RE: Threat to world peace???????

RE: Threat to world peace??????? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyEllen -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:34:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I have stated they did not fight until after pearl harbour. Thats incorrect though, I'm afraid. US warships protecting convoys to the UK did attack U Boats and were attacked by U Boats, well before Pearl Harbor. Not widely reported until recently though, and especially not reported at all at the time, because the isolationists in the US were pissed off enough already! E

LadyEllen -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:35:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Again, LadyEllen, accurate and on point. FirmKY Well thanks! Can you tell its one of my specialist subjects!? E

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY On point and accurate, LadyEllen. FirmKY Actually not on point at all - the whole thread is about whether george bush should be tried for starting the iraq war. Also on point would be the 1935 protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiation, poisonous or other gases and of bacterialogical methods of warfare. The 1972 convention of the prohibition of production and stock piling of bacterialogical / biological and toxin weapons and on there destruction a similar law all rest on the desire to prevent the most irrational deeds of humankind. These are just some of the laws possibly broken by the nuclear bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. www.gmu.edu/academic/pcs/hiacka.htm

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:36:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I have stated they did not fight until after pearl harbour. Thats incorrect though, I'm afraid. US warships protecting convoys to the UK did attack U Boats and were attacked by U Boats, well before Pearl Harbor. Not widely reported until recently though, and especially not reported at all at the time, because the isolationists in the US were pissed off enough already! E The German U-boat campaign was a failure. It sunk barely 2% of the transatlantic shipping at a very heavy cost to itself.

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:38:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I have stated they did not fight until after pearl harbour. Thats incorrect though, I'm afraid. US warships protecting convoys to the UK did attack U Boats and were attacked by U Boats, well before Pearl Harbor. Not widely reported until recently though, and especially not reported at all at the time, because the isolationists in the US were pissed off enough already! E Yes american ships protecting american convoys delievering goods to the uk they hoped they would be paid for.

LadyEllen -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:39:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The German U-boat campaign was a failure. It sunk barely 2% of the transatlantic shipping at a very heavy cost to itself. Yes, but at least it ended well for the U Boat commander, Admiral Doenitz. He did a few years in Spandau, then started a fast food vending operation that flourished. Now you know where Dunkin Doenitz came from E

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:40:28 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:40:50 PM)
So considering russia declared war on japan before the usa does that mean then that russia won that war for the americans?

LadyEllen -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:46:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY On point and accurate, LadyEllen. FirmKY Actually not on point at all - the whole thread is about whether george bush should be tried for starting the iraq war. Also on point would be the 1935 protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiation, poisonous or other gases and of bacterialogical methods of warfare. The 1972 convention of the prohibition of production and stock piling of bacterialogical / biological and toxin weapons and on there destruction a similar law all rest on the desire to prevent the most irrational deeds of humankind. These are just some of the laws possibly broken by the nuclear bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. www.gmu.edu/academic/pcs/hiacka.htm Well, it was on point for the point being discussed, but yes - off thread topic. There was no prohibition on the use of atomic/nuclear weapons in 1945; they hadnt been imagined, except in the odd minds of scientists of course. MissT vs the USA on the charge of breach of the 1935 convention therefore fails, since the convention did not cover such weapons. The 1972 convention is inadmissible as it was enacted after the event, and also does not apply to atomic/nuclear weapons. Sadly, there is no law, convention or treaty which prohibits irrational deeds by mankind - indeed there is no such which prohibits evil deeds as such either. MissT vs the President of the USA on this charge therefore also fails. But........ we hanged quite a few nazi leaders on the charge of "waging a war of aggression" at Nuernberg. That is where the case lies and where a charge might well succeed - if anyone could bring it and make it stick. E

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:49:44 PM)
Ah well a girl can try. Crimes against humanity? [:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:53:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Actually not on point at all - the whole thread is about whether george bush should be tried for starting the iraq war. Also on point would be the 1935 protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiation, poisonous or other gases and of bacterialogical methods of warfare. The 1972 convention of the prohibition of production and stock piling of bacterialogical / biological and toxin weapons and on there destruction a similar law all rest on the desire to prevent the most irrational deeds of humankind. These are just some of the laws possibly broken by the nuclear bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. www.gmu.edu/academic/pcs/hiacka.htm Please cross-reference: Frederick Lindemann, Winston Churchill, and Area bombardment. Then get back with me. FirmKY PS to LadyEllen, Yes, I can tell it's something you have spent some time learning. Rare thing, that. And Dunkin Doenitz! [sm=applause.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:57:23 PM)
With respect i would but im too tired and bored of asking the same questions and only getting answers to ones that suit people.

LadyEllen -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:57:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation So considering russia declared war on japan before the usa does that mean then that russia won that war for the americans? Russia declared war on Japan in the late 1930s, in response to Japanese expansion and aggression and the threat to the Far East part of Russia. As it happens, the Russian Far East armies gave the Japanese a proper kicking. The Japanese had to sue for peace with Russia, and then would not attack the Russian Far East again later because of the experience - much to Hitler's annoyance no doubt - especially considering that much of this Russian Far East army was that which later steamrollered the nazi forces into Europe. When the European war ended, Roosevelt and Stalin apparently agreed that Russia could take the east of Europe under its "protection" as a bribe to move Russian forces to the Far East to threaten Japan, and in readiness for a possible invasion. However, the estimated losses which would be incurred from such an invasion were over a million allied troops dead (many more wounded, the ratio I believe is rarely less than 10 wounded to each 1 killed). Thus the decision to use the atomic bombs. The results in terms of the effects on the Japanese population, is of course regrettable in the extreme. However, set against the scenario at the time and against the fact that no one really knew how extreme the effects would be and how long lasting, and that those two demonstrations terrified the world until today and played a part in keeping the peace worldwide, it is probably a small price to have paid in terms of the suffering having used those weapons, next to the suffering that otherwise might have been experienced, worldwide. This is no comfort to the victims of course, and I recognise that. E

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 4:59:58 PM)
The results in terms of the effects on the Japanese population, is of course regrettable in the extreme. However, set against the scenario at the time and against the fact that no one really knew how extreme the effects would be and how long lasting, and that those two demonstrations terrified the world until today and played a part in keeping the peace worldwide, it is probably a small price to have paid in terms of the suffering having used those weapons, next to the suffering that otherwise might have been experienced, worldwide. This is no comfort to the victims of course, and I recognise that. With respect things that do not have a known outcome should not be used.

LadyEllen -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 5:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation With respect things that do not have a known outcome should not be used. I agree. But equally it is a mistake to judge our forebears who acted in their time and in their place according to their values and ideals, by the values and ideals which we hold sixty years later. Ergo - Mr Bush should have known better? E

missturbation -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 5:07:31 PM)
Yes quite possibly but i still believe nuclear bombing of hiroshima was wrong and cowardly.

starshineowned -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 5:09:05 PM)
quote: However, the estimated losses which would be incurred from such an invasion were over a million allied troops dead (many more wounded, the ratio I believe is rarely less than 10 wounded to each 1 killed). Thus the decision to use the atomic bombs. And thusly it reverts back to "the lesser of evils" at any given time. This actually is a process which has pretty much landed in any nations lap, and will continue to. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

Sinergy -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 5:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation As far as seeing it "cowardly" to save a million US lives with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, I've already made my point on that. 333,000 japanese still suffering effects from the nuclear bombings. Chances of getting cancer are higher. Deformities in featuses due to the radiation still present. More susceptible to Leukemia. This is 50 years after the nuclear bombings and chances are there will be more casualties associated with them. As far as i am concerned nuclear weapons are more cruel and inhumane than any other weapon as the web site i quoted stated. The continual affects over the years are abysmal. Definition of cowardly - firing a nuclear weapon at a country which did not possess such technology and could not fight back. As far as weapons of warfare are concerned, nuclear weapons in world war 2 were nasty, but in terms of weapons that really kill enormous numbers of people, the American / British development of firestorms using incendiary weapons were much more terrible. Examples of this technology in use include Tokyo and Dresden. Which is not to say that nuclear weapons are nice, since the effects last multiple generations. While I can understand the use of the one on Hiroshima as a means of saving American lives, the Japanese were suing for peace through the Swiss and the United States refused to meet with them until they tested the plutonium device on Nagasaki. So the logic of using nuclear weapons to save American lives breaks down when you apply it to Nagasaki. That was an the US government using Japanese civilians as guinea pigs in a freakish experiment. Sinergy

meatcleaver -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 5:11:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Ergo - Mr Bush should have known better? Of course he should have known better, just about everyone else did, including his own general staff apparently. He or at least Cheney also rejected Iran's overtures in 2003 offering the US everything they wanted in exchange for help to eliminate an Iranian terrorist group in Iraq. That was on Newsnight and also confirmed by an ex Colin Powel staff member in the Pentagon.

farglebargle -> RE: Threat to world peace??????? (1/17/2007 5:51:27 PM)
Gotta concur on the strategic use of firestorms... That was a pretty shitty trick by anyone's book.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875