|
jlf1961 -> RE: Iran begins production of cruise missiles (3/8/2010 12:46:57 PM)
|
quote:
Well lets count them up.
Dammit to hell Thompson,but this is getting tiresome....lets take these one at a time shall we.
OK with me you seem to like being spanked in public
Two on Japan.
I hope there is no need to mention we were at war?Nor that estimates at the time suggested that an invasion would have cost far more lives ,both civilian(Japanese) and military...from both sides.
Read "The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire" by John Toland. In it he documents the repeated efforts by the Japanese government to surrender starting in 1943.
The actual truth is that the Japanese, as directed by Hideki Tōjō, (the prime minister of Japan AND the man who was leading the military faction which got Japan involved in the war in the first place) were trying to get terms favorable to the Japanese Empire, which meant little or no loss in gained territory, no change in regime, and no disarmament. The myth that they were trying to surrender unconditionally has been around for a while.
The United States and Great Britain had already made it clear that they would settle for nothing less than total and unconditional surrender.
quote:
Threatened both China and North Korea with them.
One might consider that engaging in war with a nuclear power is to be "threatened" with nukes....whats your point?
Just to bring you up to speed we were not at war with China.
We attacked North Korea not vise versa.
A Brief refresher on the cause of the Korean War.
The Korean War was a military conflict between the Republic of Korea, supported by the United Nations, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, supported by the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union. The war began on 25 June 1950 and an armistice was signed on 27 July 1953.
The war was a result of the political division of Korea by agreement of the victorious Allies at the conclusion of the Pacific War. The Korean peninsula had been ruled by Japan prior to the end of the war; in 1945 following the surrender of Japan, the peninsula was divided by American administrators along the 38th parallel, with United States troops occupying the southern part and Soviet troops occupying the northern part. The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the 38th Parallel increasingly became a political border between the two Koreas. Although reunification negotiations continued in the months preceding the war, tension intensified. Cross-border skirmishes and raids at the 38th Parallel persisted. The situation escalated into open warfare when the North Korean forces invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950.
The North Koreans were the aggressors here, not the US. When the UN forces pushed the North Korean forces back to the Chinese Border, the Chinese sent troops to the conflict.
The Soviets were supplying hardware and personnel, including MiG fighters and the pilots to fly the aircraft, which were flying out of bases in China.
At no time was the threat of Nuclear Weapons used, and the war ended in a stalemate, which is still ongoing, there has never been a formal peace treaty signed.
quote:
Threatened Cuba with them
During the missile crisis?...When Cuba had allowed installation of Russian Nukes?...again whats your point?
Cuba is a soverign nation not the bitch of the U.S.
You do remember that the U.S. had only recently invaded Cuba (Bay of Pigs).
This is pretty old news but you seem not to know about why the missiles were put there.
We had nukes in Turkey and this was Russia's way of letting us know that they were feeling a little put upon.
The quid pro quo was that we took our missiles out of Turkey and they took their missiles out of Cuba.
They did not reposses the tactical nukes that are still in Cuba.
Actually, we didnt threaten Cuba per say, we threatened the Soviet Union. A little known fact is that the weapons in Turkey were already scheduled to be dismantled and phased out. Better weapons systems were being deployed in Europe. Both the Army and Air Force had better medium range missiles in Europe by the time the Russians were playing games in Cuba.
quote:
We spent about 50 years threatning Russia with them.
While they in turn spent 50 years threatening us.....again whats your point?
You need to do a little research.
You might want to start by learning about the "Truman Doctrin". Then you might want to read Chomsky's rebuttle.
"the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." and thus the cold war chess game came into existence.
For every move by the Russians, the US made a counter move, which is how we got involved in the Korean War. The Soviets and China supported the invasion of the South by North Korea, and the US and UN responded in kind.
It is also how we ended up in Vietnam. The communist North started its moves on the South and then we along with a few other countries (RoK, Australia, Great Britain) aided the South Vietnamese.
This was also the beginning of the escalation of the cold war NUCLEAR threat. The Soviets went on a weapon and weapon system building program, and the US countered with its own. In a short period, each side had enough weapons to wipe out all life on the planet a few times over, thus MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) came into play.
In truth, both sides made the unspoken point that if one side launched, the other side would react in kind and the end would be both sides (and everyone else) would lose.
I suggest both of you read NSC-68
quote:
Every chairborn ranger on this forum has advocated using them for everything from illegal immigration to the sandbox.
More of your simple bullshit!
Simple yes bullshit no
Actually, I take offense to this remark, since I served With A175th Rangers (Alpha Company, First of the seventy fifth) and while I agree there are a few armchair generals who advocate the use of nuclear weapons for any reason, many of us that are active or ex military feel that is like using a shotgun to kill an ant.
quote:
So your portrayal of the U.S. as the benevolent thug with the ultimate stick as the least likely to use that stick just does not float in a rational body of thought.
And just what the fuck would you know about rational thoughts?
Is it rational for you to have a discussion with someone who is not?
The fact that the US has a non first use WMD procedure should account for something. The US has made it clear that we will not use WMD's first, but will respond in kind if we or our allies are attacked with WMD's.
To this end, all nuclear forces are on constant alert.
I agree that the threat of force of arms against a country that willingly harbors and gives sanctuary to terrorists is both legal and justified.
|
|
|
|
