REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

We're gonna nuke Iran!

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 9, 2006 12:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2758
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 4:54 PM

CHRISISALL


....that's the plan?

Chrisisall, just throwin' the ball...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 6:27 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
....that's the plan?

Chrisisall, just throwin' the ball...





FIRE! Yelled Chrisisall, in the crowded theatre.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:03 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


"The Emperors new clothes are altogether the finest ever seen" Said AURAPTOR from amongst the adoring crowd.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:43 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Hell yeah! Everyone knows the third time is the charm. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki we've been itching to go for the trifecta. Sixty+ years is a long time to wait. Some of our nukes are getting up there in years and what good is a weapon if you don't use it? Nuke 'em til they glow and shoot 'em in the dark.

Oh. Sorry. That was the three year old in me talking.

Time to make him sit in the corner and let the adults have a discussion.

First off, I know nothing about Iran. So maybe it's better if I quote from some people who know the topic in much greater detail:
Quote:

from http://www.antiwarpetition.com/
Mr. President:

We the signatories of this letter have dedicated our lives to studying the Middle East and it is in that capacity and as concerned citizens that we write to strongly oppose and warn against the military option in Iran. As the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of research or diversion of materials toward atomic weapons in Iran, concerns about future dual use of nuclear technology ought to be addressed in face to face negotiations. Such alternative venues as coercive diplomacy and military action will lead to further militarization and pressures on civil society at the expense of the democratic movement in Iran. The extreme right of the political spectrum of that country will be the sole beneficiary of such policies. The catastrophic regional and global consequences of escalating this crisis will not serve the interests of the United States, the course of democratic development in Iran, or the cause of global peace.


Okay. Okay. So maybe they're showing a little naiviety by assuming that this adminstration is interested in the cause of global peace.

Or maybe it's better to quote from a professor in Middle East History:
Quote:

excerpted from http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
Warning: The link goes to a page with graphic images of the effects of war.


...

As for the matter at issue, Ahmadinejad is a non-entity. The Iranian "president" is mostly powerless. The commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei. Worrying about Ahmadinejad's antics is like worrying that the US military will act on the orders of the secretary of the interior. Ahmadinejad cannot declare war on anyone, or mobilize a military. So it doesn't matter what speeches he gives.

Moreover, Iran cannot fight Israel. It would be defeated in 72 hours, even if the US didn't come in, which it would (and rightly so if Israel were attacked). Iran is separated by several other countries from Israel. It has not attacked aggressively any other country militarily for over a century (can Americans say that of their own record?) It has only a weak, ineffective air force. So why worry about it?

What is really going on here is an old trick of the warmongers. Which is that you equate hurtful statements of your enemy with an actual military threat, and make a weak and vulnerable enemy look like a strong, menacing foe. Then no one can complain when you pounce on the enemy and reduce his country to flames and rubble.

It is obvious that powerful political forces in Washington are fishing for a pretext to launch a war on Iran, and that they are just delighted to have Ahmadinejad as cartoon villain and pretext. But they had a moderate, reforming president in Mohammad Khatami for 8 years, and just blew off all his overtures to the West. Iranians organized big candle-light vigils for America after September 11, in sympathy!

Washington never gave the reform movement the slightest encouragement, perhaps in hopes that the Iranians would be forced to turn right again and form a proper object of US hatred. If so, they got their wish last summer, when Ahmadinejad used the same dirty techniques to get elected as had George W. Bush.

All the warmongers in Washington, including Hitchens, if he falls into that camp, should get this through their heads. Americans are not fighting any more wars in the Middle East against toothless third rate powers. So sit down and shut up.

One, two, three, four! We don't want your stinking war!

We are not going to see any more US troops come home in body bags at Dover for the sake of some Cheney affiliate grabbing the petroleum in Iran's Ahvaz fields.

We are not going to have another 15,000 wounded vets flood onto our streets with spine damage and brain damage.

We are not going to put Yazd behind barbed wire to liberate it, as a millenarian Christian general did to Habbaniyah in Iraq.

We are not going to imprison and torture thousands of Iranians at Evin Penitentiary in Tehran, as worthy successors to the bloodthirsty Shah and Khomeini.

We are not going to kill 200,000 Iranians with aerial bombardments of Tabriz, Isfahan, Qom, Kerman, Shiraz and Mashahd.

We are not going to let dozens of US corporations loot the American people and the Iranian people alike with no-bid "contracts", embezzlement, corruption, and graft.

We are not going to let you have a war against Iran.

So sit down and shut up, American Enterprise Institute, and Hudson Institute, and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and American Heritage Institute, and this institute and that institute, and cable "news", and government "spokesmen", and all the pundit-ferrets you pay millions to make business for the American military-industrial complex and Big Oil.

We don't give a rat's ass what Ahmadinejad thinks about European history or what pissant speech the little shit gives.

...


I wish I could be confident that the warmongers won't get a war with Iran. But it's starting to look a lot like 2002/03 again. The administration has got the hurry up offense in place. And the Project for a New American Century did have something to say on the topic of Iran.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:46 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
"The Emperors new clothes are altogether the finest ever seen" Said AURAPTOR from amongst the adoring crowd.



A poster makes the claim that the U.S. is going to nuke Iran, and I offer up my view that such a view is absurd. Then, YOU make a crack about the Emperors new clothes, insinuating that I'm the blindly loyal one here.

I'm the one who's saying there is no reason for or purpose served in attacking Iran, and you try to paint ME as being a myrmidon for...who ? Not the President. He's not the one mouthing off about wiping a nation off the map, is he?

Does that seem right to you?


Soupcatcher -
Quote:

I wish I could be confident that the warmongers won't get a war with Iran. But it's starting to look a lot like 2002/03 again. The administration has got the hurry up offense in place. And the Project for a New American Century did have something to say on the topic of Iran.


Warmonges? If ever there was a overblown, inaccurate use of a word, that would be it. Iran 2006 is looking NOTHING like Iraq 2003. Iran hasn't (openly) attacked 4 of her neighbors yet, hasn't had 17 UN resolutions against it, hasn't had 10+ years of inspections and sanctions.....But I guess you're ok w/ Iran's talk of obliterating Israel, denying the NAZI holocaust ever happened.....,etc . And you call who the 'warmongers' ??
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 12:10 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not the President. He's not the one mouthing off about wiping a nation off the map, is he?


No AU, you're absolutely right. Bush hasn't said a thing about the 'Nuclear option' and Iran:
Quote:

Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush0
9.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html

Quote:

New Yorker: Bush appears to prepare to nuke Iran

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.


http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813941.php
Nope, no threats of using Nuclear weapons by GWB what-so-ever.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:46 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.


There's this guy in an Air Force uniform that hangs out with the President. He has a whole suitcase full of plans like this. Doesn't mean anybody wants to use them.

Our policy on nuclear weapons has never changed. We will not be the first to use them (except in defense of Europe should the Soviet's manage to 'break through'). We will likely remain the last to use them. That means if Iran nukes anybody we will destroy Iran. Good policy that.

The Pentagon would be remiss if they failed to brief the President on all his options. I'm sure they have plans to send in special ops guys to blow the site from inside. They have plans for many small bombs from carrier based planes or a few really big bombs from planes here in the US. They have plans for seizing the site with an air assault, or using Marines, or using a tank division, or using Iranian rebels, or using the Iraqi Army, neutralizing everything with an EMP. I bet they have a plan for doing nothing and using economic sanctions to enact political change. I recently heard of a Democratic plan to give in to Iranian demands in exchange for the promise of peace (its known as TAB-OP the 'Turn Around and Bend Over Plan').

Didn't anybody read the article on Drudge a few weeks back about Las Vegas being pissed because the military was about to test the most powerful conventional bomb ever made, more powerful then some nukes. We'll use something like that. All the bang...no mutant babies.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:06 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Auraptor.

You were offering up your view, I was merely countering it with one of my own.

The trouble with you Bushite fanatics is.......

Oh never mind.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:45 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



If our policy on Nukes hasn't changed then why did we do a simulated nuke in nevada just recently? I mean, I'll give credit where credit is due...thank god they didn't use a real nuke, but that's more a matter of public outrcry.

From my understanding, (and I'm no expert so if you have some facts on that to dispute this, I'd like to hear them), we detonated a bomb so big, so heavy that we don't have bombers capable of holding such a weapon, meaning...the only likely reason to test such a weapon, would be to do some comparisson -

It's not a crazy leap to suggest that Nuclear 'options' are definitely on the forfront of their collective mind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:46 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


double post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 10:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

If our policy on Nukes hasn't changed then why did we do a simulated nuke in nevada just recently? I mean, I'll give credit where credit is due...thank god they didn't use a real nuke, but that's more a matter of public outrcry.

From my understanding, (and I'm no expert so if you have some facts on that to dispute this, I'd like to hear them), we detonated a bomb so big, so heavy that we don't have bombers capable of holding such a weapon, meaning...the only likely reason to test such a weapon, would be to do some comparisson -

It's not a crazy leap to suggest that Nuclear 'options' are definitely on the forfront of their collective mind.



Did that test happen already ? Didn't hear the results, but are you complaining we DID a test first, and didn't use nukes? What exactly are you questioning ? Better to know before you use one whether it's gonna work or not, right ? And such a test could be valuable for more scenarios than just Iran. That country isn' the only one which has bunkers deep under ground. Hell, I'll bet the US has a few of its own. Such a test could go far in seeing how well OUR defenses are set up.....

But never mind all that. It's Bush, and so the Bush haters automatically assume that he's going ot use nukes , no matter what.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 10:33 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Auraptor.

You were offering up your view, I was merely countering it with one of my own.

The trouble with you Bushite fanatics is.......

Oh never mind.



I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying and why. But for that, I'm a ' Bushite' fanatic.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 11:02 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



You're talking absolutely crazy...what scenarios? What scenarios would it be sane to use nukes at this point or on into the future, At any point, but particularly now, when if we do get hit, it will not likely be by a nation.

Even the craziest of the crazies wouldn't be nuts enough to allow us to get hit with one of their nukes. A city of ours for a nation of theirs? That's not a good ratio, and hardly a succesful jihad. It'll be a group with no borders when it happens.

All we're doing with this stepping-up of ultimatums, threats and bomb tests, is scaring the rest of the world into thinking they need nukes of their own to defend themselves against us!

And lets be honest about such testing shall we? We know how much damage nukes do....a shitload...they aren't testing for use as a response...they are testing for the use of tactical "preemptive" nukes. They want to know how contained they can make them. Or are you going to tell me that America will respond to a nuclear attack by tactically taking out specific areas of a country? Yeah, that's going to happen. That's how rational people and governments are likely to act after getting attacked.

And maybe you think the use of preemptive nukes is justified, but my original post was directed at Hero who assured us that we will not use nukes unless attacked first. Or is that your contention as well?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 11:50 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

They want to know how contained they can make them. Or are you going to tell me that America will respond to a nuclear attack by tactically taking out specific areas of a country? Yeah, that's going to happen. That's how rational people and governments are likely to act after getting attacked.

And maybe you think the use of preemptive nukes is justified, but my original post was directed at Hero who assured us that we will not use nukes unless attacked first. Or is that your contention as well?



It's not crazy in the least to know what it is you're dealing with, especially when it comes to nukes. We didn't test WITH a nuke, for the reasons which are obvious. So the next best thing was done. The POINT , I suspect, in perfroming such a test is to show that we can ( or can't ) destroy a bunker which is X feet below the surface. If we CAN, than that goes a very long way in telegraphing to Iran, or any other country, what our capabilities are. Knowing that, countries should be more likely to seek diplomatic, and not military solutions.

But clearly I'd be against any 1st strike, pre-emptive nuclear option w/ regards to Iran. For all sorts of reasons, but mainly because I don't trust the intel we've gotten to (or from) our military. I don't know where the weak link is, but time after time leading up to the Iraq war, we were told that Saddam was likely taken out by a percission bomb , only to see him pop his head up somewhere else. With a nuke strike, the margin for error would be too great for justification.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 11:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hero- You seem to have a dodgy memory.
Quote:

Our policy on nuclear weapons has never changed. We will not be the first to use them (except in defense of Europe should the Soviet's manage to 'break through').
Uh, one minor historical quibble here?? We WERE the first to use them. IN fact, we were the ONLY to use them.

Not that this fact discredits your argument or anything....

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:44 PM

CHRISISALL


AURaptor, IF we do nuke Iran, will THAT be enough to turn you from the 'Bush side'?

Simple question, can you address it directly?

Quick, easy, more seductive it is Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:34 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

You're talking absolutely crazy...what scenarios? What scenarios would it be sane to use nukes at this point or on into the future, At any point, but particularly now, when if we do get hit, it will not likely be by a nation.



Do you know (one of the reasons) why we used nukes on Japan? Because it was going to take too many lives and too much time to invade the Japanese home islands.

Consider how many soldiers have died, how many have been permanently crippled, and how much money we have spent on the war. Now consider how many more dead, how many more crippled and how much more money will be wasted before it is over. Now consider that at any point during this time the war could have been ended with the push of a button. Can you think of a scenario where nuclear weapons should be considered now?

Granted multi-megaton warheads have significant issues (I don't like the thought of radiation drifting around any more than the next guy), but smaller, cleaner H-bombs (say high double digit kiloton range) could be used to great effect in certain circumstances (they would have much less radioactive fallout to cause problems). Consider an "accident" involving the dropping of an H-bomb in uninhabited desert in Iran, there might be a couple of casualties but the main effect would probably be the scaring of the Iranian government. Shock and Awe indeed. Course it could always backfire and we would have to be prepared for that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
AURaptor, IF we do nuke Iran, will THAT be enough to turn you from the 'Bush side'?

Simple question, can you address it directly?

Quick, easy, more seductive it is Chrisisall



It would be a colossal mistake and one which I would oppose Bush for doing. I don't see it happening, but sure, I'd turn on Bush for doing that.


Direct enough answer for ya ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 11:18 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Do you know (one of the reasons) why we used nukes on Japan? Because it was going to take too many lives and too much time to invade the Japanese home islands.


Do you know the Japanese were offering their surrender, but the only term, namely don't destroy our culture, was considered too unreasonable?

The Allies (I am under no illusions that Britain rubber stamped the usage thus we are complicit) wanted an unconditional surrender, the nuclear bomb would get that. Britain and America wanted to show Russia "whose boss", the nuclear bomb would do that too.

Well it was supposed to; instead it scared Stalin into a nuclear program of his own and helped spark the cold war, but whatever.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:52 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Direct enough answer for ya ?


Thank you. And I hope it don't come to that.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:59 AM

WORKEROFEVIL


Also, one (there were probably others as well) reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen was because they had not suffered too much damage from conventional bombing prior to the big bombs. The big wigs wanted to end the war, but they also wanted to see just how much damage was done by a nuclear bomb. As such, they needed cities that were relatively intact so they could measure exactly how effective the weapons were.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:02 AM

CITIZEN


Also the effects of the Nuclear bomb on a Human population were not known.

Who better to test the effects of your latest weapon on if not the enemy?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by WorkerOfEvil:
Also, one (there were probably others as well) reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen was because they had not suffered too much damage from conventional bombing prior to the big bombs. The big wigs wanted to end the war, but they also wanted to see just how much damage was done by a nuclear bomb. As such, they needed cities that were relatively intact so they could measure exactly how effective the weapons were.



I think that Hiroshima was a 'B' site, as another city ( i can't recall which ) was targeted as the 'A' cite was waved off as it had too much cloud cover.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:17 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Also the effects of the Nuclear bomb on a Human population were not known.

Who better to test the effects of your latest weapon on if not the enemy?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.



And because the effects of incendiary carpet bombing of civilian centers in Europe was already known.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 4:55 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I think that Hiroshima was a 'B' site, as another city ( i can't recall which ) was targeted as the 'A' cite was waved off as it had too much cloud cover.


Nagasaki was the B site for the Fat Man weapon. It was selected as a target, but only a secondary target because it was believed it's hilly terrain would (and did) reduce the weapons effectiveness. The A site was Kokura but it was covered with clouds, and the crew had orders to drop the bomb visually.
Quote:

And because the effects of incendiary carpet bombing of civilian centers in Europe was already known.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 5:09 AM

FLETCH2


There were some in the 50's that thought that nuclear bombs could be used in big civil engineering projects as a mining explosive.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 5:13 AM

CITIZEN


There was some in the fifties who thought the nuclear tests would crack the surface of the Earth like an egg.

What can I say, some people juggle geese .



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 5:22 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:


And maybe you think the use of preemptive nukes is justified


Nuke Them Before They Nuke You
Another quality home game from Butler Bros.

Chrisisall, who sees a mushroom cloud as W's going out present...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 6:14 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Do you know the Japanese were offering their surrender, but the only term, namely don't destroy our culture, was considered too unreasonable?

The Allies (I am under no illusions that Britain rubber stamped the usage thus we are complicit) wanted an unconditional surrender, the nuclear bomb would get that. Britain and America wanted to show Russia "whose boss", the nuclear bomb would do that too.

Well it was supposed to; instead it scared Stalin into a nuclear program of his own and helped spark the cold war, but whatever.



This article challenges your points quite specificaly Citizen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml

Fredgiblet's point is definitely a valid one i think, since we were determined to force complete surrender on Japan and there were only two ways to accomplish that. Destroy their culture?? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but since in the end we won that war I guess we must have done so. Japanese culture died out 60 years ago then? Huh.

I suppose it could be reasonably argued that we shouldn't demand unconditional surrender from a country we are at war with, it is enough to just beat them far enough into a corner that they are no longer capable of hurting us. But if we had adopted that strategy with Germany and/or Japan, it's hard to think how the world would have turned out a better place.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 7:10 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Destroy their culture?? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but since in the end we won that war I guess we must have done so.


You're misrepresenting what I said, I didn't say the "Allies planned to destroy Japanese culture". It is not important what the Allies planned, it is important what the Japanese THOUGHT they planned.

The surrender terms given to the Japanese in the Potsdam Proclamation made no mention of Japan's most important surrender condition, which was the status of the Emperor who the Japanese saw as a god.

Furthermore the Proclamation made some statements that appeared to directly threaten the Emperor:
"There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals"
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450726a.html

There was a desire for peace in Japan, a movement that had wanted peace long before Hiroshima. They supported surrender, but again ONLY if the status of the Emperor was assured.

Japan's Prime Minister Suzuki said on the 9th of June 1945:
"Should the Emperor system be abolished, they [the Japanese people] would lose all reason for existence. 'Unconditional surrender', therefore, means death to the hundred million: it leaves us no choice but to go on fighting to the last man."


I think it's quite clear that the Japanese thought that an unconditional surrender would mean the destruction of their culture, their way of life and them as a people. They thought that it would be better to fight to the death than too let that happen.

In fact even after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese were not prepared to surrender, what tipped the balance was a personal plea to the cabinet (who were the only people who could declare surrender) by the Emperor.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 7:41 AM

SIMONWHO


I think it's clear the White House policy is that the bombings will continue until the poll ratings improve.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 10:44 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Yeah, I reckon we're mostly in agreement.

I think it's fair to say that there was a possibility that Japan's unconditional surrender could have been gained without resorting to the two A-bombs - we could have clearly stated the threat to them (i.e. 'We have bombs than can take out a single city each') and made some assurances as to the fate of the emperor. The Japanese were very stubborn and mightn't have agreed to this but even then, we could have at least used one bomb at a time.

In short, I don't know why we didn't really take any of these halfway steps towards peace. But neither do you. We can take guesses, but I disagree with you that 'Intimidating the Soviet Union' is a good one.

I would suggest that at that point of the war, after a lot of bloody fighting to force back the Japanese we were looking to force some retribution on a highly militaristic society that had opened hostilities by sneak attack, and had treated our POWs despicably. Public opinion would have demanded no less than this, and though the president should be detached from public opinion to some extent, I think public opinion had a point. You say;

Quote:

The surrender terms given to the Japanese in the Potsdam Proclamation made no mention of Japan's most important surrender condition, which was the status of the Emperor who the Japanese saw as a god.

Furthermore the Proclamation made some statements that appeared to directly threaten the Emperor:
"There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals"



But are you sure that we were obligated to guarantee complete immunity from international law for the emperor? Sure, it might have been the only way that Japan's civilians might be spared a lot of suffering. But Japanese troops had carried out many atrocities against everyone including us over the past decade, and it seems to me this emperor should've at least been tried for war crimes.

Interestingly, perhaps the only reason why we didn't in the end was because we had already exacted such horrible retribution on the Japanese that we didn't want to then go and serve the 'stern justice' to their emperor, that he may well have deserved.

Perhaps if we had, the Japanese people would by now have faced up to the atrocities that they committed in this period. But then, as you say, the Japanese would almost certainly not have surrendered (unless we purposefully deceived them with false assurances) and the war would've gone on much longer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:20 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Do you know the Japanese were offering their surrender, but the only term, namely don't destroy our culture, was considered too unreasonable?



The way I have always heard it was that the Japanese did not offer to surrender until after the first bomb was dropped, so theoretically the first bomb was neccesary. But I could be wrong. I know you are right about the second bomb though, the Japanese did try to surrender before that one.

Quote:

Also the effects of the Nuclear bomb on a Human population were not known.

Who better to test the effects of your latest weapon on if not the enemy?



Very true, after all dropping a bomb on Boston would have been a little counter-productive

Quote:

There was some in the fifties who thought the nuclear tests would crack the surface of the Earth like an egg.

What can I say, some people juggle geese.



And there are still people today who believe that the Earth is flat.

Quote:

Nuke Them Before They Nuke You
Another quality home game from Butler Bros.



http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue3/nukecrap1.html
It only has Europe, but still...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:30 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
...and it seems to me this emperor should've at least been tried for war crimes.



Once again, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the emperor really did not have that much to do with the war. I remember seeing more than one source say that the war was concieved and carried out by high-ranking military officials instead of the emperor. Granted the emperor probably could have ended the war, but who wants to end a war that is going well (and who can honorably say "I give up"(Hint: it is not the Japanese))?

I also saw a show about the last attack that the U.S. launched against the Japanese and how that was what actually let the war end.
http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1995/AS/tlrd.html
For anyone too lazy to read it:
The Japanese military knows the Emperor wants to surrender, they don't want to, they try to stop him, the last American raid of the war flies overhead causing the air-raid defenses to go into effect, this throws off the schedule of the planned coup, the rebels are unable to stop the emperor from broadcasting his surrender message, the war ends.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:38 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by KPO:
We can take guesses, but I disagree with you that 'Intimidating the Soviet Union' is a good one.


I disagree. At the time the British and Americans were well aware of what sort of man Stalin was (Churchill walked out of a meeting when Stalin suggested what they should do to the German people).

They knew full well they need to 'reel' the Russians in. I doubt that the bombs would have been dropped if it was the only or main consideration, but I find it hard to believe that showing the Russians the destructive power at Americas command wasn't on the table.
Quote:

But are you sure that we were obligated to guarantee complete immunity from international law for the emperor? Sure, it might have been the only way that Japan's civilians might be spared a lot of suffering. But Japanese troops had carried out many atrocities against everyone including us over the past decade, and it seems to me this emperor should've at least been tried for war crimes.

It’s my understanding that the powers that be at the time believed the emperor wasn't really all that important.

I've read arguments that say it may have been enough to merely allow the position of Emperor to continue, but in the end it depends what you think is more important given your point:
The lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, or trying one man for war crimes?
Quote:

Interestingly, perhaps the only reason why we didn't in the end was because we had already exacted such horrible retribution on the Japanese that we didn't want to then go and serve the 'stern justice' to their emperor, that he may well have deserved.

The original surrender terms stated that the Emperor was 'safe'. One of the advisors responsible for drawing the terms up insisted that the Japanese would be unlikely to accept surrender without it.

It was removed in the final version, I don't know why.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:07 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I think that Hiroshima was a 'B' site, as another city ( i can't recall which ) was targeted as the 'A' cite was waved off as it had too much cloud cover.


Nagasaki was the B site for the Fat Man weapon. It was selected as a target, but only a secondary target because it was believed it's hilly terrain would (and did) reduce the weapons effectiveness. The A site was Kokura but it was covered with clouds, and the crew had orders to drop the bomb visually.
Quote:

And because the effects of incendiary carpet bombing of civilian centers in Europe was already known.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point...






If the point escapes you, I fail to see the need to draw you a conclusion.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Nuclear Posture Review [Excerpts]
Submitted to Congress on 31 December 2001.
Building on the (QDR) this Nuclear Posture Review puts in motion a major change in our approach to the role of nuclear offensive forces in our deterrent strategy and presents the blueprint for transforming our strategic posture.

This report establishes a New Triad, composed of:
Offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear);
Defenses (both active and passive); and
A revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats


People seem to have forgotten the Bush admin changed nuclear strategy from response to offensive a number of years ago. If you don't think that was preparation for this you're deluded.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 12:33 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If the point escapes you, I fail to see the need to draw you a conclusion.


Oh, you don't have one and you don't understand what I said. Why didn't you just say?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 1:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Oh, you don't have one and you don't understand what I said. Why didn't you just say?


The point was that we didn't want to set fire to city after city in Japan via carpet bombing as was done in Germany. Such a tactic would have cost more in lives , equipment and extended the war out longer. It was time to put an end to it all, and that's why the Hirioshima and Nagasaki were bombed. But you understand this already, yet you feel the need to feign ignorance as you take your petty personal digs. By all means, have at it, have the last word. I know how much it means to you.

( and pardon my post script of my own comment. I saw fit to ammend my reply , not knowing you'd already be responding ... hope you can reply w/ something that makes sense now )

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 1:39 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But you understand this already, yet you feel the need to feign ignorance as you take your petty personal digs. By all means, have at it, have the last word.


Well not to get all twelve year old on you but you started it . I merely asked you to clarify your point, which frankly sounded like a snarky "you Brits burned German cities" reply and you threw your toys out of the pram, but try to make yourself look like the "bigger man" if you wish. I know how much that means too you.

But Anyway:
Quote:

The point was that we didn't want to set fire to city after city in Japan via carpet bombing as was done in Germany. Such a tactic would have cost more in lives , equipment and extended the war out longer. It was time to put an end to it all, and that's why the Hirioshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

Lets sort of shuffle past the whole fact that incendiary carpet bombing had already been used against Japan, which kinda invalidates your opening point and get back to what I said.

I.e. that the use of the A-Bombs may not of been necessary if the Allies had included a term in the surrender that ensured the Emperors survival, despite the fact we let the emperor continue on anyway. That we could of told the Japanese about our "awesome destructive power", or even shown them in away that didn't irradiate innocent civilians. Might not of worked but then it might have.

We didn't even try, despite the urgings of experts, maybe as KPO seemed to have alluded there was a revenge factor, maybe there was a lot of things, but making 200,000+ innocent civilians glow in the dark may not have been the only viable option on the table for bringing an expedient end to the war.

Prior to AU's attempt at revisionist history:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, I don't undestand what you said. Or why you said it. Which is typically par for the course.


Yes I know, adults are talking, shh.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 6:27 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
..or even shown them in away that didn't irradiate innocent civilians.



Not 100% sure on this but if I remember correctly, at the time we had very little uranium, barely enough to make the bombs that we made (anyone not as lazy as me care to research this and back me up\correct me?).
If I'm right about that, then expending one in a demonstration that had no direct effect would probably be seen as incredibly wasteful. That being said a bomb landing outside of city might have made them surrender, but we will never know.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 7:08 AM

CITIZEN


There were three devices built. The first (the Gadget) was detonated in New Mexico on the 16th of July.

Little Boy was a 'gun type' device, where a supercritical projectile is fired into a receptor. This type used U-235 (enriched Uranium) of which there was only enough to build one bomb at the time. This is why this design wasn't tested before being deployed.

Fat Man was an 'Implosion type' weapon similar to the Gadget, where a core is compressed to increase its density and cause it to go supercritical and results in a nuclear explosion. This type uses Plutonium, which was much more plentiful than Uranium, being a by-product of the atomic piles at Hanford, Washington, but Plutonium bombs are also more complex.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 7:40 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
There were three devices built. The first (the Gadget) was detonated in New Mexico on the 16th of July.

Little Boy was a 'gun type' device, where a supercritical projectile is fired into a receptor. This type used U-235 (enriched Uranium) of which there was only enough to build one bomb at the time. This is why this design wasn't tested before being deployed.




I think you mean "subcritical" projectile. The resulting mass (projectile + target) makes a critical mass and thus an explosion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 7:41 AM

CITIZEN


Yeah you're right. The two subcritical components combine to become supercritical.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 7:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Nuclear Posture Review [Excerpts]
Submitted to Congress on 31 December 2001.
Building on the (QDR) this Nuclear Posture Review puts in motion a major change in our approach to the role of nuclear offensive forces in our deterrent strategy and presents the blueprint for transforming our strategic posture.

This report establishes a New Triad, composed of:
Offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear);
Defenses (both active and passive); and
A revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats


People seem to have forgotten the Bush admin changed nuclear strategy from response to offensive a number of years ago. If you don't think that was preparation for this you're deluded.



Here's a good article by the "Nuclear Threat Initiative" on the NPR. It also has links to the public portion of the report.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_15a.html

...and about that triad? Per the article.

Quote:

U.S. strategic nuclear weapons have traditionally been organized in a triad of land (intercontinental ballistic missiles), sea (submarine launched ballistic missiles), and air (bombers) forces. The new NPR emphasizes that nuclear weapons will continue to play a fundamental role in war fighting. It outlines a new triad in which the old triad occupies part of the offensive strike systems leg. Improved conventional strike weapons round out this leg. The second leg includes active and passive defenses in which missile defenses are a fundamental component. Finally, the third leg focuses on developing a defense infrastructure that can respond rapidly to changes in the security environment. In essence, the new triad boils down to a repackaging of concepts from previous administrations.
(emphasis mine)




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 9:37 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
There were three devices built. The first (the Gadget) was detonated in New Mexico on the 16th of July.



I knew about this one but didn't count it because it was needed to prove that the bomb could be built. So they still only had enough U-235 at the time for the two bombs that were dropped.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 9:53 AM

CITIZEN


They only had enough U-235 for one bomb, which is why only one bomb (Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima) used U-235. The other two devices used Plutonium and a different technique for causing it to go supercritical.

Plutonium is created by 'decaying' U-238 (which can be dug up from the ground) inside a Nuclear reactor. In the case of the Manhattan Project the Plutonium was supplied by the Atomic piles at Hanford.

In short the scarcity of U-235 was not an issue since Plutonium Bombs like the one dropped on Nagasaki could be produced.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 11:33 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

I merely asked you to clarify your point, which frankly sounded like a snarky "you Brits burned German cities"
That's the problem, you read things which aren't being said! I never said, or even implied that you Brits burned German cities. All I'm saying is that it was done , whether by both US/British raids in Europe or US raids in Japan.

I get your point about a 'demonsration' use of the bomb, but even you acknowledge that it might not have worked. If you're going to use that big of a weapon, make sure the message gets sent.

Quote:

We didn't even try, despite the urgings of experts
It was war. Which 'experts' would that be? Those who made the bomb, or those who were in charge of ending the war ? I'll even conceed that the 2nd bomb should not have been used, but such was the fog of war, info doesn't always get to those who need it.


It's funny how you revise history , while accusing others of doing the same. I ammended my own post, as I'm free to do, before I saw your reply. I didn't expect that you'd be hanging on my every post. That you chose to comment on either post isn't an issue, but when you lie and distort the facts, that's when you beocme the most tedious.

But it's important to your fragil psyche that your own little world not be troubled w/ things like facts or opposing points of view. That might explain you reading things which weren't written in the first place.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 11:34 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I disagree. At the time the British and Americans were well aware of what sort of man Stalin was


Yeah fair enough. I can't say for sure that this thought of using the bombs to show off to the Russians didn't cross the minds of the president and his staff, but that doesn't mean it made all of the difference (or even any) to the final decision.

And I'm sure the cold war would have happened anyway - didn't Stalin have spies who alerted him to the existence of these weapons after the successful New Mexico testing?

Quote:

It’s my understanding that the powers that be at the time believed the emperor wasn't really all that important.


I think it's widely accepted now that this view is the result of Allied propoganda, who wanted to spare the emperor and the japanese people. From the article I linked earlier:

Quote:

Japanese and American historians have also shown that at the centre of the military system was the Emperor Hirohito, not the hapless prisoner of militarist generals, the version promulgated by MacArthur in 1945 to save him from a war crimes trial, but an all-powerful warlord, who had guided Japan’s aggressive expansion at every turn. Hirohito’s will had not been broken by defeats at land or sea, it had not been broken by the firestorms or by the effects of the blockade, and it would certainly not have been broken by the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, something the Japanese had anticipated for months.


Perhaps the guy is exaggerating with "all-powerful warlord" I don't know, but it seems to me that he at least ought to have been tried. I would hazard a guess that this is what President Truman was thinking when he refused to give assurances of the emperor's safety in the surrender terms (It's in his uncompromising nature). In a sense he was 'right' to insist on full justice on those who deserved it, and all of a sudden had the power to enforce it. You say quite correctly that it was possible that hundreds of thousands could have been spared - it depends how much you value upholding justice. It's hard to put an acceptable figure on it, and you must remember that enemy civilian lives were quite cheap in the minds of military commanders at that point in time.

The devestation and number of casualties was not so much greater than the firebombing missions of other Japanese and German cities sanctioned by other presidents before him, so he already had a precedent. This whole Allied bombing strategy I would say was regrettable but understandable if you make an effort to get inside the heads of the people in charge at the time. I'd say we are rightly more sensitive to these things these days.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 12:22 PM

CITIZEN


Thought I'd address some of the obligatory patented AURaptor bullshit before we got down to the matter at hand :
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But it's important to your fragil psyche that your own little world not be troubled w/ things like facts or opposing points of view.


This is quite funny given that I've actually brought facts to this discussion and you've brought, erm, no I'm not sure you've really bought anything actually.

Though I think myself KPO and Fredgiblet have actually been having a discussion about this, so I'd wager that you're the one whose having the problems with alternate viewpoints .
Quote:

That's the problem, you read things which aren't being said! I never said, or even implied that you Brits burned German cities.

Now now AU I never said you did say that. However knowing the way you like to go on it sounded like that *could* be what you were trying to say, which is why I asked you to clarify your point because it wasn't at all clear.

You see I don't live in your head, thank god and it's plain to anyone I think that I don't think like you, thank god. So when you post something that's very open to interpretation and then throw a tantrum and refuse to clarify what you said don't be surprised if someone miss-interprets your words .

I asked you for clarification, you said If the point escapes you, I fail to see the need to draw you a conclusion. You don’t get to make a big thing when I draw my own conclusions when you’ve refused to tell me what you meant. Any of this getting through at all?
Quote:

It's funny how you revise history , while accusing others of doing the same. I ammended my own post, as I'm free to do, before I saw your reply.

Erm, where did I do that exactly? Oh and just so you know the edit thing is so you can make minor changes to your post, remove typos that sort of thing. Every now and then you can add more info, but it’s considered quite bad form to REMOVE entire passages. Oh and revising history is exactly what you did . Now, you were going to back up your accusation, if you can…
Quote:

I didn't expect that you'd be hanging on my every post.

I’m going to tell you a little story. It’s about a man (me) who owns a computer and checks his e-mails in the morning to find one in his inbox from notify@fireflyfans.net with the subject line: AURaptor has responded to your message!
Now here would be the contents of that e-mail:
AURaptor has responded to a message you posted

in the 'REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS FORUM'
with the topic 'WE'RE GONNA NUKE IRAN!'

You can go to the following URL to read the response.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=20374&m=298097#298097


http://www.fireflyfans.net
Now what does our hero do when he reads this mail? He valiantly clicks that link to find himself face to face with a post by our antagonist (antagonist in the writing: fiction sense ) AURaptor. He replies to this post, unaware that it had been posted only recently.

Chalk one up too coincidence eh son.
Quote:

but when you lie and distort the facts, that's when you beocme the most tedious.

When you make baseless accusations without backing them up and spend more time doing it than making your meagre poorly reasoned point that’s when you reach your average every day level of tedium, for AURaptor that is .

Now on to the ‘meat’:
Quote:

It was war. Which 'experts' would that be? Those who made the bomb, or those who were in charge of ending the war ?

No the experts on Japanese culture who helped draw up the Potsdam Proclamation and told the powers that be that the Japanese would never accept the surrender if the Emperors status wasn’t assured. Do try to keep up please.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL