Another lie by President Bush over Iraq "gassing his own people"?

[LunarRay]

So Einstein pushed for the development of the A-Bomb but didn't intend for it to be used.....well not against Japan at least. I'm sure he wouldn't have had a problem with using it on Germany.[/quote]

I suspect any nation with WMD would use them against a foe that used WMD against them. To use them first is the action of a desperate nation or one that had justification supportable by history... We can justify WMD on Japan... I think.. But Saddam's use against Iran was to keep them from invasion. Against the Kurds was because he didn't think them worthy of concern. Don't forget that Saddam patterned his life after Stalin... had a library full of Stalin books..

There can be no other conclusion but that Saddam will use them with the same cold feeling that Stalin would posess.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sure he wouldn't have had a problem with using it on Germany.
---------------------------------
How do you know. I would say the opposite.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm sure he wouldn't have had a problem with using it on Germany.
---------------------------------
How do you know. I would say the opposite.

Well let's see....he pushed the U.S. to develop an A-Bomb because he thought Germany might make one first. Then in one of his quotes you posted he said "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." That leads me to believe that he wouldn't oppose using the A-Bomb against Germany.

Sometimes it isn't what someone says that is important....it's what they fail to say that is.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Let me see. Give up power, take my countless billions(some people say that Saddam is the richest man in the world), and retire to a life of luxury in the French Riviera. Or stay and fight to the death and use WMD to spit in the face of the "great Satan" Bush.......hmmm, tough choice.....

That which makes Saddam the person who he is will not allow him to take the action you propose unless he can swing both options..
Maybe he is in exile now and leading the war effort from afar... That would allow him to be there to take the bows or drink the brew.

 

[onelin]

Originally posted by: Tates

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

Ah yes, the justification of the crime. All the lives that were saved. And the cost? Only the atrocious annihilation of 350,000 Japanese civilians. Why don't you tell me how many lives would have been saved, since you seem to be all-knowing and probably have intimate knowledge about alternate courses of history that never happened.

Just remember, we are the inventor of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

A true understanding of the historical dynamics of the WWII era would remedy such comments.

Japan's WWII Nuclear Program

Japan's Infamous Unit 731 & countless civilian deaths through chemical & biological experimentation

The Rape of Nanking....estimated 300,000 civilian deaths, etc.

There is no doubt that Truman acted in the world's best interest.

Too true...History about the Far East helps significantly.

I read a book (Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan) related to this. The only reason Japan's emperor finally surrendered and stopped the agony of his people was this unfortunate act. (Too big to be denied) He cared more about his personal pride than he did about the country. Otherwise, there would have been plenty of death to go around anyway.

 

[ub4me]

Originally posted by: Big Al
"60 Minutes" had an episode about Iraq gassing their own people and they clearly blamed Saddam. Oh well, I guess there are people who don't believe The Holocaust happened either.

Here is the proof that Kurdish was killed by Iran's chemical weapons.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf

The chemical weapon analysis was the secret document written by US Marin Corps in December 1990 for the preparation of Gulf War.

You don't understand even CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX can make mistakes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well let's see....he pushed the U.S. to develop an A-Bomb because he thought Germany might make one first. Then in one of his quotes you posted he said "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." That leads me to believe that he wouldn't oppose using the A-Bomb against Germany.

Sometimes it isn't what someone says that is important....it's what they fail to say that is.
------------------------------------------
I appreciate the admission that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[syzygy]

Here is the proof that Kurdish was killed by Iran's chemical weapons.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf

this is isn't proof. its analysis from the evidence they were able to collect, which is very inadequate, imho.

kurdish eyewitness accounts identified iraqi helicopters over the town, circling overhead. iraqi artillery units shelled the
town just prior to the chemical bombardment. additional iraqi air force units were seen by halabja residents conducting
air measurements just prior to the actual attacks. these same slow, very exposed helicopter units (the evidence of which
is clear indication that iranian forces could not have been in the area) swept over halabja to check on population conditions.

new yorker magazine investigative report

"A helicopter had come back to the town, and the soldiers were throwing white pieces of paper out the side." In retrospect,
he understood that they were measuring wind speed and direction

another critical point is that halabj was not the only town targeted. the 'iranian' angle cannot explain the chemcial attacks
suffered by many other kurdish towns, like gotkapa and anskar, just six weeks after halabj.

Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, who led the campaigns against the Kurds in the late eighties, was heard on a tape
captured by rebels, and later obtained by Human Rights Watch, addressing members of Iraq's ruling Baath Party on the subject
of the Kurds. "I will kill them all with chemical weapons!" he said. "Who is going to say anything? The international community?
Fvck them! The international community and those who listen to them."

human rights watch brief on chemical ali

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well let's see....he pushed the U.S. to develop an A-Bomb because he thought Germany might make one first. Then in one of his quotes you posted he said "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." That leads me to believe that he wouldn't oppose using the A-Bomb against Germany.

Sometimes it isn't what someone says that is important....it's what they fail to say that is.
------------------------------------------
I appreciate the admission that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah that's me Moonie.....I'm just forming an opinion based on what I read that he said. Don't you think if he were against the A-Bomb for any reason he would have said so? Instead he said "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." Notice how he didn't say I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against anyone or I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan or Germany.

 

[drewshin]

so you're saying it's ok to use chemical or nuclear weapons on civilians as long as you can save lots of lives of soldiers in the future?

Hiroshima/Nagasaki


yeah, kill possibly, not proven, a couple thousand with poison gas, and it's a reason to take over your country.

oh but kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and youre justified because you are saving your own soldiers lives.
use chemical weapons in vietnam, and somehow it's ok.

 

[drewshin]

Yeah that's me Moonie.....I'm just forming an opinion based on what I read that he said. Don't you think if he were against the A-Bomb for any reason he would have said so? Instead he said "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." Notice how he didn't say I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against anyone or I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan or Germany.

but it wasnt used against germany. that's why he's just mentioning japan.
im pretty sure he wanted us to develop the a-bomb as a deterrent to germany, but not to actually use it unless they threatened to use it.
he was a pacifist, he would not have wanted large numbers of civilian deaths in either japan or germany.

 

[Jmman]

Well, Japan at the time was arming every man , woman, and child to defend their homeland. We were taking 1000 US casualties a day in the Pacific theater, and the military experts predicted that there would have been millions of casualties on both sides. Truman made a decision based upon the facts that he had at the time. Anyway, last time I checked, Japan attacked us, not the other way around.....

 

[ub4me]

>> Well, Japan at the time was arming every man , woman, and child to defend their homeland. <<

Well, how dare you say this? Are you sure? Are you really sure about this?
Is there any proof? Please verify it!

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: ub4me
>> Well, Japan at the time was arming every man , woman, and child to defend their homeland. <<

Well, how dare you say this? Are you sure? Are you really sure about this?
Is there any proof? Please verify it!

Watch some of the films taken on Iwo Jima. You know....where the men, women, and children that could hold guns were doing so and we literally had to burn them out of the caves they were in. While you're at it look at the films of the women jumping off of cliffs with children in their arms because they had been convinced that the U.S. soldiers would eat them. It's a sad thing and it makes me sick when I watch it. Still it is good proof of the extremes the Japanese were willing to go to in order to keep us from winning.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: drewshin

Yeah that's me Moonie.....I'm just forming an opinion based on what I read that he said. Don't you think if he were against the A-Bomb for any reason he would have said so? Instead he said "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." Notice how he didn't say I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against anyone or I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan or Germany.

but it wasnt used against germany. that's why he's just mentioning japan.
im pretty sure he wanted us to develop the a-bomb as a deterrent to germany, but not to actually use it unless they threatened to use it.
he was a pacifist, he would not have wanted large numbers of civilian deaths in either japan or germany.

Why develop a weapon if you aren't going to use it? That's like buying a car you don't intend to drive. How did Einstein feel about the carpet bombing of German or Japanese cities? Far more people were killed in those attacks than died in the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. How is one bomb killing thousands somehow worse than hundred or thousands of bombs killing those same thousands of people?

 

[Jmman]

link

The Japanese were prepared to absorb massive casualties. On August 9 -- after both atomic bombs had fallen -- Gen. Korechika Anami, the War Minister, reviewed Japan's Ketsu Go (Operation Decision) defense plan for the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War. Anami said the military could commit 2,350,000 troops. In addition, commanders could call on four million civil servants. The Japanese cabinet had approved a measure extending the draft to include men from ages fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five (an additional 28 million people). Questioned by Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Chief of Staff Yoshijiro Umezu said that, "With luck, we will repulse the invaders before they land. At any rate, I can say with confidence that we will be able to destroy the major part of an invading force."[11]

It is generally assumed that the citizens would have fought with pickup weapons and bamboo lances, but in the spring of 1945, the Japanese government was planning to produce "people's weapons" that could be made easily in underground factories or with domestic materials in factories moved to safe locations.[12] How many "people's weapons" might actually have been produced by the start of the allied invasion is unknown.



I could dig up 50 more links if you want them......

Another little blurb.......
In 1945, the doubts and disagreements about use of the atomic bomb were mostly of a strategic nature, reflecting the belief that an invasion might not be necessary or that bombing and blockade would be sufficient. (Use of the bomb to end the war eventually saved Japanese casualties, too. The incendiary bombs from B-29s were taking a terrible toll. The attack on Tokyo March 9-10 killed more people than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs.)

 

[Scarpozzi]

The truth of the matter is that the Kurds are hill bandits. They were known to attack and invade cities. They would kill innocent citizens to rob them and rape them. Saddam and the Iraqi government made the decision to punish the Kurds by bombing them. This was to send a strong message...and it worked. I'm not saying it was right, but this is how he approached a major problem with people in HIS country. It's hard to enforce laws in Iraq because it's not as structured as the U.S. We have structure and Social Security numbers, etc. There, they have sand dunes and hills.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is psychologically very important to justify the a-bombing of Japan. To kill that many innocent people for political objectives, as if they didn't matter, is something people just don't want to think about.

 

[JellyBaby]

It's hard to enforce laws in Iraq because it's not as structured as the U.S. We have structure and Social Security numbers, etc. There, they have sand dunes and hills.

So the long term solution is to assign Iraqis SSNs?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is psychologically very important to justify the a-bombing of Japan. To kill that many innocent people for political objectives, as if they didn't matter, is something people just don't want to think about.

It's actually an exercise in futility. It was almost 60 years ago. A very few of us were even alive then. Applying today's standards/morals/whatever to then is Monday morning quarterbacking to a ridiculous extreme. If the people that made those decisions were alive today, maybe they would feel differently too. The prism of time changes everyone's view.

 

[Moonbeam]

Standard change, the truth never does. It was wrong then as now.

 

[NightTrain]

Easy to say now.

What do you know?

 

[Jmman]

If we would have invaded Japan and suffered a million plus US casualties, don't you think the US population would have lynched Truman once they found out we had a weapon that could have ended the war? Japan was the aggressor anyway, so it really is a moot point. Hard to argue that it wasn't an effective action considering the war ended less than 10 days later..........



Moonie, why don't you ever comment on Japan's naked aggression against us at Pearl Harbor. Or maybe against China. Why don't you mention the 300,000 murders or 20,000 rapes commited by the Japanese at Nanjing, China? Once again your transparently political agenda collapses in the face of historical truth.....

 

[NightTrain]

...or the death march of Battan.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jmman, I thought historical truth was under debate. It would be tempting to just say that I have the historical truth and your comments are null and void, but I'm just not like that.

You will probably have to wait till somebody rushes in and tries to justifies the Japanese butchery as justifiable given the cost to Japanese soldiers it would have cost to invade China fair and square.