Iran shrugs off UN resolution deadline, consequences?

[Bwater]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/31/bush.terrorism/index.html

During his speech to the veterans convention, Bush also tied the showdown with Iran over its nuclear program to the fight against terrorism, insisting that "there must be consequences" for Tehran's defiance of demands that it stop enriching uranium.

The nuclear watchdog agency for the United Nations issued a report Thursday saying Iran has not suspended its uranium enrichment activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency report opens the way for possible U.N. Security Council sanctions against the country.

"The Iranian regime arms, funds and advises Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any terrorist network except al Qaeda," Bush said. "The Iranian regime interferes in Iraq by sponsoring terrorists and insurgents, empowering unlawful militias and supplying components for improvised explosive devices.

"It is time for Iran to make a choice. We've made our choice. We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."

Iran participated in efforts to eliminate the Osirak reactor, so surely Iran is aware of the likely "zionist" response to their nuclear ambitions but continues forward anyway. Bush promises consequences, and his term as president is coming to a close, so these consequnces (I assume this means something similar to osarik) will happen sooner than later.

The recent ww2 rhetoric can not be a good sign, is shit getting ready to hit the fan?

[AntioK]

The shit has already hit the fan, and yes i expect things to get considerably worse before they get better.

[Zogo]

are we going to invade ANOTHER country? lol...

[snaggle]

I hope so...I can get a new deck of playing cards!

[larcain]

are we going to invade ANOTHER country? lol...

Nah, we're gonna let the UN threaten to threaten them. If Iran isn't careful, the UN will use strong language.

[Zogo]

Nah, we're gonna let the UN threaten to threaten them. If Iran isn't careful, the UN will use strong language.

what right does country A have to tell country B that they can't have X technology?

[larcain]

Soooo, why exactly does the UN exist?

[koruptid]

what right does country A have to tell country B that they can't have X technology?
Because in this case country A is the international community, and X technology is uranium enrichment, not hi-def TV.

[dook]

No, because in this case Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which does allow it to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes but forbids the development of nuclear weapons. My understanding is that there's no evidence that they currently are making weapon-grade uranium but Iran has not been fully open in the past and this is basically the whole US case against them. However, everybody thinks they have a weapons program because the deals on the table essentailly offer free nuclear energy, but Iran turns them down.

What needs to happen is that the US needs to lean on Russia (on a number of things, not just Iran). Right now Russia could care less if Iran has a couple bombs... but if Russia tells Iran to behave, they will.

btw, the non-proliferation treaty also says that nuclear capable nations are supposed to get rid of their weapons..

[Kartikeya-OD]

I seem to remember Iran taking down all forms of surveillance in their facilities just a few months ago, which defies several UN resolutions they have signed as well as the non-proliferation treaty. Coupled with Iran's past and the new Presidents world view equals out to a very bad conclusion. We can lean on Russia some; however that is only a temporary answer. Iran needs to have consequences. They are not trustworthy in the least.

Oh and the non-proliferation doesn’t force existing countries to get rid of all their nuclear weapons either (see below).

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/03/26_road-prolilferation.htm

And.

The treaty forbids the five original nuclear countries from supplying any other country with the materials, technology, or other resources needed to make atomic or hydrogen bombs. It forbids all the other countries from acquiring or manufacturing such materials or technology. As a reward for this restraint, the NPT not only permits but encourages these countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The technology for this will be provided, according to Article V, "on a non-discriminatory basis" at a price "as low as possible." (http://www.slate.com/id/2117940/)

[rabidkevin]

kill them all

[Zogo]

Soooo, why exactly does the UN exist?

to supposedly prevent another world war by consolidating power. the US should leave it though. it's one of the most corrupt organizations I know of. the thing is full of dirty money.

Because in this case country A is the international community, and X technology is uranium enrichment, not hi-def TV.

what right does the "community" (whatever that is) have to tell the country that they can't have it..when they have it themselves?

No, because in this case Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which does allow it to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes but forbids the development of nuclear weapons.

we, the US, break treaties..why can't another country?

[Obscure]

to supposedly prevent another world war by consolidating power. the US should leave it though. it's one of the most corrupt organizations I know of. the thing is full of dirty money.

For once, Zogo, I completely agree with you.

[Kartikeya-OD]

For once, Zogo, I completely agree with you.

It will be the only time as well.

[koruptid]

what right does the "community" (whatever that is) have to tell the country that they can't have it..when they have it themselves?
We have the right to tell the Iranian government they can't have it because, frankly, we're stronger and we don't trust them.

America and Russia supposedly possess over 95% of the world's nuclear weapons. No one is worried that the U.S. has them, because we're not going to shoot them at countries we don't like, or give them to extremists so that they can use them against countries we don't like. Neither will Russia. Iran isn't looked at in the same light, and rightfully so. If they just want to utilize nuclear energy, fine. But only so long as they follow our rules and let us keep an eye on them. Which they're not doing.

Personally, I don't think anyone needs nuclear weapons. They no longer serve any strategic purpose. It's in everyone's best interests that we get rid of them all eventually. But letting countries like Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan have them is not a step in the right direction, regardless of their "rights."

And yes, we need to leave the UN and let it rot.

[Zogo]

For once, Zogo, I completely agree with you.

most are able to view the corruption of an organization when they are looking from the ouside in..but when the corruption is within it's harder to be objective and acknowledge it.

that's why people don't mind if US gov't continues to grow and become more powerful and corrupt as long as their party is in power.

We have the right to tell the Iranian government they can't have it because, frankly, we're stronger and we don't trust them.

"might makes right" is an insane position to take..unless you're on a conquest to conquer the planet.

No one is worried that the U.S. has them, because we're not going to shoot them at countries we don't like

huh? we're the only country in the history of the world to use them on another country. we killed hundreds of thousands with them.
I find it humorous when all the people say that the muslims are going to nuke us all when they get them when in fact some muslim countries already have the bomb..and none of them have used them on another country. the only country to do so has been the US, a christian country.

or give them to extremists so that they can use them against countries we don't like.

has iran announced that they're giving them to anyone or something?

But only so long as they follow our rules and let us keep an eye on them. Which they're not doing.

do you not believe in sovereign nations? or do you want the US to take over the entire globe as a one world government?

[QUOTE=koruptid]Personally, I don't think anyone needs nuclear weapons. They no longer serve any strategic purpose. It's in everyone's best interests that we get rid of them all eventually. But letting countries like Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan have them is not a step in the right direction, regardless of their "rights."

there's really not much we can do. every few years more countries get them. it's only a matter of time before the technology is everywhere.

and it doesn't help when our foreign policy actively encourages enemies to obtain the technology at any cost.

[schtoofa]

has iran announced that they're giving them to anyone or something?

Have you been following the news? Iran's president repeatedly calls for Israel's destruction. Iran also supports the terrorist organization called Hezbollah. Why wouldn't Iran give them nukes to accomplish their goal? Not too tough to connect the dots. I don't think I'm overestimating your reasoning abilities on this one :P

there's really not much we can do. every few years more countries get them. it's only a matter of time before the technology is everywhere.

Realistically I don't think we can stop it, but we can slow it down (and IMO it's worth it). It's a statistical thing -- the fewer people/countries that have nukes and related technologies, the easier it is to track and contain the nukes. Thus, most importantly, keeping that # small makes it less likely they'll be used again.

and it doesn't help when our foreign policy actively encourages enemies to obtain the technology at any cost.

What foreign policy wouldn't actively encourage enemies to obtain these types of technologies at all costs? People are selfish. They'll do what it takes to be the best and have the most.

[Zogo]

Have you been following the news? Iran's president repeatedly calls for Israel's destruction. Iran also supports the terrorist organization called Hezbollah. Why wouldn't Iran give them nukes to accomplish their goal? Not too tough to connect the dots. I don't think I'm overestimating your reasoning abilities on this one :P

yea, I know all that but I'm asking if iran has said "we are going to give nukes to terrorist groups and use them on israel."

Realistically I don't think we can stop it, but we can slow it down (and IMO it's worth it). It's a statistical thing -- the fewer people/countries that have nukes and related technologies, the easier it is to track and contain the nukes. Thus, most importantly, keeping that # small makes it less likely they'll be used again.

yes, we can slow it down but inturn that means we'll be stepping on the toes of many countries and meddling with them..do we want to piss off every country just as they're on the cusp of getting the technology? it sounds like a recipe for disaster in the long run to me.

What foreign policy wouldn't actively encourage enemies to obtain these types of technologies at all costs? People are selfish. They'll do what it takes to be the best and have the most.

a non-interventionist policy that didn't coerce countries into doing what they want UNTIL they get the nukes. our policy actively encourages all countries to obtain the weaponry at all costs so they can negotiate with the "big boys."
we've taken over iraq and afghanistan and are sandwiching iran. don't you think they're worried about us doing something to them? if they get the nukes we won't mess with them.

[Radioactive]

yea, I know all that but I'm asking if iran has said "we are going to give nukes to terrorist groups and use them on israel."

...If they said that, we'd destroy them.

[Moniker]

yea, I know all that but I'm asking if iran has said "we are going to give nukes to terrorist groups and use them on israel." there was this one time I told this guy "hey im gonna rob your house tomorrow at 9pm, unarmed", but for some reason they knew I was coming.

"might makes right" is an insane position to take..unless you're on a conquest to conquer the planet. yeah, it's not like this concept has been a driving force in politics since the dawn of man. utterly insane! :rolleyes:

[koruptid]

"might makes right" is an insane position to take..unless you're on a conquest to conquer the planet.
No, it's a realistic position to take. If every country were of equal rank and free to do whatever they wanted with no oversight, the world would be...well, Africa.

huh? we're the only country in the history of the world to use them on another country. we killed hundreds of thousands with them.
I find it humorous when all the people say that the muslims are going to nuke us all when they get them when in fact some muslim countries already have the bomb..and none of them have used them on another country. the only country to do so has been the US, a christian country.
We used them in a unique situation, and even though it was necessary it's still something we're guilty about. Our dropping bombs on Japan makes us less likely to use them in the future.

We're not worried just because they're Muslims. We're worried because of the rhetoric, beliefs, and actions of their leaders—and yes, even some of the people. I doubt we would be as concerned if a moderate, secularized Muslim country like Turkey got the nuke. They haven't, you know, called for the destruction of the West.

do you not believe in sovereign nations? or do you want the US to take over the entire globe as a one world government?
I, koruptid, solemnly swear that I do not give two shits about the sovereignty of Iran. Regardless, by "we" I was referring to the United Nations. Sorry for the confusion.

[Zogo]

No, it's a realistic position to take. If every country were of equal rank and free to do whatever they wanted with no oversight, the world would be...well, Africa.

insanity and realism aren't mutually exclusive attributes..so yes it is "realistic" too.

what do you mean "equal rank?" and yes countries are free to do what they want to do unless you believe in some sort of one world gov't.
your analogy with africa doesn't even make sense.

We used them in a unique situation, and even though it was necessary it's still something we're guilty about.

lol, a muslim country would call nuking israel "a unique situaton" too..does that absolve them?

it wasn't necessary to nuke japan but it did make things a lot more convenient.

We're not worried just because they're Muslims. We're worried because of the rhetoric, beliefs, and actions of their leaders—and yes, even some of the people. I doubt we would be as concerned if a moderate, secularized Muslim country like Turkey got the nuke. They haven't, you know, called for the destruction of the West.

then our fear is misguided and convoluted at this point. we should be a lot more worried about NK.

I, koruptid, solemnly swear that I do not give two shits about the sovereignty of Iran. Regardless, by "we" I was referring to the United Nations. Sorry for the confusion.

wtf? iran is IN the UN and one of the requirements of being in the UN is to be a sovereign nation in the first place..do you not care about state sovereignty or do you just pick and choose on a whim?

...If they said that, we'd destroy them.

we've never done that before.

there was this one time I told this guy "hey im gonna rob your house tomorrow at 9pm, unarmed", but for some reason they knew I was coming.

I still haven't been given an example of a country giving random terrorists the control codes to launch a nuclear warhead.

yeah, it's not like this concept has been a driving force in politics since the dawn of man. utterly insane! :rolleyes:

everything under the sun has been a "driving force" since recorded history..it doesn't legitimize it.

[schtoofa]

then our fear is misguided and convoluted at this point. we should be a lot more worried about NK.

Misguided and convoluted? C'mon. When a leader of another sovereign nation talks about destroying our allies (e.g., Israel), we shouldn't be afraid? Gimme a break.

With NK: We _are_ worried about NK. It probably doesn't seem like we are, because we're trying to use diplomacy (six party talks) and NK is refusing to sit at the table. Where's the news? Same story, different day. That's not nearly as newsworthy as the crazy rhetoric that Ahmadinejad continually spouts off. I'm guessing you're just interpreting "more Iran stories = more worry" or "more attention from the current administration = more worry." Those are not logically sound conclusions to make.

If Kim Jong Il talked as much crap as Ahmadinejad, I bet we'd see a similar reaction in the news and from the Bush Administration.

So what's the next step with NK? More waiting? UN slap on the wrist? Sanctions? Military action? What do you think we should do?[/quote]

I still haven't been given an example of a country giving random terrorists the control codes to launch a nuclear warhead.

Since you haven't been given an example, you're saying it shouldn't be a concern and isn't a realistic concern?

[Zogo]

Misguided and convoluted? C'mon. When a leader of another sovereign nation talks about destroying our allies (e.g., Israel), we shouldn't be afraid? Gimme a break.

we should be wary..and rest assured that israel would get to volley a round of nukes at iran if things ever came to that. these days I can't tell when politicians are giving lipservice to rally their base and when they're saying what they really believe. we've seen plenty of times where politicians put up a tough attitude just to win votes. I recall back to french/german politicians being as anti-bush as possible to win a few more votes..then once they were in they dropped the rhetoric and made buddy.

Where's the news?

they HAVE nukes and their leader IS more unstable than iran's leader.

Same story, different day. That's not nearly as newsworthy as the crazy rhetoric that Ahmadinejad continually spouts off. I'm guessing you're just interpreting "more Iran stories = more worry" or "more attention from the current administration = more worry."

the news needs to cycle through things to keep things new, fresh and entertaining.

Those are not logically sound conclusions to make.

I'd base it on how much the administration is talking about it..not how much news coverage its gets..and right now I haven't heard them talk about it in a long time.

So what's the next step with NK? More waiting? UN slap on the wrist? Sanctions? Military action? What do you think we should do?

we won't do anything because they have the technology. I don't think we should do anything..unless I was resigned to the fact that a nuke could land somewhere on the western coast of the continent.

Since you haven't been given an example, you're saying it shouldn't be a concern and isn't a realistic concern?

I think any possibility should be a "concern" however, in this instance the concern is more than a little outrageous. iran giving nukes to common terrorists who wouldn't answer to any country seems like something from a fiction novel. who's to say they wouldn't use it as a bargaining chip against iran itself? terrorists answer to no one.

[Kartikeya-OD]

I think any possibility should be a "concern" however, in this instance the concern is more than a little outrageous. iran giving nukes to common terrorists who wouldn't answer to any country seems like something from a fiction novel.

Quote of the year.

They already supply several terrorist organizations with arms, training, and millions in funding. The rhetoric of the leadership is identical rhetoric of those same organizations they are supporting and supplying. Lastly those terrorist organizations have camps and bases of operations inside Iran with the government’s cooperation.

Now add in the nuclear ambition of a country that sits on one of the largest energy reserves in the world; coupled with the blatant defiance of the UN treaty. What is more then a little outrageous about this situation?

Oh and what is a common terrorist? LOL. Can I find one of those bombing the quike-mart on 11th and Main?

[Moniker]

I still haven't been given an example of a country giving random terrorists the control codes to launch a nuclear warhead. Yeah,you're right. Sit around and do nothing because "there aren't any examples". I'm glad your decisions have no bearing on other human lives.

everything under the sun has been a "driving force" since recorded history..it doesn't legitimize it. Who gives a shit whether it's legitimate or not? It's not insane.....it actually works. And it always has worked. Just because you have a moral dilemma doesn't mean it's not going to happen anyway. So you can sit there and be outraged all you want, but the system ain't gonna change, son.

it wasn't necessary to nuke japan but it did make things a lot more convenient. If you're going to make a claim this retarded, at least back it up with some sort of a string of logic so I can continue making you look bad.

[larcain]

If you're going to make a claim this retarded, at least back it up with some sort of a string of logic so I can continue making you look bad.


Are you insinuating that he needs your help?

[Exe]

are we going to invade ANOTHER country? lol...

I've heard rumours that the U.S. military is getting spread a little thin.
And, with the war in Iraq costing 100's of millions of dollars per day coupled with the fact that enrolment is getting more difficult (short of a draft) now is the ideal time for Iran to say 'screw the US and the UN - we'll build our nuclear weapons and there's nothing you can do about it'.

I guess my point here is does the US have the military resources (maybe 'will' is the better word) to mount up yet another offensive? Will the American people accept it? I doubt it...

[dys]

Accept it? Probably not. Capable? Darn tootin'. Draft? Not gonna happen.

[Zogo]

They already supply several terrorist organizations with arms, training, and millions in funding. The rhetoric of the leadership is identical rhetoric of those same organizations they are supporting and supplying. Lastly those terrorist organizations have camps and bases of operations inside Iran with the government’s cooperation.

there's a BIG difference between small arms/cash/training and a nuke code. if the terrorist got that then they'd have a ton of leverage.

I see no reason why even a country as insane as NK would give someone a nuke like that..that's a huge bargaining chip.

What is more then a little outrageous about this situation?

giving nukes to a group within your borders is a few million times more outrageous to violating a UN treaty (something most countries have done.) you call it "blatant" but violating a treaty must only be blatant if you agree with it.

Oh and what is a common terrorist? LOL. Can I find one of those bombing the quike-mart on 11th and Main?

uneducated, fundamentalist footsoldiers living in primitive nomadic groups.. ie al qaeda.

Yeah,you're right. Sit around and do nothing because "there aren't any examples". I'm glad your decisions have no bearing on other human lives.

my views aren't contingent on that example..I was merely asking the question to illustrate a point that the claim being made was ludicrous.

Who gives a shit whether it's legitimate or not? It's not insane.....it actually works.

clearly I do. "works" towards what exactly? all empires fall after stretching their power too far. so yes, it "works" for a while but ends up backfiring. so I see it as being futile.

And it always has worked. Just because you have a moral dilemma doesn't mean it's not going to happen anyway. So you can sit there and be outraged all you want, but the system ain't gonna change, son.

I never said it would or wouldn't happen and I know everything goes in cycles as it has the last couple dozen centuries..but I still get a kick out of sitting here and telling the truth.

If you're going to make a claim this retarded, at least back it up with some sort of a string of logic so I can continue making you look bad.

we could have taken japan island by island. it would've taken longer and been more costly in every aspect though.

[Zogo]

I guess my point here is does the US have the military resources (maybe 'will' is the better word) to mount up yet another offensive? Will the American people accept it? I doubt it...

we could still go into a ton more countries..we'd just have to abandon a lot of the areas we're sitting in right now. the american people wouldn't agree with it but they'd HAVE to accept it..what could they do anyway? go camp in a tent with cindy?

Draft? Not gonna happen.

I don't think it's plausible..but then I ask myself. why is the selective service system still in operational order if the draft is gone? it's still sitting there if they want to use it. didn't you all register when you turned 18? if you didn't you might have some g-men knocking on your door soon.

[Kartikeya-OD]

there's a BIG difference between small arms/cash/training and a nuke code. if the terrorist got that then they'd have a ton of leverage.

Hence why I don't want to give them that opportunity. Nor is the difference that big because you’re failing to address the context. Iran's President’s rhetoric is the same as several terrorist groups they support. He has openly called for Israel’s destruction and wants them wiped off the map. What is so dam freaking out there for you to see that having a terrorist group do this for him is a BIG mutual benefit. This is the precise reason they throw MILLIONS into funding, training, short range missiles, and small arms.


I see no reason why even a country as insane as NK would give someone a nuke like that..that's a huge bargaining chip.

We are not talking about NK. This is about Iran. Totally different context.

giving nukes to a group within your borders is a few million times more outrageous to violating a UN treaty (something most countries have done.) you call it "blatant" but violating a treaty must only be blatant if you agree with it.

WTH? Apples to apples..

uneducated, fundamentalist footsoldiers living in primitive nomadic groups.. ie al qaeda.

You really don't know that much about terrorism then do you?

Sageman found that the terrorist stereotype - of poor, young, single men from the dusty backstreets of the Muslim world brainwashed into committing fanatical acts - doesn't stick when it comes to al-Qaeda. Rather, most of them are well-educated, well-off, cosmopolitan and professional, with good jobs, wives and no history of mental illness. (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA5E4.htm)

[cin669]

we could still go into a ton more countries..we'd just have to abandon a lot of the areas we're sitting in right now. the american people wouldn't agree with it but they'd HAVE to accept it..what could they do anyway? go camp in a tent with cindy?

No, it's called a revolution. Throw down the government for the piss poor job and ideology. Not that it would be a good idea with all the troops in who knows where. But it sure would be easier when all the sudden there are 15,000 (or more I was just throwing out a number) people armed and marching on the white house with no military backup. That's what they could do instead of camping in a tent.. at that point. Or do something similiar and get <insert current president> impeached and removed from power. Citizens don't have to just sit idle and let the government ruin everyone's lives.

[dys]

lol yeah. That's all it'll take!

[Cyberdemon]

I guess my point here is does the US have the military resources (maybe 'will' is the better word) to mount up yet another offensive? Will the American people accept it? I doubt it...

I pretty much agree here. In 2003 they had some goodwill left over from 9/11 and a successful invasion (recent events notwithstanding) of Afghanistan, but Iraq worked out the way it did and they're in no position to try everyone's patience again.

[Zogo]

Hence why I don't want to give them that opportunity. Nor is the difference that big because you’re failing to address the context. Iran's President’s rhetoric is the same as several terrorist groups they support. He has openly called for Israel’s destruction and wants them wiped off the map. What is so dam freaking out there for you to see that having a terrorist group do this for him is a BIG mutual benefit. This is the precise reason they throw MILLIONS into funding, training, short range missiles, and small arms.

hence? I just illustrated why they wouldn't in the first place. you're going to tell me that giving a group some artillery/RPG's is the same as a nuke?

let's not forget that israel has nukes itself.

We are not talking about NK. This is about Iran. Totally different context.

my point is that jong il is more insane than ahmadinejad.

WTH? Apples to apples..

apples to apples? are you saying us violating a treaty is different?

You really don't know that much about terrorism then do you?

do you think that ahmadinejad is going to give nukes to al qaeda or something? last I checked he had his own underlings being called "terrorists."
even if you upgrade the stereotypical terrorist to some city-born, educated, "cosmopolitan" (lol) I still don't see him giving them the nukes.

[Zogo]

No, it's called a revolution. Throw down the government for the piss poor job and ideology. Not that it would be a good idea with all the troops in who knows where. But it sure would be easier when all the sudden there are 15,000 (or more I was just throwing out a number) people armed and marching on the white house with no military backup. That's what they could do instead of camping in a tent.. at that point. Or do something similiar and get <insert current president> impeached and removed from power. Citizens don't have to just sit idle and let the government ruin everyone's lives.

we're really far from a real revolution. right now people are more entertained than they've ever been in the US. taking over the white house wouldn't do much. GWB already has said there is a secondary gov't hidden that would kick into effect if something big happened in the DC area.

impeaching just delays a problem. there are a few thousand people waiting in line that will fulfill the same role.

[Kartikeya-OD]

hence? I just illustrated why they wouldn't in the first place. you're going to tell me that giving a group some artillery/RPG's is the same as a nuke?

You illustrated nothing but poor logic. Get back on the point. This isn't about the equivalency of RPGs and nukes. This is about a country who has stated its intent. It’s already fulfilling that intent by supplying terrorist groups, and there is not a shred of logical evidence to prevent them from using a nuke as the next means. They have already stated they want to wipe Israel off the map.

my point is that jong il is more insane than ahmadinejad.

At least Jong remembers the Holocaust.

apples to apples? are you saying us violating a treaty is different?

No I'm saying you are incapable of rational thought.

do you think that ahmadinejad is going to give nukes to al qaeda or something?

Are you really that dense?

[Zogo]

You illustrated nothing but poor logic. Get back on the point. This isn't about the equivalency of RPGs and nukes.

lol, you tried to make them equivalent not me.

This is about a country who has stated its intent. It’s already fulfilling that intent by supplying terrorist groups, and there is not a shred of logical evidence to prevent them from using a nuke as the next means. They have already stated they want to wipe Israel off the map.

yes, there is.

why are we supposed to protect israel anyway? don't they already have nukes?

At least Jong remembers the Holocaust.

how do you know that?

No I'm saying you are incapable of rational thought.

you haven't answered my question.

Are you really that dense?

what? I asked you a simple question.

[Kartikeya-OD]

lol, you tried to make them equivalent not me.

No I haven't. I've made the case that a small nuclear weapon is likely to be passed out. I have not made the case nuclear weapons and RPG are equvalent.

why are we supposed to protect israel anyway? don't they already have nukes?

Who needs allias right?

how do you know that?

Because I'm smart? It's rather simple. Jong has never disputed that the Holocaust has happpened. Unlike someone else.

what? I asked you a simple question.

One that has a simple answer which has already been anwered. It takes an IQ of 12 to know this though so I don't expect you to catch on any time soon.

[Moniker]

I never said it would or wouldn't happen and I know everything goes in cycles as it has the last couple dozen centuries..but I still get a kick out of sitting here and telling the truth. SHINE ON, TRUTH WARRIOR!

kart, what did you do with that brick wall picture? i think it needs to be posted again.

[larcain]

Are you really that dense?

Were you asking Zogo, or do the rest of us get a vote on his destiny..errr...density?

[Kartikeya-OD]

By all means Larcain go ahead :)

Oh and yes I still have it Moniker, you might want to save a copy just in case though.

http://members.cox.net/mattop/zogo.jpg

[Zogo]

No I haven't. I've made the case that a small nuclear weapon is likely to be passed out. I have not made the case nuclear weapons and RPG are equvalent.

"They already supply several terrorist organizations with arms, training, and millions in funding." you were trying to link the practices together.

Who needs allias right?

when they've got as many enemies and baggage as israel does yes I do question the need.

Because I'm smart? It's rather simple. Jong has never disputed that the Holocaust has happpened. Unlike someone else.

and denying the holocaust does what? hurts the feelings of the US?

One that has a simple answer which has already been anwered. It takes an IQ of 12 to know this though so I don't expect you to catch on any time soon.

why would he give the nukes to al qaeda? does he even have an association with them?

SHINE ON, TRUTH WARRIOR!

lol.. as usual I've succinctly, comprehensively and completely answered all your questions and you'll part the thread with some goofy comment.

[Moniker]

lol.. as usual I've succinctly, comprehensively and completely answered all your questions and you'll part the thread with some goofy comment.
oh my god this is so sad because you're not even joking.

Actually, I haven't really parted the thread, I simply just stop trying to reason with you out of complete amazement of the vacuum you seem to exist in. Do you ever wonder why nobody ever agrees with you, and people just eventually give up trying to reason with you and start making fun of you in almost every thread you post in?

Do you ever stop and think to yourself, "maybe it's not everyone else...maybe it's me"? Have you ever entertained that thought? Once?

I mean, I know we as humans like to put ourselves on pedestals, but, fuck, even Kim Jong Il comes back down to earth every now and then. Again, I thank all that is holy that you have no real world responsibility in any meaningful capacity.

Seriously, if anyone here actually respects Zogo or anything he says, please speak up, because I'm just curious as to whether these people exist and why on earth they would.

[larcain]

Hmmm.
Maybe you need a new wall there Kart. One made of something more dense than brick. A lead wall? Maybe some radioactive material?

[schtoofa]

Hmmm.
Maybe you need a new wall there Kart. One made of something more dense than brick. A lead wall? Maybe some radioactive material?

Maybe he can get it from Iran??

[Bookrat]

Seriously, if anyone here actually respects Zogo or anything he says, please speak up, because I'm just curious as to whether these people exist and why on earth they would.

Since you asked, and will take silence as assent, I will cast my voice into the wind.

I find many of Zogo's points interesting. I do not agree with all of them, but I believe that he at least tries to address the main points that people bring up against him, while his opponents do things like put up brick wall images and shout things like "SHINE ON TRUTH WARRIOR" instead of actually addressing his questions.

(An example from this thread: with all the baggage they bring to the table, why *does* the USA need Israel as an ally? I'd be interested in seeing someone's take on this; it's not something I had ever considered before.)

As to his style of point/counterpoint that seems to drive you all nuts, I can only assume that the majority of people here are under 30 and/or not familiar with Usenet discussion groups. I believe that his format is very relevant to text-based discourse, and is actually the best way of showing exactly which points it is that one is responding to.

IMHO, were Zogo to disappear from these boards, they would devolve (even more than they already are) into an orgy of right-wing spout-offs. The lack of any sort of opposition would further cement in these peoples' minds that theirs is the only way for intelligent people to think -- after all, nobody in the Academy is disagreeing with them, right? The fact that I so seldom put in my own two cents to point out the inanities and inconsistencies is simply because I long ago grew tired of arguing against zealots. I'm glad that someone else still does, though.

Having said that, on the subject of zealots... Zogo, acknowledge good points when you come across them. Don't just bypass them and move on to the smallest chink in the armor that you can find, attacking it with a crowbar. It is this lack of willingness to concede even the smallest inch of ground that seems to be getting you into the most trouble, and causing people to tune out everything else you say.

Anyway, thread derailed now, I'm sure...

[cin669]

My take on why we keep Israel as an ally is that we were the ones to push for it's creation. We've supplied them since the start with billions (assumption) in military aide and other things. That's why there would be a reluctance to remove Israel as an ally. That and the fact we can use them as a base of operations much in the same way we use Saudi lands.

Sure they are calling for the dismantling of Israel... doesn't mean they are going to nuke it and turn all the lands they want back into a waste land.. along with the religious sites they also have in those lands.

Our greatest threat for nukes is North Korea.. why? Because they've already been launching test missles despite alot of protests and outcries from the U.S. and Japan (who is their neighbor and the test missles were "aimed" in that general direction).

And honestly why should we care if the Iranian President doesn't think the holocaust happened? It did happen several hundred - thousands of miles away in Germany.. not the middle-east. They just don't like the creation of Israel in it's present location because they perceive that why should we have to give up lands because some European country did such things?

It would be like the Chinese killing alot of the buddhists.. and then creating a Buddhist state along the Mexican border in Texas.. for what happened to them.. (hypothetical and improbable to happen) but the 2 locations are completely unrelated for where and what happened. This is what the problem is with Israel..

Anyways off to work.. i bet this is scattered like hell..

[Moniker]

I wouldn't say it's completely unrelated...the area was essentially where most of the Bible was said to have occured.

I say it's more like if we went up to Toronto and told everyone "we're giving this and everything south of it to the Indians, if you don't like it, we'll kill you."

[cin669]

I wouldn't say it's completely unrelated...the area was essentially where most of the Bible was said to have occured.

I say it's more like if we went up to Toronto and told everyone "we're giving this and everything south of it to the Indians, if you don't like it, we'll kill you."

That's a better example I would guess. The biggest problem with the whole area there (Israel) is it's a big spot for religions. Christians, Muslims, and Jews being the big 3. Thankfully it wasn't the beginnings of all religions then it would be more of a mess..

[Zogo]

oh my god this is so sad because you're not even joking.

actually I was trying to be extra pompous.

Do you ever wonder why nobody ever agrees with you, and people just eventually give up trying to reason with you and start making fun of you in almost every thread you post in?

there is a minority that agrees with me..it just so happens that 99.5% of the population is an R or a D. so it's not a surprise. and it's fairly easy to explain this as these are the two viewpoints that get all the air time on television.

Do you ever stop and think to yourself, "maybe it's not everyone else...maybe it's me"? Have you ever entertained that thought? Once?

what are you talking about?

Seriously, if anyone here actually respects Zogo or anything he says, please speak up, because I'm just curious as to whether these people exist and why on earth they would.

yes, because respect is only contingent on blindly agreeing with someone.

Having said that, on the subject of zealots... Zogo, acknowledge good points when you come across them. Don't just bypass them and move on to the smallest chink in the armor that you can find, attacking it with a crowbar.

actually I could do that more..but it takes up valuable argument space heh..

[Moniker]

I give up...I'm just going to fight fire with fire from now on.

there is a minority that agrees with me..it just so happens that 99.5% of the population is an R or a D. so it's not a surprise. and it's fairly easy to explain this as these are the two viewpoints that get all the air time on television. this is demonstratably untrue as it operates under the false assumption that if someone doesn't agree with you, then they must be a Republican or Democrat. oh yeah, and this isn't relevant to what I was saying anyway.

what are you talking about? i'm talking about your complete inability to acknowledge the faults in your own logic while constantly pointing it out to others.

yes, because respect is only contingent on blindly agreeing with someone. nowhere in that particular question did I mention agreement. this is a straw man.

actually I could do that more..but it takes up valuable argument space heh.. well, it's nice to have it in writing that you have no desire whatsoever for productive discussion.

backtracking....

clearly I do. "works" towards what exactly? all empires fall after stretching their power too far. so yes, it "works" for a while but ends up backfiring. so I see it as being futile. of course empires fall. people die, ideas change, things happen. this view suggests that life itself is futile and that there is no point to anything because we all just end up dying anyway.

we could have taken japan island by island. it would've taken longer and been more costly in every aspect though. so is preserving the lives of americans a convenience, or is it a necessity?

my views aren't contingent on that example..I was merely asking the question to illustrate a point that the claim being made was ludicrous. if an example is required to substantiate a likely scenario, then are you saying every aspect of our foreign policy should be reactive? after all, this implies that we should wait until after something happens to act. which, as you know, was a successful strategy with 9/11 and Katrina.

I never said it would or wouldn't happen and I know everything goes in cycles as it has the last couple dozen centuries..but I still get a kick out of sitting here and telling the truth. you're not telling the truth, you're stating an opinion based on weak logic. that is, unless you're arguing that your opinions are truth. is this what you are arguing?

[Zogo]

this is demonstratably untrue as it operates under the false assumption that if someone doesn't agree with you, then they must be a Republican or Democrat. oh yeah, and this isn't relevant to what I was saying anyway.

I didn't say that explicitly. I said that the D/R viewpoint is held by the vast majority of people in the US.

i'm talking about your complete inability to acknowledge the faults in your own logic while constantly pointing it out to others.

you say there are faults but you won't point them out. after 2 or 3 replies you discard the argument and start analyzing my posts on a superficial level (this happens in every thread.)

nowhere in that particular question did I mention agreement. this is a straw man.

you did mention "agreeing" in an above statement though...not a strawman.

well, it's nice to have it in writing that you have no desire whatsoever for productive discussion.

productive discussion isn't contingent on giving a slap on the back or a hearty handshake.

anyway I have pointed out points that were interesting before..but those points are few and far between..it's much more common to see some recycled BS.

of course empires fall. people die, ideas change, things happen. this view suggests that life itself is futile and that there is no point to anything because we all just end up dying anyway.

now you're extrapolating way too much from my viewpoints. I'm saying that trying to dictate and control the behavior of the entire planet is futile..I don't see how that's nihilistic.

so is preserving the lives of americans a convenience, or is it a necessity?

I don't know what you're asking..it looks like some kind of loaded question/false dilemma hybrid. it depends on the situation and what military leader you're talking to. if that was the highest necessity then we wouldn't be stationed all over the place right now.

if an example is required to substantiate a likely scenario, then are you saying every aspect of our foreign policy should be reactive? after all, this implies that we should wait until after something happens to act. which, as you know, was a successful strategy with 9/11 and Katrina.

no, we can still anticipate possible problems without taking military action.

it doesn't imply that it was solely reactive to 9/11 because we did NOT have a purely reactive foreign policy beforehand..it was very proactive in nearly every facet.

and katrina was not a terrorist attack nor was it foreign.

you're not telling the truth, you're stating an opinion based on weak logic. that is, unless you're arguing that your opinions are truth. is this what you are arguing?

where did I lie? weak logic again? where?

and no I'm not stating that all of the opinions I've ever held are the absolute truth. one can't know that.

[Moniker]

I didn't say that explicitly. I said that the D/R viewpoint is held by the vast majority of people in the US. what is the democratic/republican viewpoint, how do you know the vast majority of people in the US share it, and how do you differ from it? this makes no sense because you're pigeonholing a party of millions into one view, claiming that 99.5% of Americans believe in it, yet you don't. this is far too vague.

you say there are faults but you won't point them out. after 2 or 3 replies you discard the argument and start analyzing my posts on a superficial [level (this happens in every thread.)
i point them out constantly, with alarming reptition. for example, your above (above this quote) point was way too vague, you unfairly generalized the beliefs of millions, thus indicating a gaping flaw in your logic. and ironically, the fact that I, and others expose flaws in your logic, yet you ignore them, makes the quote immediately above this paragraph also obviously false. that's two flaws and I haven't even ended this paragraph yet.

you did mention "agreeing" in an above statement though...not a strawman. I mentioned agreeing, but that was a completely seperate statement as evidenced by being in two totally seperate isolated paragraphs. nowhere did I state respect depended on agreement or even imply it. I simply asked if anyone out there actually respected you.

it's still a straw man. and so was your response.

productive discussion isn't contingent on giving a slap on the back or a hearty handshake. again, you completely exaggerated my words (flaw #3, for those of you counting at home). if I make a point that clearly counters yours, you simply admitted that you would just ignore it and stray off to something else. a discussion involves making a point and rebutting it. a productive one implies that you don't simply keep broadcast your opinions without acknowledging the good points of others.

now you're extrapolating way too much from my viewpoints. I'm saying that trying to dictate and control the behavior of the entire planet is futile..I don't see how that's nihilistic. if you say that it's futile for someone to take something by force and establish a sphere of control, despite the fact that the leaders will eventually die out, how are you not saying that it's futile for someone to make a better life for themself, despite the fact that they'll end up dying anyway? logically, if you say it's futile to establish an empire for a significant amount of time because it will just decay into nonfunction, then that line of logic suggests that life itself is futile because after a significant amount of time it will decay into nonfunction.

this may or may not be #4, depending on how you answer.

I don't know what you're asking..it looks like some kind of loaded question/false dilemma hybrid. it depends on the situation and what military leader you're talking to. if that was the highest necessity then we wouldn't be stationed all over the place right now. that might make sense, unless you subscribed to the notion that those few american lives sacrificed were for the ultimate end of preserving more americans lives, then it becomes the highest necessity. needless to say, a lot of people do end up subscribing to that notion, including those people stationed abroad.

so allow me to expand and restate the question since you don't understand....

You say it was a convenience (thus implying it's not a necessity) to drop the bomb because it would have costed much less lives than taking Japan island by island. now, is it a convenience to save those lives which would have been spent taking Japan, or is it necessicity to save those lives? im not asking a military leader, i'm asking you specifically.

no, we can still anticipate possible problems without taking military action.

it doesn't imply that it was solely reactive to 9/11 because we did NOT have a purely reactive foreign policy beforehand..it was very proactive in nearly every facet. a proactive policy requires efficacy in order to be proactive. simply acknowledging that the threat is there is useless without actually doing something to counter it. we changed our policy to something with eficacy due to the after math of 9/11, not in anticipation of it.

what you're advocating is that we must wait until there is an imminent nuclear threat from Iran in order to take action. unless youre not, in which I'll offer you this chance to restate your position.

and katrina was not a terrorist attack nor was it foreign. i should have been clearer (see, this is what it looks like to acknowledge a flaw if you didn't know), I meant policy, both domestic and foreign. and it doesn't need to be a terrorist attack, it's still a failure in policy.

where did I lie? weak logic again? where? i didn't say lie, i said you use weak logic (enumerated for your pleasure in this post), and then state your subjective opinions as truth as evidenced by the following:

"might makes right" is an insane position to take..unless you're on a conquest to conquer the planet.
everything under the sun has been a "driving force" since recorded history..it doesn't legitimize it.
I never said it would or wouldn't happen and I know everything goes in cycles as it has the last couple dozen centuries..but I still get a kick out of sitting here and telling the truth. so you claim that it's insane to take things by force, and that it's not legitimate, but these are not facts, they are opinions. you just stated that your opinion is truth. there it is, in your own writing up above. i just connected the dots for you. here's a perfect opportunity to admit your own flaw.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Maybe he can get it from Iran??

Looks like he did.

http://members.cox.net/mattop/zogo1.JPG

[Bookrat]

You say it was a convenience (thus implying it's not a necessity) to drop the bomb because it would have costed much less lives than taking Japan island by island. now, is it a convenience to save those lives which would have been spent taking Japan, or is it necessicity to save those lives? im not asking a military leader, i'm asking you specifically.
Moniker, even a single person can have multiple answers to this question. It all depends on your perspective.

First, though, you've got to define your terms:
'necessity' = there is no other way to accomplish this task.
'convenience' = there are other ways to accomplish this task, but they are more costly in some way (time, money, materiel, lives, morale, etc.)

If you're the family of someone whose job it would have been to fight island to island, then dropping the bomb was a necessity. There was no other way to accomplish the task that would not risk the lives of their loved one.

From the perspective of someone who gets to sit back at a desk and make the decision, it's a convenience. You're going to win eventually, so doing it this way just makes it easier, and reduces your own cost.

From the perspective of the Japanese... it was damned INconvenient, wouldn't you say?

If your perspective is that one life is equally valuable, regardless of whose it is, then dropping the bomb was neither necessary nor convenient -- it was a horrific act. There is no way that as many soldiers (on both sides) would have died taking Japan as civilians did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

(As a corollary to the above, one can either ameliorate or exacerbate the horror of the act by valuing soldiers lives to a greater degree (they are trained patriots) or a lesser degree (they knew that their lives were at risk) than the civilians who died.)

If you want to look at it from a global/historical perspective, then I would say that dropping these bombs was an absolutely necessary thing. There's no other way to show what a nuclear bomb can really do other than seeing its effects on actual cities. Anything else is a simulation. Without direct evidence of their devastating power and lingering effects, I fear that people would have been much more willing to use them in later conflicts.

So there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer here; just opinions based on ones own perspective, and what your desired outcome is... and it's even possible to hold several of them simultaneously.

[larcain]

Gotta love moral equivalence

[Moniker]

From the perspective of someone who gets to sit back at a desk and make the decision, it's a convenience. You're going to win eventually, so doing it this way just makes it easier, and reduces your own cost. See, there's no way you can say "you're going to win eventually" because nobody knew that at the time.Yes, we made gains in the Pacific with the island hopping campaigns, but you have to understand that in order to seal the deal, we would have to invade Japan. More on this later.

From the perspective of the Japanese... it was damned INconvenient, wouldn't you say? Absolutely not. Our firebombing campaign was much much more destructive in cost and lives. We set almost half of their urban areas on fire in the months leading up to the drop of the atomic bomb. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

If your perspective is that one life is equally valuable, regardless of whose it is, then dropping the bomb was neither necessary nor convenient -- it was a horrific act. There is no way that as many soldiers (on both sides) would have died taking Japan as civilians did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

Estimated 100,000 Japanese military dead, another 150,000 civilians dead. And that was just Okinawa.

Imagine if that was the mainland. Back to what I was getting at before, Japan was an intensely determined enemy that had a notorious history of taking no prisoners and fighting to the last man. For god's sake they had suicide pilots strapped into flying bombs. To say that the death toll would have been less than the same death toll from the atomic bomb is completely and undeniably false. We're talking in the millions here, most of them Japanese civilians.

So, you have possibly millions and millions of people dying from a conventional invasion, or you have 2 nuclear bombs that killed roughly 350,000 and ended the war immediately. This is clearly a necessity, just like it's a necessity, and not a convenience, for someone to drive a car 15 miles to work every day instead of walking.

And how does this tie in? The US had a legitimate use for atomic weaponry that led to a definite result -- peace. Funny how I don't hear anyone griping about the firebombing which was much much more horrific and achieved far less.

[Zogo]

what is the democratic/republican viewpoint, how do you know the vast majority of people in the US share it, and how do you differ from it? this makes no sense because you're pigeonholing a party of millions into one view, claiming that 99.5% of Americans believe in it, yet you don't. this is far too vague.

I could type the what the D/R viewpoint generally entails and how I differ from it in a 60 page paper..but I don't feel like doing that. however, if you want the viewpoint on a specific subject and how I differ from it I can give it to you.

I'm not pigeonholing them because I never said that R's and D's are robots that never disagree..of course some take different positions on the smaller ancillary points but they'll continue to align themselves on the major issues.

i point them out constantly, with alarming reptition. for example, your above (above this quote) point was way too vague, you unfairly generalized the beliefs of millions, thus indicating a gaping flaw in your logic. and ironically, the fact that I, and others expose flaws in your logic, yet you ignore them, makes the quote immediately above this paragraph also obviously false. that's two flaws and I haven't even ended this paragraph yet.

of course I was generalizing there aren't any positions that have 100% agreement.

then there are issues where you know the vast majority are turning their brains off and agreeing because it's what their party tells them to do.

it's still a straw man. and so was your response.

in that case then your statement on respect is an ad hominem.

again, you completely exaggerated my words (flaw #3, for those of you counting at home). if I make a point that clearly counters yours, you simply admitted that you would just ignore it and stray off to something else. a discussion involves making a point and rebutting it. a productive one implies that you don't simply keep broadcast your opinions without acknowledging the good points of others.

not what I meant..I was saying that if someone made a good point I wouldn't feel obligated to start cheerleading in the following post.

if you say that it's futile for someone to take something by force and establish a sphere of control, despite the fact that the leaders will eventually die out, how are you not saying that it's futile for someone to make a better life for themself, despite the fact that they'll end up dying anyway? logically, if you say it's futile to establish an empire for a significant amount of time because it will just decay into nonfunction, then that line of logic suggests that life itself is futile because after a significant amount of time it will decay into nonfunction.

I'm not saying it's futile because the leaders will die I'm saying it's pointless because the onset of military adventurism means overextending the troops and speeding up the demise of the empire.

it could be looked on as exacerbating the problem.

that might make sense, unless you subscribed to the notion that those few american lives sacrificed were for the ultimate end of preserving more americans lives, then it becomes the highest necessity. needless to say, a lot of people do end up subscribing to that notion, including those people stationed abroad.

in many instances it's impossible to prove/disprove that belief.

although it's clear that that train of thought is NOT being applied in embryo destruction for stem cell research.

You say it was a convenience (thus implying it's not a necessity) to drop the bomb because it would have costed much less lives than taking Japan island by island. now, is it a convenience to save those lives which would have been spent taking Japan, or is it necessicity to save those lives? im not asking a military leader, i'm asking you specifically.

in a way, both. are you asking from a historical perspective or from my opinion right now? bookrat's response was sufficient.

a proactive policy requires efficacy in order to be proactive.

what do you mean?

simply acknowledging that the threat is there is useless without actually doing something to counter it. we changed our policy to something with eficacy due to the after math of 9/11, not in anticipation of it.

unless of course the action itself is the absence of action in the first place (non-interventionism.)

it's important to ask why the threat was there in the first place..not surprisingly it was our PROactive activity across the entire globe. every action has a reaction..remove the action and the reaction doesn't take place.

what you're advocating is that we must wait until there is an imminent nuclear threat from Iran in order to take action. unless youre not, in which I'll offer you this chance to restate your position.

nuclear threat? as in they launch one at us?

i should have been clearer (see, this is what it looks like to acknowledge a flaw if you didn't know), I meant policy, both domestic and foreign. and it doesn't need to be a terrorist attack, it's still a failure in policy.

I don't think we can devise a plan to eliminate natural disasters at this point in time.

i didn't say lie, i said you use weak logic (enumerated for your pleasure in this post), and then state your subjective opinions as truth as evidenced by the following:

you said I wasn't telling the truth. don't you call that lying?

so you claim that it's insane to take things by force, and that it's not legitimate, but these are not facts, they are opinions. you just stated that your opinion is truth. there it is, in your own writing up above. i just connected the dots for you. here's a perfect opportunity to admit your own flaw.

you mean a perfect opportunity to expound on why I'm right.

first "might makes right" is a crazy thing to believe. what if tomorrow NK invented some new deadly technology that trumped our nukes? they now have the upperhand and can dictate world affairs more powerfully than anyone else. are you now going to take the position that kim jong il holds the most correct viewpoints on the planet? if you ascribe to "might makes right" you would.

second "driving forces" what's your argument with that statement? slavery was a driving force, human sacrifices were a driving force, every detestable thing in recorded history has played a role in our history. does that mean it's all proper?

[Bookrat]

From the perspective of someone who gets to sit back at a desk and make the decision, it's a convenience. You're going to win eventually, so doing it this way just makes it easier, and reduces your own cost.
See, there's no way you can say "you're going to win eventually" because nobody knew that at the time.
If you are taking the tack that it is not possible to 'know' anything before it happens, then I agree with you. One cannot 'know' that the sun will rise tomorrow, in that respect. If you are looking at it from the perspective of the finest military minds of the time, then there is significant evidence that dropping the bomb was militarily unnecessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militari ly_unnecessary). Those who thought so included General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, and many others.


Yes, we made gains in the Pacific with the island hopping campaigns, but you have to understand that in order to seal the deal, we would have to invade Japan.
Someone would have to invade japan, true. You seem to be neglecting/forgetting Russia, though. From the above citation:

"The U.S. knew, as Japan did not, that the Soviet Union had agreed to declare war on Japan three months after V-E Day, and the Soviets did indeed attack Japanese forces in Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, and the Kuril Islands on August 8, 1945. ... Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945.[53]"

Had Russia invaded/taken territory, and the US been less involved, it would have been a loss of face -- and possibly geography -- to the Russians. (Would they have given back Hokkaido had they managed to capture it?) Using the atomic bomb also gave the USA a chance to show Russia (as well as Japan) that it had them. All of these argue more for 'convenience' than 'necessity'... unless you're shifting the discussion to, "Necessary for USA to show everyone who is bigger and better."

From the perspective of the Japanese... it was damned INconvenient, wouldn't you say?
Absolutely not.
I specifically meant the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I doubt you can argue that one. It was a rather flip comment, though, I admit.

(OTOH, from the perspective of the Japanese leaders who wanted the war ended, though, some say that the bombs were very convenient.)


Estimated 100,000 Japanese military dead, another 150,000 civilians dead. And that was just Okinawa.
I confess to being staggered (again) by these numbers; I am every time they are recalled either by me, or to me. In these days where every single soldier's death is news (in Canada, at least), statistics like this are boggling.


For god's sake they had suicide pilots strapped into flying bombs.
According to the official story, so did some 19 Arabs about five years ago. Why, then, was it not 'necessary' to just drop a small nuclear device on the hills in Afghanistan? Damn sure would have killed Osama...

So, you have possibly millions and millions of people dying from a conventional invasion, or you have 2 nuclear bombs that killed roughly 350,000 and ended the war immediately.
I'm getting a clearer and clearer picture that you would drop nuclear bombs not only the mountains of Afghanistan, but also Baghdad, Tehran, and pretty much anywhere else you persoinally think it might do some good. And if a bunch of towel-heads die, or their country gets sterilized in the process... too damn bad. It's necessary for *us*.

The US had a legitimate use for atomic weaponry that led to a definite result -- peace.

One of my favourite quotes about the double standard in play here, comes from Leo Szilard -- one of the physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project. "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them." Do you dispute this claim, Moniker?

The difference here is, we won and they didn't, so we got to control the courts and the trials. Go us. Might makes right after all.

[Moniker]

If you are taking the tack that it is not possible to 'know' anything before it happens, then I agree with you. One cannot 'know' that the sun will rise tomorrow, in that respect. If you are looking at it from the perspective of the finest military minds of the time, then there is significant evidence that dropping the bomb was militarily unnecessary.

Someone would have to invade japan, true. Are you saying that the invasion of Japan was necessary or unnecessary, because this is a totally seperate argument than whether it was necessary or convenient to drop the atomic bomb.


According to the official story, so did some 19 Arabs about five years ago. Why, then, was it not 'necessary' to just drop a small nuclear device on the hills in Afghanistan? Damn sure would have killed Osama...
9/11: 19 arabs funded by a non-state organization using civilian airliners against civilian targets in a standalone attack for the purposes of further a political agenda and ultimately, promoting an armed conflict

kamikaze pilots: a uniformed military unit representing a sovereign nation at war using unconventional tactics as part of a large naval attack for the purposes of winning a military engagement

The two are completely different and thus are not subject to an analogy.

I'm getting a clearer and clearer picture that you would drop nuclear bombs not only the mountains of Afghanistan, but also Baghdad, Tehran, and pretty much anywhere else you persoinally think it might do some good. And if a bunch of towel-heads die, or their country gets sterilized in the process... too damn bad. It's necessary for *us*. Oh, you know what I would do? Thanks for telling me, I'm glad you can clear this up because apparently I didn't get the memo that says I lost all free will.

But actually, what I'm saying is that it was legitimate to drop the atomic bomb to bring a quick end to the war and ultimately save more lives on both sides, than invading Japan.

One of my favourite quotes about the double standard in play here, comes from Leo Szilard -- one of the physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project. "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them." Do you dispute this claim, Moniker? Drop atomic bombs on who? America? That wouldn't have happened as it was logistically impossible. Drop it on European powers like London and Moscow? Well, if that happened, I'm pretty sure that Soviet Russia would have given up, and probably London too. At this point we'd pack our bags, withdraw back to America, and the Cold War would be between the United States and Germany.

And seeing how we didn't really try to call Stalin out for his crimes when he was alive, we probably would have backed off and kept an uneasy, armed silence like we did with the Soviets.

So yes, I dispute that claim. But then again calling Nazi Germany out for dropping a bomb on 340,000 people is like calling out a serial killer for running a stop sign.

[MightyCawdoR]

One of my favourite quotes about the double standard in play here, comes from Leo Szilard -- one of the physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project. "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them." Do you dispute this claim, Moniker?

The difference here is, we won and they didn't, so we got to control the courts and the trials. Go us. Might makes right after all.


I'll dispute it because had the Germans got the bomb and used it against us, you'd be speaking German right now and debating if it was right for the Germans to drop that bomb. History has always been written by the victors, hopefully that isn't something that most people here don't know.

[Zogo]

See, there's no way you can say "you're going to win eventually" because nobody knew that at the time.Yes, we made gains in the Pacific with the island hopping campaigns, but you have to understand that in order to seal the deal, we would have to invade Japan. More on this later.

we may have been getting help from the allies later on anyway. either way with the rest of the axis powers defeated it was going to be easier.

Absolutely not.

it's clear that the nuke had the most devestating effect on them as that prompted their quick surrender.

So, you have possibly millions and millions of people dying from a conventional invasion, or you have 2 nuclear bombs that killed roughly 350,000 and ended the war immediately.

the nuclear costs have continued to show up..people are still sick from it and the land is ruined for I don't know how many more years to come.

And how does this tie in? The US had a legitimate use for atomic weaponry that led to a definite result -- peace.

peace? sure we might like to think it "ended" but really the war "ended" with half of europe getting screwed by communism for 50 years..and stalin killing millions..I wouldn't call it "peace."

http://members.cox.net/mattop/zogo1.JPG

this wall is too puny.

[Express]

an update on ahmadinejad from someone who was at the CFR meeting last week;
I wanted to hear what this man had to say in a private setting and get the measure from him. I’m disappointed to report that what I found was a person who is very confident in his position, on a roll because of the perceived ascendency of Iran in the region and his own political ascendency and filled with ideas with which I’m afraid we’re fated to disagree as a country. I thought it was worth hearing what he had to say but what I have to report about it is discouraging in the sense that it did not point to any solutions for the problems we are sure to have with him….

Here’s someone who is not playing to the American audience, seems to feel that he is in a strong enough position that he doesn’t need to. That’s worrying. He’s playing to, as he said repeatedly, to the younger generations in his part of the world, first and foremost in his country but throughout the Muslim world, who he feels have been marginalized and poorly treated. He speaks for them. He said that its been two generations since the end of World War II but the United Nations is still run by the victors of World War II. The younger generation that he represents or wishes to represent is due their place in the sun now….

We cannot have a situation in which uranium enrichment is spreading all over the world. Somewhere along the lines, that material is going to fall into the wrong hands, not just the Iranian government, maybe terrorists as well. That’s the point I think he needed to hear from Americans. The other thing he needed to hear from Americans was — he made a crack at some point that ‘you all seem to be representing your government’ despite the fact that the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent organization. A number of participants fired right back and said ‘you need to hear that this is not just George Bush or the Bush administration that is concerned about Iran, it is a broad spectrum of opinion very concerned about what you’re doing.'
Harvard Professor Ashton Carter a former Kerry adviser http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/09/22/realism-on-ahmadinejad-from-a-former-kerry-adviser/

He is a dangerous son of a bitch.
The "younger generation" has a lot of growing up to do first before they can play with the big boys.
and this too...funny;
http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/09/23/karl-roves-most-super-evil-plan-ever/