targets for the satellite-guided-missiles.
Don't plan on moving to Iran in the forseeable future.
When would you like to live in a place where the leader denies that
the holocause happened?
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Lg
m.s.
--phil
Gunner
2006-01-03 11:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
George W Bush will make that decision, just like he decided regarding
Afghanistan and Iraq. And right this second, in-country type folks
are pinpointing the Iranian targets for the satellite-guided-missiles.
Don't plan on moving to Iran in the forseeable future.
Lg
m.s.
If the Israelies let fly..unless you have a fondness for the face of the
moon and are prepared to wear lead lined underwear...simply scratch Iran
off the itinerary for say...10 yrs

Gunner
Nick Hull
2006-01-03 13:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
George W Bush will make that decision, just like he decided regarding
Afghanistan and Iraq. And right this second, in-country type folks
are pinpointing the Iranian targets for the satellite-guided-missiles.
Don't plan on moving to Iran in the forseeable future.
Lg
m.s.
If the Israelies let fly..unless you have a fondness for the face of the
moon and are prepared to wear lead lined underwear...simply scratch Iran
off the itinerary for say...10 yrs
Gunner
If the Israelis let fly, they might face nuclear retaliation from
several directions. Don't plan on moving to Israel in the forseeable
future.
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
Gunner
2006-01-03 16:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Gunner
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
George W Bush will make that decision, just like he decided regarding
Afghanistan and Iraq. And right this second, in-country type folks
are pinpointing the Iranian targets for the satellite-guided-missiles.
Don't plan on moving to Iran in the forseeable future.
Lg
m.s.
If the Israelies let fly..unless you have a fondness for the face of the
moon and are prepared to wear lead lined underwear...simply scratch Iran
off the itinerary for say...10 yrs
Gunner
If the Israelis let fly, they might face nuclear retaliation from
several directions. Don't plan on moving to Israel in the forseeable
future.
Who will launch on the Jews? Pakistan?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
r***@hotmail.com
2006-01-03 17:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Who will launch on the Jews? Pakistan?
Gunner
--------------------------
A friend who defected from the USSR thinks that in any
Israel Vs Arab nuke out Russia will step in an nuke
key Israeli locations. He also thinks they will deny any
and all involvement.
Post by Gunner
From some leaked reports to the press Israel kept a
modified fighter with enough legs to reach Moscow
to deliver a present.

There is little love lost between Russia and Israel.

Of course the French have a boomer and could get into the act.

Terry
redc1c4
2006-01-03 18:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner
Who will launch on the Jews? Pakistan?
Gunner
--------------------------
A friend who defected from the USSR thinks that in any
Israel Vs Arab nuke out Russia will step in an nuke
key Israeli locations. He also thinks they will deny any
and all involvement.
Post by Gunner
From some leaked reports to the press Israel kept a
modified fighter with enough legs to reach Moscow
to deliver a present.
There is little love lost between Russia and Israel.
Of course the French have a boomer and could get into the act.
Terry
oh yeah.... right. like the French would do anything but piss their
panties and surrender.

as for the Russians, it would just prove that Slavic anti-Semitism is
as alive and virulent as ever.....

redc1c4,
(which is why neither country is likely to ever be a great nation. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
GOD's CREATOR!
2006-01-03 19:22:33 UTC
Permalink
redc1c4 wrote:
.....
...
Post by redc1c4
oh yeah.... right. like the French would do anything but piss their
panties and surrender.
as for the Russians, it would just prove that Slavic anti-Semitism is
as alive and virulent as ever.....
redc1c4,
(which is why neither country is likely to ever be a great nation. %-)
*Thus spake God's Creator*

What do you mean ?

Please give your complete definition of: *A Great Nation* ?






God's Creator!
( *Sorry, I don't forgive shit* )
:-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
USED GODS SALE! : http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nev
2006-01-03 21:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Israel Vs Arab nuke-out, Russia will step in an nuke
key Israeli locations.
[shudder] Hope they all can hold off doing so until AFTER we return from our
pilgrimage there in early Spring.
tg
2006-01-03 20:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner
Who will launch on the Jews? Pakistan?
Gunner
--------------------------
A friend who defected from the USSR thinks that in any
Israel Vs Arab nuke out Russia will step in an nuke
key Israeli locations. He also thinks they will deny any
and all involvement.
Post by Gunner
From some leaked reports to the press Israel kept a
modified fighter with enough legs to reach Moscow
to deliver a present.
There is little love lost between Russia and Israel.
Of course the French have a boomer and could get into the act.
yes but the french would never want to offend their muslim community...
Gunner
2006-01-04 06:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Post by Gunner
Who will launch on the Jews? Pakistan?
Gunner
--------------------------
A friend who defected from the USSR thinks that in any
Israel Vs Arab nuke out Russia will step in an nuke
key Israeli locations. He also thinks they will deny any
and all involvement.
Post by Gunner
From some leaked reports to the press Israel kept a
modified fighter with enough legs to reach Moscow
to deliver a present.
There is little love lost between Russia and Israel.
Of course the French have a boomer and could get into the act.
Terry
Several things that make this a non starter. First of all..the Russian
nukes would have to be man portable or delivered in trucks etc..any
missile or aircraft delivering nukes to Israel would be tracked well
in advance

Secondly...each plutonium or uranium production facility can be traced
by the nuclear footprint of the actuall fissal agent used. They are as
individual as finger prints.

If the material was shown to have come from Arzamas-16/Reactor 9....it
would be the smoking gun of all smoking guns.

The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.

And they are even more pragmatic now days.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Mens sana
2006-01-04 10:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.

Mens sana.
Gunner
2006-01-04 17:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?

Why do you like mega piles of dead babies?

No wonder you post anonymously.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Mens sana
2006-01-05 10:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.

America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.

Mens sana.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Gunner
Why do you like mega piles of dead babies?
No wonder you post anonymously.
So is 'Gunner' your family name or your given name?

MS.
Gunner
2006-01-05 17:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
Yes it would, if the attempts had been serious and unconditional. They
unfortunately were not.
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
Mens sana.
Your opinon, while fatally flawed..is noted.

Gunner
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Gunner
Why do you like mega piles of dead babies?
No wonder you post anonymously.
So is 'Gunner' your family name or your given name?
MS.
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Mens sana
2006-01-05 19:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
Yes it would, if the attempts had been serious and unconditional. They
unfortunately were not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.

Mens sana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
Mens sana.
Your opinon, while fatally flawed..is noted.
Gunner
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Gunner
Why do you like mega piles of dead babies?
No wonder you post anonymously.
So is 'Gunner' your family name or your given name?
MS.
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Colin Campbell
2006-01-05 21:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Mens sana
2006-01-05 23:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?
The Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor remain on the
throne and that he would not be indicted or tried for war crimes.

There being no further need to prolong the war after the atomic bombs had
been tested and demonstrated, the allies, specifically the Americans who
were calling the shots in the Pacific theatre, were happy to accept the
conditional surrender of Japan.

Mens sana.
SteveL
2006-01-06 00:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?
The Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor remain on the
throne and that he would not be indicted or tried for war crimes.
There being no further need to prolong the war after the atomic bombs had
been tested and demonstrated, the allies, specifically the Americans who
were calling the shots in the Pacific theatre, were happy to accept the
conditional surrender of Japan.
Mens sana.
Is that true? I've always been under the impression that we got the
unconditional surrender but let Japan keep Hirohito anyway.
AUK Registrar
2006-01-06 02:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveL
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?
The Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor remain on the
throne and that he would not be indicted or tried for war crimes.
This not the only initial Japanese condition.
Post by SteveL
Post by Mens sana
There being no further need to prolong the war after the atomic bombs had
been tested and demonstrated, the allies, specifically the Americans who
were calling the shots in the Pacific theatre, were happy to accept the
conditional surrender of Japan.
Is that true? I've always been under the impression that we got the
unconditional surrender but let Japan keep Hirohito anyway.
"We" (the Allies) did. Hirohito was retained as a way of keeping the
populace from getting unruly. The only restriction was that he renounce his
"godhood".

Mens sana is just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

--
AUK Registrar
Providing clues to the cluless since time began
Mens sana
2006-01-06 12:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUK Registrar
Post by SteveL
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?
The Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor remain on the
throne and that he would not be indicted or tried for war crimes.
This not the only initial Japanese condition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's hope for you yet, I spy a grain of reality. Of course the Japanese
didn't secure all the conditions they wanted but they did get some. It was a
negotiated surrender.

Mens sana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar
Post by SteveL
Post by Mens sana
There being no further need to prolong the war after the atomic bombs had
been tested and demonstrated, the allies, specifically the Americans who
were calling the shots in the Pacific theatre, were happy to accept the
conditional surrender of Japan.
Is that true? I've always been under the impression that we got the
unconditional surrender but let Japan keep Hirohito anyway.
"We" (the Allies) did. Hirohito was retained as a way of keeping the
populace from getting unruly. The only restriction was that he renounce his
"godhood".
Mens sana is just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
--
AUK Registrar
Providing clues to the cluless since time began
Gunner
2006-01-06 04:53:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:21:10 +0000, SteveL
Post by SteveL
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?
The Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor remain on the
throne and that he would not be indicted or tried for war crimes.
There being no further need to prolong the war after the atomic bombs had
been tested and demonstrated, the allies, specifically the Americans who
were calling the shots in the Pacific theatre, were happy to accept the
conditional surrender of Japan.
Mens sana.
Is that true? I've always been under the impression that we got the
unconditional surrender but let Japan keep Hirohito anyway.
McArther wanted Hirohito to help smooth the way for the occupation. He
was afterall..the Godhead of the Japanese people and simply hanging
him would have not gone over well. The nips on the other
hand..realizing we were being merciful (a somewhat foriegn concept for
those having grown up under the Code of Bushido) and the fact that
their Godhead ordered them to submit..did exactly that. With few
exceptions. I think the occupation of Germany generated more post war
attacks via Werewolves etc..then occured in Japan, by an order of
magnitude.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Mens sana
2006-01-06 12:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:21:10 +0000, SteveL
Post by SteveL
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?
The Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor remain on the
throne and that he would not be indicted or tried for war crimes.
There being no further need to prolong the war after the atomic bombs had
been tested and demonstrated, the allies, specifically the Americans who
were calling the shots in the Pacific theatre, were happy to accept the
conditional surrender of Japan.
Mens sana.
Is that true? I've always been under the impression that we got the
unconditional surrender but let Japan keep Hirohito anyway.
McArther wanted Hirohito to help smooth the way for the occupation. He
was afterall..the Godhead of the Japanese people and simply hanging
him would have not gone over well. The nips on the other
hand..realizing we were being merciful (a somewhat foriegn concept for
those having grown up under the Code of Bushido) and the fact that
their Godhead ordered them to submit..did exactly that. With few
exceptions. I think the occupation of Germany generated more post war
attacks via Werewolves etc..then occured in Japan, by an order of
magnitude.
Gunner
Mercy is not a trait that was associated with the Americans in the Pacific.
For instance, in the television series 'Hell in the Pacific' that I refer to
elsewhere in this thread, some American troops were happy to recount their
participation in war crimes.

One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.

It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.

Mens sana.
Pope Secola VI
2006-01-06 14:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
Another fucking lying foreigner (Irish probably) rewriting history to
support their little fantasys or their little pathetic country, that the
US would do the world a favor if we nuked the bastards off the face of
the earth.
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
dan
2006-01-07 01:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pope Secola VI
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
Another fucking lying foreigner (Irish probably) rewriting history to
support their little fantasys or their little pathetic country, that the
US would do the world a favor if we nuked the bastards off the face of
the earth.
So, point out his errors...

So far, I ahven't seen any major ones (but I haven't been following
this thread very long).

Dan
Gunner
2006-01-06 16:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Mercy is not a trait that was associated with the Americans in the Pacific.
For instance, in the television series 'Hell in the Pacific' that I refer to
elsewhere in this thread, some American troops were happy to recount their
participation in war crimes.
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Nog
2006-01-06 16:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mercy is not a trait that was associated with the Americans in the
Pacific. For instance, in the television series 'Hell in the Pacific' that
I refer to elsewhere in this thread, some American troops were happy to
recount their participation in war crimes.
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told
of how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they
captured their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
If we get too bold, foreign secret plots will develop to cripple and/or
destroy the US completely and permanently. Tread lightly upon the heads of
your enemies .
Mosquebuster
2006-01-06 16:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Or call out "MEDIC" from inside a foxhole and then shoot the corpsman when
he came running ---
Colin Campbell
2006-01-06 18:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mercy is not a trait that was associated with the Americans in the Pacific.
For instance, in the television series 'Hell in the Pacific' that I refer to
elsewhere in this thread, some American troops were happy to recount their
participation in war crimes.
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
And why these teams were called 'possum squads?


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Mens sana
2006-01-06 23:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mercy is not a trait that was associated with the Americans in the Pacific.
For instance, in the television series 'Hell in the Pacific' that I refer to
elsewhere in this thread, some American troops were happy to recount their
participation in war crimes.
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
And why these teams were called 'possum squads?
A former Marine tells his tale of murdering prisoners and you're concerned
with what the murderers called themselves! Nice priorities.

Mens sana.
Colin Campbell
2006-01-07 05:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
And why these teams were called 'possum squads?
A former Marine tells his tale of murdering prisoners and you're concerned
with what the murderers called themselves! Nice priorities.
Did you bother to read your own post? What possible reason do you
have for claiming that we shot prisoners?



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Robert Sturgeon
2006-01-07 15:29:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:44:10 -0800, Colin Campbell
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
And why these teams were called 'possum squads?
A former Marine tells his tale of murdering prisoners and you're concerned
with what the murderers called themselves! Nice priorities.
Did you bother to read your own post? What possible reason do you
have for claiming that we shot prisoners?
As detailed elsewhere, U.S. soldiers didn't usually shoot
Japanese prisoners, because they very seldom took any
individual Japanese prisoners, because it was too dangerous.
They didn't shoot any prisoners they did manage to take on a
mass basis, under officers' orders, as did the Germans.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Gunner
2006-01-07 06:03:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:03:30 -0800, Colin Campbell
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mercy is not a trait that was associated with the Americans in the Pacific.
For instance, in the television series 'Hell in the Pacific' that I refer to
elsewhere in this thread, some American troops were happy to recount their
participation in war crimes.
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
And why these teams were called 'possum squads?
??? its obvious to anyone. You go around shooting those who would
shoot you in the back.

Do you leave live rattlesnakes in your living room?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Mens sana
2006-01-06 22:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mercy is not a trait that was associated with the Americans in the Pacific.
For instance, in the television series 'Hell in the Pacific' that I refer to
elsewhere in this thread, some American troops were happy to recount their
participation in war crimes.
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?

Mens sana.
Colin Campbell
2006-01-07 05:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?
What prisoners? Your own post indicated that they shot any Japanese
soldier whom they suspected was 'playing possum.' (You do know what
the term means?)




--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
redc1c4
2006-01-07 05:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?
What prisoners? Your own post indicated that they shot any Japanese
soldier whom they suspected was 'playing possum.' (You do know what
the term means?)
he prolly doesn't even know what a possum is.

redc1c4,
who can find them in his back yard. (american, not Japanese. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Tank Fixer
2006-01-07 07:31:21 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@drunkenbastards.org.ies>,
on Sat, 07 Jan 2006 05:53:27 GMT,
Post by redc1c4
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?
What prisoners? Your own post indicated that they shot any Japanese
soldier whom they suspected was 'playing possum.' (You do know what
the term means?)
he prolly doesn't even know what a possum is.
redc1c4,
who can find them in his back yard. (american, not Japanese. %-)
Not many possum in my neighborhood anymore.
Not since the raccoons moved in
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Pope Secola VI
2006-01-07 14:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tank Fixer
on Sat, 07 Jan 2006 05:53:27 GMT,
Post by redc1c4
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?
Yea tell that to the Japanese, or perhaps you never heard of the Bataan
Death march.
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by redc1c4
Post by Colin Campbell
What prisoners? Your own post indicated that they shot any Japanese
soldier whom they suspected was 'playing possum.' (You do know what
the term means?)
he prolly doesn't even know what a possum is.
redc1c4,
who can find them in his back yard. (american, not Japanese. %-)
Not many possum in my neighborhood anymore.
Not since the raccoons moved in
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
Tank Fixer
2006-01-07 20:40:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@web-ster.com>,
on Sat, 07 Jan 2006 06:58:21 -0800,
Post by Pope Secola VI
Post by Tank Fixer
on Sat, 07 Jan 2006 05:53:27 GMT,
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?
Yea tell that to the Japanese, or perhaps you never heard of the Bataan
Death march.
I didn't way that.
Just for the record.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Gunner
2006-01-07 06:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?
Mens sana.
They are only prisoners if they have surrendered, or are captured and
are under your complete control. For their security and yours.

Until then..they are combatants and are to be treated under the Rules
of War, which in this case..means you can shoot them.

There are also a number of unspoken, but historically valid Rules of
War. The Black Flag being one of them. The Black Flag option generally
is only used when one side has instituted it themselves. In this
case..the Black Flag was instituted by the Japs..and they were treated
by the Black Flag rules.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
pyotr filipivich
2006-01-07 23:08:53 UTC
Permalink
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?
Only if you believe that captured solders of the enemy are not lower
than pond scum, disgraced by being captured.
Bushido doesn't have much compassion for POWs: they lost, they are
dishonored, nobody will want them back.
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
They are only prisoners if they have surrendered, or are captured and
are under your complete control. For their security and yours.
Until then..they are combatants and are to be treated under the Rules
of War, which in this case..means you can shoot them.
And only if you buy into the idea of POWs being "just guys doing their
job", to be held till the war is over, and then returned.
Post by Gunner
There are also a number of unspoken, but historically valid Rules of
War. The Black Flag being one of them. The Black Flag option generally
is only used when one side has instituted it themselves. In this
case..the Black Flag was instituted by the Japs..and they were treated
by the Black Flag rules.
Very unofficially, of course.

Any prisoners brought to the rear will be taken care of in accordance
with the Geneva Conventions.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them, Selecting a new Them
Gunner
2006-01-08 05:35:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 23:08:53 GMT, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
You are aware of the Japanese tendency to "play possom" and shoot
Americans in the back?
Gunner
Are you aware that murdering prisoners is a war crime?
Only if you believe that captured solders of the enemy are not lower
than pond scum, disgraced by being captured.
Bushido doesn't have much compassion for POWs: they lost, they are
dishonored, nobody will want them back.
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
They are only prisoners if they have surrendered, or are captured and
are under your complete control. For their security and yours.
Until then..they are combatants and are to be treated under the Rules
of War, which in this case..means you can shoot them.
And only if you buy into the idea of POWs being "just guys doing their
job", to be held till the war is over, and then returned.
Post by Gunner
There are also a number of unspoken, but historically valid Rules of
War. The Black Flag being one of them. The Black Flag option generally
is only used when one side has instituted it themselves. In this
case..the Black Flag was instituted by the Japs..and they were treated
by the Black Flag rules.
Very unofficially, of course.
Any prisoners brought to the rear will be taken care of in accordance
with the Geneva Conventions.
Absolutely. And many many many Japs were indeed taken prisoner, and
repatriated after the wars end. Millions actually.

Ever read the story about the British being sent into French IndoChina
(Vietnam) at wars end to hold it for the French, and taking the
surrender of many thousands of Japanese troops, and then being
attacked by the Viet Mihn..and arming the Japs troops and fighting by
their sides against the Communists?

A Majority of the British troops being Gurkas IRRC..fighting besides
the Japs against the Comms...history makes really wierd bedfellows
sometimes.. truth is stranger than friction.

Fascinating reading..google it up.

Gunner
Post by pyotr filipivich
tschus
pyotr
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
pyotr filipivich
2006-01-08 10:08:37 UTC
Permalink
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
Post by Gunner
Post by pyotr filipivich
Very unofficially, of course.
Any prisoners brought to the rear will be taken care of in accordance
with the Geneva Conventions.
Absolutely. And many many many Japs were indeed taken prisoner, and
repatriated after the wars end. Millions actually.
Ever read the story about the British being sent into French IndoChina
(Vietnam) at wars end to hold it for the French, and taking the
surrender of many thousands of Japanese troops, and then being
attacked by the Viet Mihn..and arming the Japs troops and fighting by
their sides against the Communists?
My understanding was that the Senior British Officer present (the
ranking former POW) released the armories of his POWs (the Japanese Army)
and turned them loose on the Viet Minh (again.)
Post by Gunner
A Majority of the British troops being Gurkas IRRC..fighting besides
the Japs against the Comms...history makes really wierd bedfellows
sometimes.. truth is stranger than friction.
And then we have the spectacle of former SS soldats fighting the Com's
under the French Tricolor as part of the Foreign Legion.

And the incident on the retreat from the Chosen Reservoir in 1950. One
of the NCOs was told by his commanding officer to go on. His response was
classic "I vill not leef my Offizier." Ja, yet another German NCO who
enlisted in the US Army.
Post by Gunner
Fascinating reading..google it up.
--
Sometimes fate hits you with the Clown Hammer of Circumstance
and there's nothing to do but sit there and watch the little
birds fly around your head." - Tara Calishain, ResearchBuzz
Robert Sturgeon
2006-01-07 15:25:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:42:16 -0000, "Mens sana"
<***@Area51.cia> wrote:

(snips)
Post by Mens sana
Mercy is not a trait that was associated with the Americans in the Pacific.
I knew a Marine (since died) who was in the Pacific. He
said, rather matter-of-factly, that they didn't take
prisoners. The Japanese wouldn't surrender, so they quickly
stopped worrying about it and just killed them all. To do
otherwise was extremely dangerous, as the Japanese would
pretend to be surrendering, or pretend to be injured, and
then attack their captors or saviors. Of course they would
have accepted surrenders of units under command of officers,
but that didn't happen either -- at least not that my
acquaintance experienced.
Post by Mens sana
For instance, in the television series 'Hell in the Pacific' that I refer to
elsewhere in this thread, some American troops were happy to recount their
participation in war crimes.
There were always a few American war crimes in any theater
of war, including Europe. But there is no reason to think
the Americans were especially predisposed to committing war
crimes against the Japanese. The Japanese set the rules by
refusing to surrender in a manner safe for their would-be
captors.
Post by Mens sana
One of them, a former Marine with the unlikely name, Eugene Sledge, told of
how the Americans on the island of Peleliu would form what he called,
'Possum Squads', to murder any wounded Japanese soldiers after they captured
their positions.
It's not surprising that the Japanese were so often reluctant to surrender
when it could mean a death sentence.
If the Japanese had been willing to surrender, the Americans
wouldn't have HAD to kill them.
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
Indeed. Or do you expect people to risk their lives by
trying to accept surrenders from people who are most likely
going to try to kill them at an opportune moment?

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Mosquebuster
2006-01-06 00:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
There being no further need to prolong the war after the atomic bombs had
been tested and demonstrated, the allies, specifically the Americans who
were calling the shots in the Pacific theatre, were happy to accept the
conditional surrender of Japan.
Besides, Gen. Curt Lemay had just about run out of Jap cities for his "fire
jobs" anyway:

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Payback's a bitch, huh, Hiroshi?
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

It's amazing what you can do with low-tech napalm and magnesium.

Asslifters take note ---
Gunner
2006-01-06 04:55:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:46:21 GMT, "Mosquebuster"
Post by Mosquebuster
Post by Mens sana
There being no further need to prolong the war after the atomic bombs had
been tested and demonstrated, the allies, specifically the Americans who
were calling the shots in the Pacific theatre, were happy to accept the
conditional surrender of Japan.
Besides, Gen. Curt Lemay had just about run out of Jap cities for his "fire
http://www.eplusservices.com/aviart/rainoffire.jpg
http://www.history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/b04.jpg
http://www.history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/ca01.jpg
Payback's a bitch, huh, Hiroshi?
http://www.history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/f01.jpg
http://www.history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/cb04.jpg
http://www.history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/cb05.jpg
http://www.history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/f02.jpg
http://www.history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/f03.jpg
It's amazing what you can do with low-tech napalm and magnesium.
Asslifters take note ---
Particularly those who live in a wood and paper civilization.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Colin Campbell
2006-01-06 18:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?
The Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor remain on the
throne and that he would not be indicted or tried for war crimes.
And unlike the earlier conditions - we found these to be acceptable.

In fact why don't you contrast these conditions to Japan's earlier
conditions? (It appears that you are trying to make it sound like
these were Japan's conditions prior to our dropping the atomic bombs.)




--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Mens sana
2006-01-06 23:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
What makes you think this? Especially when the historical record
disagrees with you?
The Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor remain on the
throne and that he would not be indicted or tried for war crimes.
And unlike the earlier conditions - we found these to be acceptable.
In fact why don't you contrast these conditions to Japan's earlier
conditions? (It appears that you are trying to make it sound like
these were Japan's conditions prior to our dropping the atomic bombs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America claimed that the bombs had to be used to force Japan to surrender
unconditionally. My point is that that this is clearly a lie since America
was quite willing to accept a conditional surrender once the bombs had been
tested and demonstrated to the world.

You've conceded that the surrender was conditional thus you've conceded that
the stated American reason for prolonging the war into August was a lie.

Go on, take that last little step and admit that the only rational
explanation for this is the blindingly obvious desire to test the bombs
against what Tibetts cynically called, 'Virgin targets'. You'll feel better.

Mens sana.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Campbell
2006-01-07 05:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
And unlike the earlier conditions - we found these to be acceptable.
In fact why don't you contrast these conditions to Japan's earlier
conditions? (It appears that you are trying to make it sound like
these were Japan's conditions prior to our dropping the atomic bombs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America claimed that the bombs had to be used to force Japan to surrender
unconditionally. My point is that that this is clearly a lie since America
was quite willing to accept a conditional surrender once the bombs had been
tested and demonstrated to the world.
Who claimed this? The bombs were used to force Japan to surrender
under conditions that we felt were acceptable.

BTW - I notice that you seem to be completely unable to provide
references for your claims. Have you done any research whatsoever
into the last days of the war with Japan?



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Tank Fixer
2006-01-07 07:32:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:47:43 -0800,
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
And unlike the earlier conditions - we found these to be acceptable.
In fact why don't you contrast these conditions to Japan's earlier
conditions? (It appears that you are trying to make it sound like
these were Japan's conditions prior to our dropping the atomic bombs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America claimed that the bombs had to be used to force Japan to surrender
unconditionally. My point is that that this is clearly a lie since America
was quite willing to accept a conditional surrender once the bombs had been
tested and demonstrated to the world.
Who claimed this? The bombs were used to force Japan to surrender
under conditions that we felt were acceptable.
BTW - I notice that you seem to be completely unable to provide
references for your claims. Have you done any research whatsoever
into the last days of the war with Japan?
HE gives references, remember he tells us to go watch the History Channel
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Pope Secola VI
2006-01-07 14:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tank Fixer
on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:47:43 -0800,
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
And unlike the earlier conditions - we found these to be acceptable.
In fact why don't you contrast these conditions to Japan's earlier
conditions? (It appears that you are trying to make it sound like
these were Japan's conditions prior to our dropping the atomic bombs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America claimed that the bombs had to be used to force Japan to surrender
unconditionally. My point is that that this is clearly a lie since America
was quite willing to accept a conditional surrender once the bombs had been
tested and demonstrated to the world.
Who claimed this? The bombs were used to force Japan to surrender
under conditions that we felt were acceptable.
BTW - I notice that you seem to be completely unable to provide
references for your claims. Have you done any research whatsoever
into the last days of the war with Japan?
HE gives references, remember he tells us to go watch the History Channel
There was a special program on National Public Television that looked at
the last days of the war with Japan and hit came to the conclusion that
the bombs were not only justified but necessary.

So you can get any thing you want from the little square box in the corner.
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
Tank Fixer
2006-01-07 20:39:07 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@web-ster.com>,
on Sat, 07 Jan 2006 06:56:24 -0800,
Post by Pope Secola VI
Post by Tank Fixer
on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:47:43 -0800,
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
And unlike the earlier conditions - we found these to be acceptable.
In fact why don't you contrast these conditions to Japan's earlier
conditions? (It appears that you are trying to make it sound like
these were Japan's conditions prior to our dropping the atomic bombs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America claimed that the bombs had to be used to force Japan to surrender
unconditionally. My point is that that this is clearly a lie since America
was quite willing to accept a conditional surrender once the bombs had been
tested and demonstrated to the world.
Who claimed this? The bombs were used to force Japan to surrender
under conditions that we felt were acceptable.
BTW - I notice that you seem to be completely unable to provide
references for your claims. Have you done any research whatsoever
into the last days of the war with Japan?
HE gives references, remember he tells us to go watch the History Channel
There was a special program on National Public Television that looked at
the last days of the war with Japan and hit came to the conclusion that
the bombs were not only justified but necessary.
So you can get any thing you want from the little square box in the corner.
Yup.
Sometimes even in the same program..
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Gunner
2006-01-06 04:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
Yes it would, if the attempts had been serious and unconditional. They
unfortunately were not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America made no attempt to gauge the seriousness of the Japanese surrender
attempts because it needed the war to continue until the bombs could be
tested and demonstrated. In any event, the eventual Japanese surrender was
not unconditional.
Mens sana.
You have cites for your claim?

And Im afraid McArther would tend to disagree with you about the
terms. The japs got what he gave them. No more..no less.

Gunner


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Colin Campbell
2006-01-05 17:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
What attempts to 'surrender?' The Japanese wanted cease-fire terms
that were unacceptable (such as keeping territory in Manchuria).

I recommend that you read the book 'Downfall' and learn something
about the end of the war with Japan.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Mens sana
2006-01-05 20:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
What attempts to 'surrender?' The Japanese wanted cease-fire terms
that were unacceptable (such as keeping territory in Manchuria).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, territory in Manchuria. I wonder what happened to that. Your travels
didn't take you to Yalta in February '45 did they Colin?

Mens sana.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Colin Campbell
I recommend that you read the book 'Downfall' and learn something
about the end of the war with Japan.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Colin Campbell
2006-01-05 21:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
What attempts to 'surrender?' The Japanese wanted cease-fire terms
that were unacceptable (such as keeping territory in Manchuria).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, territory in Manchuria. I wonder what happened to that. Your travels
didn't take you to Yalta in February '45 did they Colin?
And your point being? The fact is that we examined their peace
proposals and considered them to be insufficient.

If you have any actual references that indicate otherwise - please
post them.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Mens sana
2006-01-05 23:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
What attempts to 'surrender?' The Japanese wanted cease-fire terms
that were unacceptable (such as keeping territory in Manchuria).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, territory in Manchuria. I wonder what happened to that. Your travels
didn't take you to Yalta in February '45 did they Colin?
And your point being? The fact is that we examined their peace
proposals and considered them to be insufficient.
If you have any actual references that indicate otherwise - please
post them.
The old, 'get him to prove a negative', trick eh?

It's late and I'm going to bed. Perhaps you could come up with better than
that if you got a good nights sleep as well.

MS.
Colin Campbell
2006-01-06 18:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, territory in Manchuria. I wonder what happened to that. Your travels
didn't take you to Yalta in February '45 did they Colin?
And your point being? The fact is that we examined their peace
proposals and considered them to be insufficient.
If you have any actual references that indicate otherwise - please
post them.
The old, 'get him to prove a negative', trick eh?
You claimed that Japan had offered peace proposals to the US that were
ignored for the sole purpose of demonstrating the atomic bomb.

I am asking you for the details of those proposals so we can determine
if they would have been considered acceptable even if the 'trinity'
test had failed.


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Mens sana
2006-01-06 23:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, territory in Manchuria. I wonder what happened to that. Your travels
didn't take you to Yalta in February '45 did they Colin?
And your point being? The fact is that we examined their peace
proposals and considered them to be insufficient.
If you have any actual references that indicate otherwise - please
post them.
The old, 'get him to prove a negative', trick eh?
You claimed that Japan had offered peace proposals to the US that were
ignored for the sole purpose of demonstrating the atomic bomb.
I am asking you for the details of those proposals so we can determine
if they would have been considered acceptable even if the 'trinity'
test had failed.
The acceptability of the Japanese proposals is neither here nor there.
What's at issue is the fact that the American claim that it was necessary to
use the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender unconditionally was a lie.

The fact is, and you've conceded this yourself elsewhere in this thread,
WWII ended in the Pacific with America accepting some Japanese conditions
for surrender and rejecting others.

If you must have the details go to your local library (if you don't mind the
FBI looking over your shoulder) and research them.

Mens sana.
David White
2006-01-07 05:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, territory in Manchuria. I wonder what happened to that. Your travels
didn't take you to Yalta in February '45 did they Colin?
And your point being? The fact is that we examined their peace
proposals and considered them to be insufficient.
If you have any actual references that indicate otherwise - please
post them.
The old, 'get him to prove a negative', trick eh?
You claimed that Japan had offered peace proposals to the US that were
ignored for the sole purpose of demonstrating the atomic bomb.
I am asking you for the details of those proposals so we can determine
if they would have been considered acceptable even if the 'trinity'
test had failed.
The acceptability of the Japanese proposals is neither here nor there.
What's at issue is the fact that the American claim that it was necessary to
use the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender unconditionally was a lie.
The fact is, and you've conceded this yourself elsewhere in this thread,
WWII ended in the Pacific with America accepting some Japanese conditions
for surrender and rejecting others.
If you must have the details go to your local library (if you don't mind the
FBI looking over your shoulder) and research them.
Mens sana.
Just like someone who has no facts. You make the claim and tell us to go
look it up. Credibility issues here, Boys.
Colin Campbell
2006-01-07 05:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
I am asking you for the details of those proposals so we can determine
if they would have been considered acceptable even if the 'trinity'
test had failed.
The acceptability of the Japanese proposals is neither here nor there.
Wrong. This is an essential issue as it would determine if the terms
Japan offered were in any way similar to the terms we accepted.

Apparently you have no idea what the terms offered were.




--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Pope Secola VI
2006-01-07 15:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Mens sana
Post by Colin Campbell
I am asking you for the details of those proposals so we can determine
if they would have been considered acceptable even if the 'trinity'
test had failed.
The acceptability of the Japanese proposals is neither here nor there.
Wrong. This is an essential issue as it would determine if the terms
Japan offered were in any way similar to the terms we accepted.
Apparently you have no idea what the terms offered were.
The final terms that the Japanese offered were that was delivered to the
Russians for retransmission to the Allies in August of 1945:

The Emperor would be retained.
There would be no occupation of the Japanese home land.
The Japanese would try their own war criminals.
There would be no payment of war debts.

Doesn't sound much like a surrender to me.
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
Gunner
2006-01-07 06:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
The acceptability of the Japanese proposals is neither here nor there.
What's at issue is the fact that the American claim that it was necessary to
use the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender unconditionally was a lie.
The acceptability of the Japanes proposals is the CRUX of the matter.
All else is your biased spew.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
AUK Registrar
2006-01-05 18:46:52 UTC
Permalink
[rec.arts.marching.drumcorps removed]
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
The allies were after unconditional surrender. The Japanese were trying to
dictate terms.
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
This "discussion" happens at least as often as a full moon. Rather than
re-hash the same tired arguments how about we do it one of two ways:

1) You google the subject as discussed in uma previously and get back to us
if you have something new to contribute -or-

2) Just leave

I vote for #2.

--
AUK Registrar
Providing clues to the cluless since time began
Mens sana
2006-01-05 20:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUK Registrar
[rec.arts.marching.drumcorps removed]
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
The allies were after unconditional surrender. The Japanese were trying to
dictate terms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't get an unconditional surrender even after America had tested the
Atomic bombs on Japanese civilians.

Mens sana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
This "discussion" happens at least as often as a full moon. Rather than
1) You google the subject as discussed in uma previously and get back to us
if you have something new to contribute -or-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what was discussed in uma as it's not available on my news
server - I think my ISP might have a policy on facilitating contact with
terrorist organisations - not that uma discussions have any relevance.

I was merely responding to the Gunner's observation that Russia never nuked
anyone, it was you and others who trotted out the long discredited American
rationalisation for it's failure to live up to Russian standards in this
regard.

Mens sana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar
2) Just leave
I vote for #2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your vote LOL.

An American vote is worthless in America, what makes you think it might have
any value here?

Does the regime know you're talking to foreigners about votes? Come to think
of it, does the regime know you're talking to foreigners about anything?

Have a care lest you find yourself sharing a room with a Mr. Padilla.

Mens sana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar
--
AUK Registrar
Providing clues to the cluless since time began
John Teague
2006-01-07 02:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by AUK Registrar
[rec.arts.marching.drumcorps removed]
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
The allies were after unconditional surrender. The Japanese were trying to
dictate terms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't get an unconditional surrender even after America had tested the
Atomic bombs on Japanese civilians.
Since I recently submitted a journal article for publication in the
Journal of East Asian Studies (among others), entitled, "The Cleansing
of the Chrysanthemum: An Examination Into the Decision of the United
Stated to Retain Emperor Hirohito following the Pacific War" I think I
can shed some additional light on this.

If the question is whether or not the U.S. got an unconditional
surrender (according to the Potsdam Declaration); the answer is yes.
With the exception of MacArthur, who was heavily influenced by his
Chief of Psychological Warfare, Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, and a
few others, the overwhelming sentiment of the U.S. government and
public was to abolish the Emperor system in Japan and prosecute
Hirohito as a war criminal.

While it is true that, as early as May 1945, Prince Konoe was actively
recruiting moderates to convince Hirohito to sue for peace, and the
goal was retention of the Emperor system (Konoe was not as concerned
about Hirohito personally), and to avoid Allied occupation of Japan,
the overture was 1) not acceptable to the U.S., and 2) overwhelmed by
the fact that MAGIC interceptions revealed that the military had no
intention of ending the war effort. Thus, there was little reason to
believe that anyone offering peace terms actually had the authority to
overcome the military chiefs.

The only serious surrender offer came from then Foreign Minister, Togo
Shigenori, on 10 August. With the blessing of Hirohito, Togo sent word
through the Swiss embassy that Japan had only one condition for
accepting surrender, "that the said [Potsdam] declaration does not
comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as
a Sovereign Ruler." U.S. Secretary of State Burns responded, the
following day, "that the Emperor would be subordinate to SCAP with no
further clarification on Hirohito's fate." The United States offered no
safe harbor for Hirohito but, in fact, reasserted the demand for
unconditional surrender based strictly on the terms of the Potsdam
Declaration.

The decision by Truman to use atomic weapons against Japan drew no
immediate reaction from the Japanese government to unconditionally
surrender. It was not until the so-called "Hirota-Malik" talks with the
Soviets failed, and Stalin announced his intention to invade Manchuria,
that Hirohito finally stepped in and agreed to accept unconditional
surrender terms. His decision to directly intervene and surrender to
the Allied powers was not based on any condition.

The problem with your argument is that you are confusing what happened
before and up to the surrender announcement, and steps taken to retain
Hirohito to ease the challenges of occupation. MacArthur understood the
value of using the emperor's status to help with the transformation of
Japan, and he was convinced that attempts to prosecute Hirohito would
cause a violent reaction by the Japanese public. Regardless, MacArthur
purposely let the emperor know that his ability to retain his throne
(in title only) was at his sole discretion. Hirohito understood the
value of not acting in any manor that might threaten his relationship
with MacArthur.
---
John
Post by Mens sana
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
This "discussion" happens at least as often as a full moon. Rather than
1) You google the subject as discussed in uma previously and get back to us
if you have something new to contribute -or-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what was discussed in uma as it's not available on my news
server - I think my ISP might have a policy on facilitating contact with
terrorist organisations - not that uma discussions have any relevance.
I was merely responding to the Gunner's observation that Russia never nuked
anyone, it was you and others who trotted out the long discredited American
rationalisation for it's failure to live up to Russian standards in this
regard.
Mens sana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar
2) Just leave
I vote for #2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your vote LOL.
An American vote is worthless in America, what makes you think it might have
any value here?
Does the regime know you're talking to foreigners about votes? Come to think
of it, does the regime know you're talking to foreigners about anything?
Have a care lest you find yourself sharing a room with a Mr. Padilla.
Mens sana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar
--
AUK Registrar
Providing clues to the cluless since time began
AUK Registrar
2006-01-08 01:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mens sana
Post by AUK Registrar
[rec.arts.marching.drumcorps removed]
Post by Mens sana
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
The allies were after unconditional surrender. The Japanese were trying to
dictate terms.
They didn't get an unconditional surrender even after America had tested the
Atomic bombs on Japanese civilians.
You show an uncanny lack of knowledge of what went on in the days leading up
to the end of the Pacific war, especially for someone who is arguing with
others about it. There is a cure for such a problem but it requires
something you apparently lack:

An open mind.
Post by Mens sana
Post by AUK Registrar
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
This "discussion" happens at least as often as a full moon. Rather than
1) You google the subject as discussed in uma previously and get back to us
if you have something new to contribute -or-
I have no idea what was discussed in uma as it's not available on my news
server - I think my ISP might have a policy on facilitating contact with
terrorist organisations - not that uma discussions have any relevance.
So now you are referring to a newsgroup as a "terrorist organization"?
Post by Mens sana
I was merely responding to the Gunner's observation that Russia never nuked
anyone, it was you and others who trotted out the long discredited American
rationalisation for it's failure to live up to Russian standards in this
regard.
"Discredited"? Only by crazies who ignore written history in favor of fairy
tales written by anti American whackos.
Post by Mens sana
Post by AUK Registrar
2) Just leave
I vote for #2.
And I still do.
Post by Mens sana
Your vote LOL.
An American vote is worthless in America, what makes you think it might have
any value here?
Does the regime know you're talking to foreigners about votes? Come to think
of it, does the regime know you're talking to foreigners about anything?
If the kind of control to which you allude actually existed here then this
conversation would not be taking place. I don't expect you to be able to
understand that since your brain appears to be unable to follow complex
thought patterns unfavorable to your preconcieved ideas.
Post by Mens sana
Have a care lest you find yourself sharing a room with a Mr. Padilla.
So, are you in the North of Ireland or the Republic? Just curious because in
4 trips to the Republic I have yet to run into someone with such a complete
lack of real world knowledge. Except for the clod in the pub in Temple Bar,
but he was from France and so full if shite he was having trouble getting
the glass of Harp to his mouth without spilling it.

--
AUK Registrar
Providing clues to the cluless since time began
Tank Fixer
2006-01-06 02:58:53 UTC
Permalink
In article <xb7vf.4116$***@news.indigo.ie>,
on Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:25:54 -0000,
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
Post by Mens sana
Post by Gunner
The Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
What attempts to surrender. They knew the terms and refused to accept them.
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
You cute little theory falls apart when you realize we had already tested the
device and that Stalin knew we had.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Mens sana
2006-01-06 12:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tank Fixer
on Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:25:54 -0000,
< Snip >
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
You cute little theory falls apart when you realize we had already tested the
device and that Stalin knew we had.
I've just watched an episode of the television series 'Hell in the pacific'
on The History Channel. It was titled 'Apocalypse' and it dealt with the end
the last weeks of WWII.

Among those offering their reminiscences was Paul Tibetts, the pilot who
dropped the atomic Bomb on Hiroshima. He acknowledged that they needed, 'a
target that was virtually virgin', to test the bomb. How do you think he
came up with that 'cute little theory'?

Mens sana.

PS. In August 1945 the allies had no idea that the Russians had agents at
all levels of the Manhattan Project.

MS.
Tank Fixer
2006-01-07 03:52:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <Iquvf.4165$***@news.indigo.ie>,
on Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:37:10 -0000,
Post by Mens sana
Post by Tank Fixer
on Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:25:54 -0000,
< Snip >
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
You cute little theory falls apart when you realize we had already tested the
device and that Stalin knew we had.
I've just watched an episode of the television series 'Hell in the pacific'
on The History Channel. It was titled 'Apocalypse' and it dealt with the end
the last weeks of WWII.
The History Channel, why am I not surprised.
Post by Mens sana
Among those offering their reminiscences was Paul Tibetts, the pilot who
dropped the atomic Bomb on Hiroshima. He acknowledged that they needed, 'a
target that was virtually virgin', to test the bomb. How do you think he
came up with that 'cute little theory'?
It makes no sense to churn the ashes of Tokyo.
Post by Mens sana
Mens sana.
PS. In August 1945 the allies had no idea that the Russians had agents at
all levels of the Manhattan Project.
No we didn't. But it was noted when Stalin was told the US had a new and very
powerful weapon he exhibited little to no surprise.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
John Teague
2006-01-07 13:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tank Fixer
on Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:37:10 -0000,
Post by Mens sana
Post by Tank Fixer
on Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:25:54 -0000,
< Snip >
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
You cute little theory falls apart when you realize we had already tested the
device and that Stalin knew we had.
I've just watched an episode of the television series 'Hell in the pacific'
on The History Channel. It was titled 'Apocalypse' and it dealt with the end
the last weeks of WWII.
The History Channel, why am I not surprised.
Absolutely. Listen to Tank Fixer. He is wise. You don't want to get
your history education from the History Channel.
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
Among those offering their reminiscences was Paul Tibetts, the pilot who
dropped the atomic Bomb on Hiroshima. He acknowledged that they needed, 'a
target that was virtually virgin', to test the bomb. How do you think he
came up with that 'cute little theory'?
It makes no sense to churn the ashes of Tokyo.
No, that would have made no sense, and I would add that the United
States went out of its way to avoid bombing the Imperial Palace.
Although part of the palace was burned unintentionally after one of the
incendiary raids.
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
PS. In August 1945 the allies had no idea that the Russians had agents at
all levels of the Manhattan Project.
No we didn't. But it was noted when Stalin was told the US had a new and very
powerful weapon he exhibited little to no surprise.
I concur. There was no evidence that spies were working within the
Manhatten Project before the first test. In fact, the project was
subdivided and widely dispursed principally to maintain security.
Stalin probably experienced a flashback of the day Germany invaded the
Soviet Union, he again was caught flat footed.
---
John
Pope Secola VI
2006-01-07 14:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Teague
Post by Tank Fixer
on Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:37:10 -0000,
Post by Mens sana
Post by Tank Fixer
on Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:25:54 -0000,
< Snip >
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
You cute little theory falls apart when you realize we had already tested the
device and that Stalin knew we had.
I've just watched an episode of the television series 'Hell in the pacific'
on The History Channel. It was titled 'Apocalypse' and it dealt with the end
the last weeks of WWII.
The History Channel, why am I not surprised.
Absolutely. Listen to Tank Fixer. He is wise. You don't want to get
your history education from the History Channel.
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
Among those offering their reminiscences was Paul Tibetts, the pilot who
dropped the atomic Bomb on Hiroshima. He acknowledged that they needed, 'a
target that was virtually virgin', to test the bomb. How do you think he
came up with that 'cute little theory'?
It makes no sense to churn the ashes of Tokyo.
No, that would have made no sense, and I would add that the United
States went out of its way to avoid bombing the Imperial Palace.
Although part of the palace was burned unintentionally after one of the
incendiary raids.
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
PS. In August 1945 the allies had no idea that the Russians had agents at
all levels of the Manhattan Project.
No we didn't. But it was noted when Stalin was told the US had a new and very
powerful weapon he exhibited little to no surprise.
I concur. There was no evidence that spies were working within the
Manhatten Project before the first test. In fact, the project was
subdivided and widely dispursed principally to maintain security.
Stalin probably experienced a flashback of the day Germany invaded the
Soviet Union, he again was caught flat footed.
---
John
That is not true. The venona papers (decodings of the diplomatic
messages between the Soviet Embassy in Washington, and consulates in New
York City and the Moscow) show that the Soviets were well aware of our
Atomic program and had agents working with in the program from the
earliest days.

At least two spies were among the top people on the project

Theodore Hall Stared working for the Manhattan Project in Oct of 1943
and arrived at Los Alamos New Mexico on Jan 27 1944, (a year and a half
before the first bomb was tested.)

Klaus Fuchs Started working on the American Atomic bomb project in 1943,
and the Venona cables have very detailed notes about the creation of
equipment for the enrichment of Uranium for the bomb.

There are also some cryptic notes of a Senior physicist working at on
the Manhattan that had a soviet Code name that was probably Robert
Oppenheimer himself but it is not conclusive.
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
AUK Registrar
2006-01-08 01:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Teague
Post by Tank Fixer
on Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:37:10 -0000,
Post by Mens sana
Post by Tank Fixer
on Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:25:54 -0000,
Post by Mens sana
America had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
You cute little theory falls apart when you realize we had already tested the
device and that Stalin knew we had.
I've just watched an episode of the television series 'Hell in the pacific'
on The History Channel. It was titled 'Apocalypse' and it dealt with the end
the last weeks of WWII.
The History Channel, why am I not surprised.
Absolutely. Listen to Tank Fixer. He is wise. You don't want to get
your history education from the History Channel.
Don't you mean The War Channel? :)
Post by John Teague
Post by Tank Fixer
Post by Mens sana
Among those offering their reminiscences was Paul Tibetts, the pilot who
dropped the atomic Bomb on Hiroshima. He acknowledged that they needed, 'a
target that was virtually virgin', to test the bomb. How do you think he
came up with that 'cute little theory'?
It makes no sense to churn the ashes of Tokyo.
No, that would have made no sense, and I would add that the United
States went out of its way to avoid bombing the Imperial Palace.
Although part of the palace was burned unintentionally after one of the
incendiary raids.
ISTR reading (wish I could remember where) that certain military targets on
the home island were marked as "Do Not Target" specifically for use if
Trinity were a success. And I stress "Military Targets". Both Hiroshima and
Nagasaki fell into that catagory.

--
AUK Registrar
Providing clues to the cluless since time began
Gunner
2006-01-08 05:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUK Registrar
Post by John Teague
Absolutely. Listen to Tank Fixer. He is wise. You don't want to get
your history education from the History Channel.
Don't you mean The War Channel? :)
If you had any education at all..you would note that History is War,
interspersed by some small periods of Peace.

Sadly true.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Pope Secola VI
2006-01-08 11:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by AUK Registrar
Post by John Teague
Absolutely. Listen to Tank Fixer. He is wise. You don't want to get
your history education from the History Channel.
Don't you mean The War Channel? :)
If you had any education at all..you would note that History is War,
interspersed by some small periods of Peace.
Sadly true.
Gunner
Or as Ambrose Bierce said:

Peace is that time between wars necessary for the identification of enemies.
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
Mosquebuster
2006-01-08 13:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by AUK Registrar
Don't you mean The War Channel? :)
Over the last few years it's become the Bullshit Channel, with a lot of
programming having to do with:

-- UFOs
-- Noah's Ark
-- Nostradamus
-- Psychic phenomena, etc.

I'm surprised they haven't included Elvis sightings ---

Ja ♥
2006-01-04 00:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Ahhhhhhhhh the whole world has gone to shit.
Let em all roll in and do whatever to whoever!
Tank Fixer
2006-01-04 01:47:32 UTC
Permalink
In article <nhull-***@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:33:48 GMT,
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Gunner
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
George W Bush will make that decision, just like he decided regarding
Afghanistan and Iraq. And right this second, in-country type folks
are pinpointing the Iranian targets for the satellite-guided-missiles.
Don't plan on moving to Iran in the forseeable future.
Lg
m.s.
If the Israelies let fly..unless you have a fondness for the face of the
moon and are prepared to wear lead lined underwear...simply scratch Iran
off the itinerary for say...10 yrs
Gunner
If the Israelis let fly, they might face nuclear retaliation from
several directions. Don't plan on moving to Israel in the forseeable
future.
From who ?
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
GOD's CREATOR!
2006-01-03 17:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
George W Bush will make that decision, just like he decided regarding
Afghanistan and Iraq. And right this second, in-country type folks
are pinpointing the Iranian targets for the satellite-guided-missiles.
Don't plan on moving to Iran in the forseeable future.
Lg
m.s.
*Thus spake God's Creator*



Every body is just talking ... *shit* !!


*IRAN THREATENS TO HIT U.S. WITH SUICIDE RAIDS*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3964



*I'll believe it, when I see it* :-)




God's Creator!
( *Sorry, I don't forgive shit* )
:-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
USED GODS SALE! : http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Big Rich Soprano
2006-01-03 09:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nev
Post by Big Rich Soprano
And take it somewhere else... How bout, Seattle!
[belch]
Ok how bout Cucamonga?
Robert R.
2006-01-03 14:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
There's little dispute that Iran has one of the world's shittier
governments.

But what, exactly, have they done to us that would justify a war?

And with our military stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, how,
exactly, would we fight it?

Robert R.
J.C.
2006-01-03 15:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert R.
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
There's little dispute that Iran has one of the world's shittier
governments.
But what, exactly, have they done to us that would justify a war?
The way I look at? If someone tells me he is going to kick my ass, he better
be prepared to get with it because I'm coming at him right then, right
there. I'm not going to wait for him to get the first lick in on me. That's
why I'm okay with the war in Iraq. I remember Sadaam saying that the he will
laugh as the skin of Americans melts from their bodies as they go running
into the streets. We waited on Al Qaeda to carry out all the threats they
made and look what it got us.

But, Iran. I have not yet heard them threaten us, but the fact that the new
President was one that held Americans hostage, and that one of the first
statements he made upon becoming President of Iran was that Israel should be
wiped from the face of the earth, I would not have a problem with Israel
blowing the shit out Iran. And, if Israel asked the US for help, I would not
have a problem with us doing so.

This attitude of "Let them kill some Americans first" just doesn't cut it
with me. I agree with George W Bush when he says he takes people at their
word. So, do I and if a person says he's going to harm me or mine, that's
all I need to know.
--
What this country needs is a government in which
there are two four year term limits for everybody,
no contributions of any kind to anyone that the
contributor can NOT vote for, no retirement plan
for politicians and no taxpayer money to anyone
that has not voted in 3 of the past 4 elections and
no taxpayer funded grants to anyone, only loans that
must be paid back at the private sector rate of interest.
And I submit to you that it is YOUR fault for not insisting
that we have such a system.

Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.

J. C.
Robert R.
2006-01-03 15:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.C.
Post by Robert R.
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
There's little dispute that Iran has one of the world's shittier
governments.
But what, exactly, have they done to us that would justify a war?
The way I look at? If someone tells me he is going to kick my ass, he better
be prepared to get with it because I'm coming at him right then, right
there. I'm not going to wait for him to get the first lick in on me. That's
why I'm okay with the war in Iraq. I remember Sadaam saying that the he will
laugh as the skin of Americans melts from their bodies as they go running
into the streets. We waited on Al Qaeda to carry out all the threats they
made and look what it got us.
There's a big difference between tired anti-American political rhetoric
such as Saddam's and actual, specific intent and preparation to attack
such as Al-Qa'ida's. Using your logic, the countries Bush included in
the "Axis of Evil" would have been justified in attacking us after that
speech.
Post by J.C.
But, Iran. I have not yet heard them threaten us, but the fact that the new
President was one that held Americans hostage,
At present, that's far from being a "fact." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
denied his involvement in the hostage crisis, and even the CIA has
doubts about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis
Post by J.C.
and that one of the first
statements he made upon becoming President of Iran was that Israel should be
wiped from the face of the earth,
Again, that's standard political rhetoric in the Arab and Muslim world
which doesn't necessarily signify an actual intent to attack.
Governments and leaders have saying such things about Israel for
decades, but Israel hasn't actually been attacked by another state
since the 1970s (apart from some ineffectual Scud missiles fired into
it by Iraq in 1991, after the Gulf War had already begun).
Post by J.C.
I would not have a problem with Israel
blowing the shit out Iran. And, if Israel asked the US for help, I would not
have a problem with us doing so.
If Iran attacks Israel, or is clearly making preparations to attack, or
is shown to be sponsoring terrorism within Israel's legal (pre-1967)
borders, then I too support Israel's right to defend itself. If,
however, Iran is simply trying to improve its own national defences
against the perceived threat of attack by Israel or America -- which
would not be an unreasonable fear -- then that's a different story.

I do think the Iranian President needs to moderate his public comments
about Israel and Jews if he wants the West to respect him.

Robert R.
J.C.
2006-01-03 16:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert R.
Post by J.C.
Post by Robert R.
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
There's little dispute that Iran has one of the world's shittier
governments.
But what, exactly, have they done to us that would justify a war?
The way I look at? If someone tells me he is going to kick my ass, he better
be prepared to get with it because I'm coming at him right then, right
there. I'm not going to wait for him to get the first lick in on me. That's
why I'm okay with the war in Iraq. I remember Sadaam saying that the he will
laugh as the skin of Americans melts from their bodies as they go running
into the streets. We waited on Al Qaeda to carry out all the threats they
made and look what it got us.
There's a big difference between tired anti-American political rhetoric
such as Saddam's and actual, specific intent and preparation to attack
such as Al-Qa'ida's. Using your logic, the countries Bush included in
the "Axis of Evil" would have been justified in attacking us after that
speech.
Post by J.C.
But, Iran. I have not yet heard them threaten us, but the fact that the new
President was one that held Americans hostage,
At present, that's far from being a "fact." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
denied his involvement in the hostage crisis, and even the CIA has
doubts about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis
Post by J.C.
and that one of the first
statements he made upon becoming President of Iran was that Israel should be
wiped from the face of the earth,
Again, that's standard political rhetoric in the Arab and Muslim world
Really? I grew up in Dharan Saudi Arabi and don't know a whole lot about all
of that. Could you tell me more about it?
Post by Robert R.
which doesn't necessarily signify an actual intent to attack.
Governments and leaders have saying such things about Israel for
decades, but Israel hasn't actually been attacked by another state
since the 1970s (apart from some ineffectual Scud missiles fired into
it by Iraq in 1991, after the Gulf War had already begun).
Post by J.C.
I would not have a problem with Israel
blowing the shit out Iran. And, if Israel asked the US for help, I would not
have a problem with us doing so.
If Iran attacks Israel, or is clearly making preparations to attack, or
is shown to be sponsoring terrorism within Israel's legal (pre-1967)
borders, then I too support Israel's right to defend itself. If,
however, Iran is simply trying to improve its own national defences
against the perceived threat of attack by Israel or America -- which
would not be an unreasonable fear -- then that's a different story.
I do think the Iranian President needs to moderate his public comments
about Israel and Jews if he wants the West to respect him.
Robert R.
Robert R.
2006-01-03 23:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.C.
Really? I grew up in Dharan Saudi Arabi and don't know a whole lot about all
of that. Could you tell me more about it?
You grew up in SA and you never heard anti-Israel rhetoric? I take it
you must have been pretty sheltered. That's like having grown up in
Belfast unaware that people didn't like the British.

Robert R.
J.C.
2006-01-04 13:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert R.
Post by J.C.
Really? I grew up in Dharan Saudi Arabi and don't know a whole lot about all
of that. Could you tell me more about it?
You grew up in SA and you never heard anti-Israel rhetoric? I take it
you must have been pretty sheltered. That's like having grown up in
Belfast unaware that people didn't like the British.
Robert R.
I heard more anti-American rhetoric than anything else. So, please, tell me
what you know. You seem to be such an expert. I want to learn from the best.
--
I've made a New Year's Resolution to be a more
cheerful, agreeable and congenial person. So
shut the hell up and get off my case!

J.C.
Robert Sturgeon
2006-01-03 16:15:36 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jan 2006 07:41:19 -0800, "Robert R."
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

(snips)
Post by Robert R.
If Iran attacks Israel, or is clearly making preparations to attack,
Let's see... Te Iranian president said Israel should be
destroyed. The Iranians are apparently working on nuclear
weapons. If I was them, I'd be expecting a visit from the
IDF any minute now.
Post by Robert R.
is shown to be sponsoring terrorism within Israel's legal (pre-1967)
borders,
Does the Iranian president accept those borders as being
"legal"? Does the Iranian president want to see Israel
destroyed ONLY if it doesn't return to those borders?
Post by Robert R.
then I too support Israel's right to defend itself. If,
however, Iran is simply trying to improve its own national defences
against the perceived threat of attack by Israel or America -- which
would not be an unreasonable fear -- then that's a different story.
I do think the Iranian President needs to moderate his public comments
about Israel and Jews if he wants the West to respect him.
He really doesn't care about respect from "the West." He
needs to moderate his speech AND his behavior if he doesn't
want a visit from the IDF.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
GOD's CREATOR!
2006-01-03 17:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert R.
Post by J.C.
Post by Robert R.
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
There's little dispute that Iran has one of the world's shittier
governments.
But what, exactly, have they done to us that would justify a war?
The way I look at? If someone tells me he is going to kick my ass, he better
be prepared to get with it because I'm coming at him right then, right
there. I'm not going to wait for him to get the first lick in on me. That's
why I'm okay with the war in Iraq. I remember Sadaam saying that the he will
laugh as the skin of Americans melts from their bodies as they go running
into the streets. We waited on Al Qaeda to carry out all the threats they
made and look what it got us.
There's a big difference between tired anti-American political rhetoric
such as Saddam's and actual, specific intent and preparation to attack
such as Al-Qa'ida's. Using your logic, the countries Bush included in
the "Axis of Evil" would have been justified in attacking us after that
speech.
Post by J.C.
But, Iran. I have not yet heard them threaten us, but the fact that the new
President was one that held Americans hostage,
At present, that's far from being a "fact." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
denied his involvement in the hostage crisis, and even the CIA has
doubts about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis
Post by J.C.
and that one of the first
statements he made upon becoming President of Iran was that Israel should be
wiped from the face of the earth,
Again, that's standard political rhetoric in the Arab and Muslim world
which doesn't necessarily signify an actual intent to attack.
Governments and leaders have saying such things about Israel for
decades, but Israel hasn't actually been attacked by another state
since the 1970s (apart from some ineffectual Scud missiles fired into
it by Iraq in 1991, after the Gulf War had already begun).
Post by J.C.
I would not have a problem with Israel
blowing the shit out Iran. And, if Israel asked the US for help, I would not
have a problem with us doing so.
If Iran attacks Israel, or is clearly making preparations to attack, or
is shown to be sponsoring terrorism within Israel's legal (pre-1967)
borders, then I too support Israel's right to defend itself. If,
however, Iran is simply trying to improve its own national defences
against the perceived threat of attack by Israel or America -- which
would not be an unreasonable fear -- then that's a different story.
I do think the Iranian President needs to moderate his public comments
about Israel and Jews if he wants the West to respect him.
Robert R.
*Thus spake God's Creator*



However, after the U.S. invasions of:
Grenada, Panama, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq:
The West does not have much *RESPECT* left to give. :-(


BTW> *The Iranians are only trying to get the West's Respect*

BTW> *The U.S. only gives *RESPECT* to Nuclear Powered nations*



God's Creator!
( *Sorry, I don't forgive shit* )
:-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
USED GODS SALE! : http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joe S.
2006-01-03 22:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert R.
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
There's little dispute that Iran has one of the world's shittier
governments.
But what, exactly, have they done to us that would justify a war?
And with our military stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, how,
exactly, would we fight it?
Robert R.
Stop asking reasonable questions.

Why does someone need to do something to us for us to attack? After all,
Iraq did absolutely nothing to us and look where it got them.

Our military stretched to the breaking point? Hey, who cares?? It's not
the sons and daughters of the chickenhawk Republicons, it's just a bunch of
middle- and low-income cannon fodder. Screw 'em.
J.C.
2006-01-03 23:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe S.
Post by Robert R.
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
There's little dispute that Iran has one of the world's shittier
governments.
But what, exactly, have they done to us that would justify a war?
And with our military stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, how,
exactly, would we fight it?
Robert R.
Stop asking reasonable questions.
Why does someone need to do something to us for us to attack? After all,
Iraq did absolutely nothing to us and look where it got them.
Our military stretched to the breaking point? Hey, who cares??
Now that's a good question. Who cares? Why the fuck should I care? Your
parents didn't care about me when I was in Viet Nam. They probably protested
and smoked dope and handed out all that free love stuff just like you're
doing now. They didn't care then, why should I care now? Hopefully, it's
some of your relatives that I don't care about. And, from all the whining, I
know it's some of the whiners relatives that I don't care about. I damn sure
don't care about Cindy Sheehans son. And that's the way she wants it. She
wants us to know what a stupid fuck he was for honoring his committment. So,
I'm very agreeable with her cause.
--
I've made a New Year's Resolution to be a more
cheerful, agreeable and congenial person. So
shut the hell up and get off my case!

J.C.
tg
2006-01-03 20:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert R.
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
There's little dispute that Iran has one of the world's shittier
governments.
But what, exactly, have they done to us that would justify a war?
And with our military stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, how,
exactly, would we fight it?
nobody is gonna be fighting any war in Iran.
Trouble with Iran will be met by one event. Hint: it sounds like BOOM.
Mosquebuster
2006-01-05 19:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert R.
And with our military stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, how,
exactly, would we fight it?
Guess: Loading Image...
tg
2006-01-03 23:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
I say yes too but let Iran fry israel first. Then if the isrealis are too badly beaten to fight the US could send a firecracker to
Iran. The iranians are a pain but so are the israelis, so to have them clout each other down would save the rest of us a lotta
hardship. It would also make good TV.
b***@apexmail.com
2006-01-05 12:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
Of course the US will use nuclear weapons on Iran.

It certainly can't win any ground wars.


Bob Dog

-----

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,
it's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
- George W. Bush, US President

"I've never seen a pro-choicer bomb any churches. Have you?"
- Aaron Kinney, speaking on Eric Rudolph

"The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the
non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God."
- 15-year-old fundamentalist fan of the books
Mosquebuster
2006-01-05 19:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@apexmail.com
Post by swabbie
I say yes. Send these anti-semitic fanatical f*cks right back to the
stone age...no, the ICE AGE.
Of course the US will use nuclear weapons on Iran.
It certainly can't win any ground wars.
And dune coons aren't worth wasting American lives on. Just pick up the red
phone, Mr. Commander-In-Chief:

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

The ayatollahs will think it's a meteor shower, that is, until the warheads
detonate ---
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...