N. Korea Says It Is Making Nuclear Bombs
22 minutes ago

By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea (news - web sites) said Thursday it has completed reprocessing its 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and is using plutonium extracted from them to make atomic bombs.

"The (North) successfully finished the reprocessing of some 8,000 spent fuel rods," a spokesman for North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the North's official news agency, KCNA. The spokesman was not named.

Accusing the United States of taking a "hostile policy" toward the North, the statement said that North Korea "made a switchover in the use of plutonium churned out by reprocessing spent fuel rods in the direction increasing its nuclear deterrent force."

North Korea also said it will reprocess more spent fuel rods to be produced from the small reactor in its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon, north of Pyongyang.

Earlier this week, North Korea claimed that it was taking "practical measures" to boost its nuclear weapons program as a deterrent against what it calls a U.S. plan to invade.

The claim came as some U.S. intelligence analysts are becoming increasingly concerned that the communist regime may have three, four or even six nuclear weapons instead of the one or two the CIA (news - web sites) had estimated.

New atomic bombs would give Pyongyang more authority at the negotiating table, and may allow it to part with one, either in a test or by selling it, experts say.

The United States and its allies are trying to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear programs. The North says it will do so only if the United States signs a nonaggression treaty, provides economic aid and opens diplomatic ties.

The nuclear dispute flared in October 2002 when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted running a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of international agreements.

Well, if the UN needed any event to prove that it was capable of decisive action, this is it.

If they don't, things are going go downhill reeeeeeeeaaallllllly fast. :\

*is glad he's not living on the West Coast*

--Cen

QUICK LET'S BOMB THEM!!!11

Thats the spirit Halo!

I'm making a bomb too....Taco Bell hurts...Call the Koreans

For some reason it doesn't bother me one bit. Let them pour tons of money into something that will never get used and if it does, will do them no good, cause basically can you say....end of the world?


One nuclear bomb gets set off it won't be pretty.



Ibudin

The problem is that if the korean "government" faces a military campaign against them they'll literally have nothing to lose. A military defeat isn't an option for them and I'd not be surprised at all if they went ballistic (pun intended) before the end.

We just need to let them know that the first A-bomb that gets used on us or our allies that is tied to N. Korean origin will result in their extermination as a state.

Economic aid? Forget it. Let them eat the plutonium they are producing instead of the food they should be producing.

Expect to see Japan go nuclear within 10 years now. Maybe S. Korea also.

So much for reducing the number of nukes in the world. *sigh*

What I've observed is that, every so often, the North Korean government uses the 'nuclear threat' as leverage to try to pry/blackmail aid and/or concessions out of the world community in exchange for them *not* advancing their weapons program. Then a few months or a year later they'll do it again.

My gut agrees with Gulor on this one. As harsh as it sounds, let 'em starve. Sooner or later the government will implode. My only worry is that Kim-Jong-Il might be able to harnass his people's desparation into garnering support for a stupid, suicidal war, assuming that he really *is* that crazy...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

'So much for reducing the number of nukes in the world. *sigh*'

- Yeah. Think America has something to do with that.

Well.. heres the problem..

NK is severly cash deprived as they have almost zero industry or resources. In fact, the only resource they DO have is arms dealing.. they export huge numbers of weapons all over the world.

At what point does it become inevitable that NK will sell Nuclear warheads for profit?
Ive read somewhere that a Nuclear Weapon, of relatively small size (easily concelable and transported) can garner up to 10 billion in cash..
Iraq WOULD have bought one in a second.

Every single one of Israels neighbors activly seek them.

At one time. Al Queda might have been able to afford it.

So what options are there?
We arent gonna invade NK.. thats a serious fucking bloodbath waiting to happen.. those people will fight tooth and claw and to the death. Then Nuke the world in a last act of defiance... They are crazy ass motherfuckers.. multiple generations raised from birth to be ready to fight and die.
We cant stop the N. Koreans from developing Nuclear Weapons... its inevitable..

What we CAN do is eliminate the marketplace...

They want nukes? fine.. we arent ever going to invade them.. so make all you want.. we just arent going to let those who would buy them from NK exist.

Halo-

As does Russia, China, the UK, France, India and Pakistan. Probably Israel too.

Any increase in nukes by any country (including the US) is to be lamented. The last ten years has seen a slow but steady drawdown of nuclear stockpiles. I figure that is likely to stop now. The US and Russia could continue to reduce their arsenals without great concern, but that could be offset by new countries building new arsenals.

Yeah. Think America has something to do with that.

The difference is that we aren't going to fly off the handle and nuke everybody because they aren't giving us teh phat lewtz.

Wether you want to admit it or not, there is a clear difference between our leadership and North Koreas leadership.

Gulor, stop confusing Halo with facts and common sense. It's pointless.

However, the rest of you, who aren't completely fucking stupid, could just go look at the real data. www.nrdc.org/ (http://www.nrdc.org/)

At the hight of the Cold War, there were 63,000 nuclear weapons in the world. We had 20,000 of them. The Soviet Union had 40,000 of them, and the rest of the world (UK, France, China) had the remaining thousand. The NRDC seems to call a warhead a device, so any MIRV device would be counted twice. We also know that a large number of the USSR's 40,000 warheads probably weren't operational, but that out of scope for this discussion.

Today there are an estimated 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The US has 10,600 of them, the Russians have 8,600 of them, and the rest of the world has the remaining thousand (still). [The Russian total is supposedly only counting "working" warheads now.]

You might find it of note that the UK had a rise from their arsenal of 185 nuclear weapons in 2000 to 200 nuclear weapons in 2002; but they're still down from their total of 400 at the hight of the cold-war.

The Ruskies, however, have bigger nukes. Those 8,600 nuclear weapons make up about 2,100 megatons. Mostly because 5,000 of their nuclear weapons are strategic (read: long-range), and of those 5,000 strategic weapons, a large number of them are SS-18's packing upwards of 10 half-megaton warheads each. 700 ICBMs the Russians have, packing on average of 4 warheads each...

Our 550 ICBMs (mostly minutemans) only total 500 megatons.

Oh, and for the rest of the countries:In addition to the above, Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals, and South Africa produced six gun-assembly type weapons in the 1980s, but dismantled them in the early-1990s. Estimates of the composition and evolution of the arsenals of Israel, India and Pakistan are extremely difficult to make. Israel may have a stockpile of some 100-200 nuclear weapons, India 30-35, and Pakistan between 24 and 48 nuclear weapons.The last 10 nuclear explosions? Why they were tests, of course.. France did 6 (all underground, and as recently as 1996), and China did 4.

China did an ATMOSPHERIC test detonation as recently as 1980!

You'll be pleased to know that the UK did their underground atmoic test detonations in the United States. (PS. You're welcome)

Anyway, weapon totals are going down. The Russians have the biggest stockpile (warheads, megatons), and everyone EXCEPT the US and the Russians are making more :(

i think we need more nukes. definetly. we should build much more nuclear weapons.

The difference is that we aren't going to fly off the handle and nuke everybody because they aren't giving us teh phat lewtz.

i 100% agree with this. We aren't as crazy as you think haloface.

But sometimes we'd like to be.

The difference is that we aren't going to fly off the handle and nuke everybody because they aren't giving us teh phat lewtz.no.. invading is much more fun.. sorry.. couldn't help myself..

Palimax, you just gave evidence for my comment, you fucking idiot.

For anything else - see Walpurgis answer.

Palimax, you just gave evidence for my comment, you fucking idiot.Dear Halo, you stupid fucking prick who can't look at a graph...

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/fig9.gif

Please notice the steady decline in US nuclear weapons since 1965.

For FORTY YEARS we've been reducing the number of nuclear weapons in our arsenal, and for TWENTY YEARS the Russians have been doing the same.

Oooh, but Palimax, you still have 10,000 and you're dangerous baby-killing facist monsters....

Please, say something witty like, "Isn't one too many?" so we can remind you how the UK and France have "more than one."

Get off the "US is teh d3vil" drug-induced haze where you wander aimlessly from thread to thread bashing the US at every opportunity. It's pointless, and it's tiresome. You're this kid on the short bus with a padded helmet bashing his head against the window repeating "US Sucks, US Sucks!" over and over, and you don't have anything except some deep-seated resentment from a childhood incident where you were beaten with a copy of the US Bill of Rights every time you came home later for dinner.

please dont explain logic to the euro's they are a confused people.

We attacked Iraq because they posed a "Clear and Present Danger" but never found any weapons. North Korea gets nothing when they flaunt them in public ... strange to me can someone explain?

We attacked Iraq because they posed a "Clear and Present Danger" but never found any weapons. North Korea gets nothing when they flaunt them in public ... strange to me can someone explain?


This is a self-answering question.

So your saying if I rob a bank in daylight I shouldnt go to jail but the person living across the street that LOOKS like he robbed the bank should?

Palimax, as you are unable to read yourself, allow me to break it down. No, that doesn't mean I'm going to dance.
Did I say anywhere that Britain and France don't have a nuclear arsenal? Nooo. Didn't, did I?
Fact is, America is a leading - the leading - nuclear power.
Therefore, addressing the original question - America has no right to talk about the threat of WoMD when they have the most (Well shit, they are slowly getting rid of them? Woah. So even after 20 years they still have the highest number of nuclear weapons? Says a lot, doesn't it?) and have a pretty good track record of using them.

Twat.

Well, if the UN needed any event to prove that it was capable of decisive action, this is it.

Agreed.

I also believe this press bulletin is a complete lie, I don't think they have the technology to make an A-bomb yet, nor do they have the technology to make a long distance rocket to be able to deliver it to target. best they might be able to do is get it 150 miles into South Korea.
The idea that they might make a small version to "smuggle" into a different country and detonate it is the only way they would be able to "hit" someone.
However the trick in that is the detonation and that would require quite a portable detonator and that's another part of technology they don't have.
This does not mean that I don't think NK should be dealt with, quite the contrary I believe they should have been dealt with 6 months ago.
But for some reason Iraq was deamed to be a more important target.
Quite clearly a country that "might" buy a nuclear wheapon is a much bigger threat than a country that makes it and might sell it to anyone that wants it.

Ive read somewhere that a Nuclear Weapon, of relatively small size (easily concelable and transported) can garner up to 10 billion in cash..
Iraq WOULD have bought one in a second.


With what? they don't even have cash to buy food, where are they going to get 10 billion $ ?

Every single one of Israels neighbors activly seek them.

Any proof of this?

At one time. Al Queda might have been able to afford it.

The enphasis is on "might", 10 billion is alot of cash. I really don't believe they had even remotely that amount of cash.

What we CAN do is eliminate the marketplace...

ROFLMAO, really that is rediculous.
How are you gonne do that?
Kill everyone in the world?
There is ALLWAYS going to be a marketplace for wheapons.
What would have happened if the "uni-bomber" would have gotten his hands on it?
You seriously believe he would not have used it?
Don't forget the great market instrument of price, the higher the produced volume the lower the price.
What do you think NK would do if they have 100 of these nukes and noone to buy it from them?
They would create a market for it and lower there price, they might even give away a freebee for testing purposes.
Really there is no way you can eliminate the market and even if you could it would be alot simpler and cheaper to stop the production.

Wether you want to admit it or not, there is a clear difference between our leadership and North Koreas leadership.

Agreed.
America's leaders are ellected.

We attacked Iraq because they posed a "Clear and Present Danger" but never found any weapons. North Korea gets nothing when they flaunt them in public ... strange to me can someone explain?

I can't but maybe some of the Americans can.

What I've observed is that, every so often, the North Korean government uses the 'nuclear threat' as leverage to try to pry/blackmail aid and/or concessions out of the world community in exchange for them *not* advancing their weapons program. Then a few months or a year later they'll do it again.

Agreed,
But doesn't every country in the world do something simular when they impose economic sanctions?

please dont explain logic to the euro's they are a confused people.

Very true and they are responsible for everything that went wrong in the world the past 50 years.
I wonder when the US is going to invade Europe, Europe is responsible for letting all the terrorism happen, so logically Europe is the next target in the war on terrorism.
But that's not logical is it?

and have a pretty good track record of using them

Yeah. Like it mattered that you guys didn't when Churchhill decided to bomb Dresden.

hmm far as i can recall we've only used Nukes 2 times...WWII and it STOPPED the war in pacific. Im guessing you would have rather us not us them and end up probably with more lives lost on both sides than what those 2 bombs took out

Yeah it stopped the war because you like killed everyone.

'ROFLMAO, really that is rediculous.
How are you gonne do that?
Kill everyone in the world?'

- Don't give them ideas. Jesus.

really, if we killed everyone how was there still a nation of japan? oh that right its another Halo overaction. BTW what about Dresden, are your countries hands clean?

Halo are you on meds or something??? If so CUT BACK geez, where do you get we killed everyone and where to do get we LIKE to kill everyone? The 2 bombs dropped on japan took out alot of lives yes, but if we didnt drop those bombs do you think the japanese would have surreneded anytime soon??? I doudt that, these where people the that just about invented the suicide bombing aka Kamakazi. So do everyone a really HUGE favor....dont do drugs

Halo, *that* is an idiotic statement. Japan, had we not dropped the atomic bomb on them, would have fought an ugly, unimaginably costly ground war to retain control of their homeland, at an unimaginable cost in innocent lives, not to mention the total destruction of their infrastructure. As horrendous as dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, it allowed Japan an 'out' (and notice that it had to be done *twice* :/), and surrender was accomplished without a protracted ground war. The fact that we were able to leave Japan with their infrastructure intact, as well as have an orderly transition in government, was infinitely preferable to what happened in Germany, where the country had to be completely rebuilt from the ground up and it took *twelve* years to have an independently functioning government in place...

No-one thinks that using the atomic bomb is 'good'. In that particular situation though, it was the least destructive of very bad options...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Nydia your preaching to deaf ears here i think, as far as Halo is concerned Americans all wanna take over the world and drink everyones blood...hes gonna believe what he wants. While he likes to think he knows what americans are like and what americans think, i dont think there is anyway in hell anyone is going to beable to change his mind so keep the anti-american spam come

America has no right to talk about the threat of WoMD when they have the most

So let's extrapolate this a bit.

1. America has no right to talk about the dangers of national debt, since they have the most.
2. China and India have no right to talk about the dangers of overpopulation
3. The nations of Africa have no right to talk about the problems of AIDS, droughts, or starvation.
4. America has no right to talk about the subject of ecnomics, since they have the largest ecnomy.
5. The largest countries in the European Union have no right to ask that limits be set on, say, national debt as a percentage of GDP, since the largest countries have the biggest percentage.
6. America has no right to talk about WoMD, since we've done by FAR the most research, testing, etc. on the subject.

Brilliant.

Isreal has nukes but just doesn't admit it. What kind of nukes? Prolly US ones. Why? Great launch point to strike Moscow during the Cold War. Kinda like our little Cuba. Also they serve a dual purpose. The Arab nations would love to crush Isreal. So the nukes hold the wolves at bay. Of course there is no unclassified evidence for this. Nor prolly will there ever be given Isreal's relationship with it's neighbors.

One thing I want to add. To my fellow Americans, not all Euro's feel this way. We just happen to have a few loud mouth ones on the boards :P. During the Iraq war we had support of most of the European nations. But everybody is entitled to their opinion.

PS. I know I'm spelling Isreal wrong, just to lazy to spellcheck it.

'Halo, *that* is an idiotic statement. Japan, had we not dropped the atomic bomb on them, would have fought an ugly, unimaginably costly ground war to retain control of their homeland, at an unimaginable cost in innocent lives, not to mention the total destruction of their infrastructure.'

- Actually, no. Not in the slightest. But if we wanna open up a discussion on Hiroshima, I'll boot up a thread. There's quite a lot of evidence against your comments. Overwhelming evidence, even.

'Nydia your preaching to deaf ears here i think, as far as Halo is concerned Americans all wanna take over the world and drink everyones blood

- Uhm, no. But hey, you're half way there on taking over the world.
And I'm not Anti-American you fucking wanker, I just sure as hell cannot stand a lot of shit you guys do lately.
There are more things I admire/respect America for then there are bad. But allow us to get real - it wouldn't make for an interesting past time. That's why the ugly always rears its head. This is a discussion/flame board. Stop crying.

' BTW what about Dresden, are your countries hands clean? '

- Not even in the slightest. If you wanna start a thread about it, It'll sure as hell be interesting. Count me down for the side flaming (pun not intended) Britain.

'So do everyone a really HUGE favor....dont do drugs '

- So do everyone a really HUGE favour... do dictionaries.
Ok, think that wraps it up.
And could someone throw some more insults my way? Need something to work with kids.

Overwhelming evidence, even.

Perhaps you could provide some links to this.

Halo doesn't do evidence, he does one liners.

Woah. So even after 20 years they still have the highest number of nuclear weapons? Says a lot, doesn't it?) and have a pretty good track record of using them.A "track record?" By track record, you mean, two bombs, dropped once, at the single megaton level, 60 years ago, right?

For comparison's sake, Dresden (which a few people have mentioned) looks something like this:Namely 772 British bomber formations dropped 1,477.7 tons of mines and explosive bombs in two attacks in one night, besides 1,181.8 tons of incendiary bombs. These caused immense fire storms and rolling walls of fire, and nothing was able to escape them, as well as nothing could escape the fire storms and rolling walls of fire, caused by 643.1 tons of American incendiary bombs. During the daily air raids of the following six days.The US dropped a similar total of bombs on Dresden. Glad we could help.

Yeah it stopped the war because you like killed everyone.You're some kind of commedian, right?

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed upwards of 100,000 people.

Iwo Jima cost almost 29,000 lives.
Okinawa cost over 270,000 lives.
Japan's "Rape of Nanking" (immediately prior to the war) claimed the lives of over 200,000.
These all pale in comparison to the 35M people that China lost to Japan - mostly civilians.

I'd have to involve Orontes in this thread to get some better numbers on the rest of the people the Japanese were slaughtering, especially in occupied lands, but the numbers were STAGGERING. The Japanese did things in and around World War II that makes the Germans look like choir boys.

USA is teh devil!

- Actually, no. Not in the slightest. But if we wanna open up a discussion on Hiroshima, I'll boot up a thread. There's quite a lot of evidence against your comments. Overwhelming evidence, even.

Boot it up please.. Im "almost" an expert on this period having read dozens of books, written a bunch of papers, taken a ton of class hours and even taught a little bit for a teacher friend... So please.. I would be fascinated to see what unbiased even handed source has done in an, Im sure, very thoughtful and researched work re-writing history.

I can show massive amounts of evidence supporting the fact that Japan was gearing up its populace to die in defense of the Emperor.

'The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed upwards of 100,000 people.'

- Haha. What an excellent joke to start my post with. Hillarious. You guys are on a roll lately.
Well since our raid is lacking in productivity, I'll take an afk and open up this Hiroshima can-of-worms. I'll put my lack of evidence and one liners (which was kindly pointed out by someone with a one liner) aside for a bit. But let me start with saying, that the Hiroshima blast alone killed 135, 000 people. Throw in the Nagasaki death rates, and then the endless radiation deaths through the years. Then, take a gun, and go end your life out back Palimax.

It's widely believed - and rightly so - that the Japanease were extremely fierce and unrelentless fighters. Which they were. Like, as someone mentioned, the Koreans are.
Thing is, Japan was a fanatically religious and loyal country. Centered around complete and utter fixation of its Emporer, who for them was a God. They fought for that God. And around that notion, the main stupid fuck ups begun to emerge.
Japan knew they couldn't win, at all. They were pounded, blocked, run down, run out, it was hopeless. Therefore, they confronted Russia in an attempt to seek a solution to the war to ensure the safety and sanctity of the Emporer.

''The Soviets had notified Japan's Ambassador.. that the Soviet Union would be at war with Japan as of August 9th. This was a blow to the Japanese government's peace-seeking efforts. The Russians had been the only major nation with which Japan still had a neutrality pact, and, as such, had been Japan's main hope of negotiating a peace with something better than unconditional surrender terms. To that end, the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today.' (Butow) '

The sanctity of their Emporer was key - the safety of their emporer above all else. Not through war and complete slaughter as was made up..err.. I mean thought. Truman had been made aware of this, but didn't give it the consideration it needed.

'On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over.' (Hoover)

Sorry, that was kind of a big quote. So anyway, the stupidly ignorant neglect for the entire reason Japan fought as they did was the first major error concerned with the Hiroshima incident. The second was something called the Postdam Proclamation, which was devised by the US and stated that the only condition for Japan was ultimate and complete surrender.

'The Potsdam Proclamation, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, was issued. It made no mention of Japan's central surrender condition: the status of the Emperor. Japan rejected the Proclamation. ' (Long, 'Hiroshima: Was it Necessary?')

This, for the Japanease, meant the ruin of their emporer, their God, their country. It was naturally rejected.

'It made no mention of Japan's central surrender consideration: the retention of the Emperor's position' (Pacific War Research Society, 'Japan's Longest Day')

After the invasion of Russia, Japan's peace-seeking option was destroyed. Additionally, Japan was slowly being brought to its knees through overwhelming military power. Japan was running out of energy, power, and military.

'When Air Force chief General Hap Arnold asked in June 1945 when the war was going to end, the commander of the B-29 raids, General Curtis LeMay, told him September or October 1945, because by then they would have run out of industrial targets to bomb.' (Robert Butow, 'Japan's Decision To Surrender')

'While Japan was being bombarded from the sky, a Naval blockade was strangling Japan's ability to import oil and other vital materials and its ability to produce war materials.' (Barton Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb)

So you've got a country being presented with a declaration that requests its complete and unconditional surrender - as far as they were concerned, their emporer, attempting to find a viable solution to end the conflict, all the meanwhile it was being brought to ruin, and was on the brink of break-down and defeat. The government even knew it.

'Admiral William Leahy, the Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt and then to President Truman, wrote, "By the beginning of September [1944], Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade.' (William Leahy, "I Was There")

Yet, through all this, the US dropped the bomb. August the 6th. And just 3 days later, THREE DAYS, before the Emporer and government even knew what had happened in Hiroshima, the second bomb was dropped. The US didn't wait to see if the first would bring Surrender. Just three fucking days later.
Despite Japan being on the brink of defeat, of yet another countries invasion of its lands, a military campaign which had exhausted its military and industrial power, its emporer's efforts to seek an end to the conflict, the horrible disregard by the American government of Japan's feeling, reasons and motives.. through everything, 2 bombs were dropped, supposedly to SAVE lives. To save lives.

Here's a few of your own people..

'The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. ' (Eisenhower)

'It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. '

'My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.' (Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff)

The list goes on.
And I can't believe I typed all that out again when this topic was covered in a thread barely 6 months ago.

'It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...' (Strauss)

How's that for a one liner, dipshits?

Well, at least you are providing an argument to support your position this time. A definite improvement over your usual sarcastic one liner. It might even make for an interesting discussion for a change.

Lots of Americans disagree amongst ourselves whether it was necessary. I happen to think it was for a variety of reasons (not all of them humane).

Take a look at the statement that the air war would have been estimated to run another month or two before they ran out of targets. Does the phrase "run out of targets" not suggest that a number of cities over and above Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have been flattened? Now figure sixty to seventy thousand casualties for each of those cities. Add in ongoing military casualties to kamikaze attacks (which had not abated by war's end), losses to submarines, losses in ground fighting in mainland Asia. The numbers start to get really big.

It was apparent to all Japan was going to lose badly almost a year before the bomb was dropped, yet Japan declined to surrender or even try to negotiate until just before the bomb was dropped. Even then there were hardline factions in the Japanese government plotting to assassinate those who were contemplating surrender.

If they were so close to capitulating anyway, it should not have taken three days to surrender after the first bomb. It only would have taken a radio message from the Emperor and no second bomb would have dropped. Hirohito was waffling. It took the second bomb to convince him it was not a fluke and that more would be used if needed.

If we were just looking to kill without giving him a chance to respond, the bombs would have been dropped the same day or on consecutive days. Three days was plenty of time in an age of radio and telegram communications.

First Fact: The US is still using Purple Hearts made in preperation for the invasion of Japan.. thats how high we estimated the casualty totals..

Now the point. Ever hear of the Rape of Nanking?
These people did.
1 (http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/photos/fetus.jpg)

2 (http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/photos/child.jpg)

3 (http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/photos/child.jpg)

4 (http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/photos/head1.jpg)

This next one is a really good one. You see, when the Japanese took over Nanking, the Army was given free reign to rape as they wanted (thus the lovely nickname). But Japanese Officers, concerned about keeping the holy Japanese Blood pure, ordered that after a solider raped a women or girl, they were to be killed, to insure no mixed Japanese babies.. A "rape station" was set up in the center of town. After the soliders raped and killed a women, they tossed the bodies down on the stairs.. immortalized here

5 (http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/photos/rape3.jpg)

More information here
http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/index.html

You have no understanding of what Japan was at the time.. The Emperor was a Puppet.. the Military had total control of him. Maybe there was an attempt to end hostilites.. but the Japanese were not going to allow for American occupation and "total surrender"

But even that was unsure..
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/evolve/samurai.html
There was a segement of the people leading the country that believed strongly in not only nationalism but the principles of Hara-Kari, and Death instead of living with the dishonor of defeat.

They were going to commit Hara-Kari with an entire nation.

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavour to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.

Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by the summer of 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives".

The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven".

Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.

"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.

Sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb on Tokyo.

One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on August 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the US had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days". The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news - but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and prevailed.

It feels unseemly to defend the vapourising of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.



Click on the numbers to see pictures

In addition to securing the unconditional surrender of Japan, it was also a message to the USSR.

Yet another nation that believed it was destined to conquor the world, and had the guns to do it. It only took, what, 50 years of containment to break down that world conquest attempt?

But then we as in America are blood thirsty people who are the modern day World evil, believe weve been compared to Hitler in another post...or that might have been Bush

The bombing of Nagasaki is, of course, a subject of debate even in this country. There are two camps - neither of which will be united. I'm personally a believer in two things. (a) The events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki served to swiftly put an end to the war - one that had cost MILLIONS of lives, mostly Chinese, at the hands of the Japanese. Okinawa, and the QUARTER MILLION people that died defending it were reason enough to take another route. [And, as best as I can recall here, we weren't the agressors in WW2...] (b) It served to demonstrate to the next country with would conquering aspirations (the USSR) that the stakes were higher now.

Yes, valid points can be made for using Nagasaki as a demonstration for the USSR that we had more then one bomb. Yes, you can look for quotes by famous Americans denouncing the use of atomic force, but you'll find equally as many in support of it.

Ask yourself this: How many innocent people died at the hands of the Japanese in WW2? Hint: It's an 8 digit number.

You want to pretend that not only are we the bad guys, but that we somehow droped an atomic weapon on Japan just to get a big stiffy, but it's simply not the case, but also that the United States alone engages in warfare that kills people. We didn't start World War II, but we sure as fuck helped put an end to it.

No rebuttal about the thousands of bombs UK planes dropped on Dresden? I know, that's right, you don't wanna touch anything that isn't about how us American baby-killers invade foreign countries to protect our self-interests.

You couldn't win the point that the US was leading the way on nuclear arms reduction, so you changed the subject.

You can't pretend that your own country doesn't kill people indiscriminately in war, so you avoid the topic.

Your best answer so far is to pick higher numbers for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whee!

Tell you what. We'll call it a million dead from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it's still less than what the Japanese were killing EACH YEAR in China from 1937 onward.

I guess the Japanese shouldn't have invited us to the dance...

Maybe in your perfect world, the next conflict between two countries will be solved with a tickle-fight, or best two out of three in Street Fighter Alpha: Zero, but until you finishing establishing that little utopia, try to remember that it's just not how it works. The Japanese did things in China that make what Hitler did in Poland look tame.

I thought we where going to make a new thread for the nagasaki-heroshima nuke bombings?

LL, I suggest linking those images instead of posting them.

'You want to pretend that not only are we the bad guys, but that we somehow droped an atomic weapon on Japan just to get a big stiffy'

- Not really, no. I actually believe they were dropped out of ignorance and stupidity, not demonstration of power.

'No rebuttal about the thousands of bombs UK planes dropped on Dresden? I know, that's right, you don't wanna touch anything that isn't about how us American baby-killers invade foreign countries to protect our self-interests.'

- No rebuttal at all, seen as I agree that it was a horiffic murderous and brutal act. I just don't know much about it myself.
Palimax, you're not going to get at me by trying to attack Britain. Unless it hasn't occured to you yet, which is likely due to how retarded you are, that's not the best way to go about pissing me off, seen as I'd most likely agree with you.

'You can't pretend that your own country doesn't kill people indiscriminately in war, so you avoid the topic.'

- Pretend what? I'm not pretending. We were talking about Hiroshima, so I discussed Hiroshima! If you wanna start a Dresden discussion, go for it. I'm just not much help there, twat. Although I do know that America gave a big helping hand with the bombing. You guys are just coming up aces!

'You couldn't win the point that the US was leading the way on nuclear arms reduction, so you changed the subject.'

- Win the point?
Your point just reinforced mine that the US has no place condeming WoMD due to the fact that you've been dismantling yours for 20 years and still have the leading size arsenal.

Anything else? That was pretty lame.

So your saying if I rob a bank in daylight I shouldnt go to jail but the person living across the street that LOOKS like he robbed the bank should?

Quite the Imagination you got there! to draw that conclusion from a totally different tangent.


No, it means waging war on a possible nuclear power who has no qualms over asserting that claim, is a drastically different proposition.

But hey..I live on the east coast..so i say GO FOR IT.

Do you really think they could launch a couple Nukes at us and actually have it land on american soil? Perhaps you think they will launch a nuke on their own soil to kill us as we invade? The US military is a little better equipped than that.

And no its not a different tangent you simply ignored the direction of my statement and headed off into the Milky Way.

Do you really think they could launch a couple Nukes at us and actually have it land on american soil? Perhaps you think they will launch a nuke on their own soil to kill us as we invade? The US military is a little better equipped than that.

Go ahead and take that chance.

The United States army estimated that it would have cost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers lives to mount a successful full scale invasion of Japan.
They had to get this war over. This isn’t the first war that civilians have been killed in war. A lot of people who say that the bomb was the wrong thing to do doesn’t think of what the Japanese did to the U.S. They killed and sunk many ships in their air raid in Pearl Harbor. I think that the Japanese deserved some warning. After all the Japanese did give warning of the Pearl Harbor attack. It was probably the right thing to do at the time. After the bomb was dropped and all the devastation was seen I think that everyone that was a part of building or the decision to make the bomb felt extremely bad. I don’t think anyone realized the true devastation of this bomb, but it ended WWII and thats what had to be done because the war could have lasted several more years changing the world and all of mankind as we know it.

the basis of the united states was to sit back and let the world go but the rest of the world sucked us in to your affairs.


we got sick of bailing you out, so accept our control or fuck off.

1 (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/thisiswar/jarecke-nasiriyah.jpg)

{quote]"When our troops enter a bombed village the pariah dogs are already at work eating the corpses of the babies and old women who have been killed. Many suffer from ghastly wounds, especially some of the younger children who...are covered with flies and crying for water."

—Colonel Osburn of Britain, quoted in a May 1935 issue of the Manchester Guardian. Reprinted in A History of Bombing by Sven Lindqvist (The New Press, 2001), p 68.[/quote]

"I could watch a burned infant trying to nurse from its dead mother's breast, see young men with their faces blown away, witness a boy deliberately gutted...and never protest."

—reporter Richard Boyle in Vietnam. The Flower of the Dragon: The Breakdown of the US Army in Vietnam by Richard Boyle (San Francisco, 1972), p. 22. Reprinted in An Intimate History of Killing by Joanna Bourke (Basic Books, 1999), p 199.


2 (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/thisiswar/jazeera-afghanistan4.jpg)

"But [bombings] arouse a completely personal hate that no one can really understand who has not huddled in a cellar or burrowed his face in a field to escape dive bombers or seen a mother search for her son's torn-off head or smelled the stench of burning schoolchildren."

—Reporter Edgar Snow in Chunking, China. Quoted in A History of Bombing, p 75.

3 (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/thisiswar/yamahata1.jpg)

"Those poor bastards sat in the air-raid shelters of 16,000 apartment buildings that burned down. Those who followed instructions and dutifully sat there, as I myself would have done, were all killed. They were suffocated when the shelter filled with smoke or when the firestorm had consumed all the oxygen. Only their bodies could testify as to how they had died.

The corpses often lay crowded into heaps near the barricaded exits. Other bodies were stuck in the hardened black mass of their own fat, which had melted and run out onto the floor.

The infants lay in rows like grilled chickens. Other corpses had vanished completely; nothing was left but a fine layer of ash on the tables and chairs.

Most of those who left the shelters burned to death out on the street instead. Many lay facedown, with one arm over their heads, as if to shield themselves. Many had shrunk to the size of dwarves; others had blown up like balloons. Some seemed completely unharmed but were naked—all of their clothes except their shoes had disappeared. Others lay with outstretched arms and blank faces, like mannequins. Still others were totally charred. Their skulls had burst at the temples where the brain pushed out, and their intestines bulged out under their ribs."

—Sven Lindqvist, describing the British firebombing of Hamburg, Germany in 1943. From his book A History of Bombing.

4 (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/thisiswar/ap-afghanistan.jpg)

"Nothing but parts of bodies, arms, legs, heads, hands and torsos, being shoveled into a big heap... Then petrol was poured over it and the whole heap was burnt. Lorries came all the time and brought more of these dismembered people. I became incapable of walking away. The only thing I could think of was, could it be that Mother is among these mutilated things? Mesmerized I stared at the heaps of human remains... Mentally, I started to put together these parts of bodies in order to see whether they could be any of my family."

—Eva Beyer, after the firebombing of Dresden, Germany. In The Bombers: The RAF Offensive Against Germay, 1939-1945 (1983). Quoted in A History of Bombing, p 103.


"My force was standing knee-deep in mutilated bodies, surrounded by the guttural moans of dying people, looking into the eyes of children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots and flies. I found myself walking through villages where the only sign of life was a dead goat, or a chicken, or song-bird, as the people were dead, their bodies being eaten by voracious packs of wild dogs."

—quoted in A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide (Zed Books, 2000), pp 174-5.

"A member of Doctors Without Borders told of rescuing an eleven-year-old boy and his nine-year-old sister from a gang of Hutus, who were laughing at them and spitting on them. By that time, both children had already been raped, and their father's severed penis had been stuffed into the girl's mouth."

—from a review of A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide by L.R. Melvern (Zed Books, 2000). Reviewed in Everything You Know Is Wrong, edited by Russ Kick (The Disinformation Company, 2002), p 329.

"I became a fucking animal. I started fucking putting fucking heads on poles. Leaving fucking notes for the motherfuckers. Digging up fucking graves. I didn't give a fuck anymore. Y'know, I wanted—. They wanted a fucking hero, so I gave it to them. They wanted fucking body count, so I gave them body count."

—unnamed Vietnam Veteran, quoted in Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character (New York, 1994). Reprinted in An Intimate History of Killing.


5 (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/thisiswar/turnley1.jpg)

"Sergeant Michael McCuster recalled one time when his Marine platoon went into a village [in Vietnam] and gang-raped a woman (the last man to rape her, shot her). He recalled that their sergeant 'took no part in the raid. It was against his morals. So instead of telling his squad not to do it, because they wouldn't listen to him anyway, the sergeant went into another side of the village and just sat and stared bleakly at the ground.'"

—from An Intimate History of Killing, p 200. McCuster's quote is from Vietnam Veterans Against the War, The Winter Soldier Investigation (1972), p 29.

"In the Pacific theatre of war, men collected breasts from the bodies of killed (or captured) Japanese women.... The tendency to collect human trophies escalated during the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam when the bodily parts most favoured were ears, teeth, and fingers, but the collection of heads, penises, hands, and toes were all reported."

—From An Intimate History of Killing, PP 26-7

"By the time Calley and men sat down to lunch, they had rounded up and slaughtered around 500 unarmed civilians. Within those few hours, members of Charlie Company had 'fooled around' and laughed as they sodomized and raped women, ripped vaginas open with knives, bayoneted civilians, scalped corpses, and carved "C Company" or the ace of spades onto their chests, slaughtered animals, and torched hooches. Other soldiers had wept openly as they fired on crowds of unresisting old men, women, children, and babies."

—description of the My Lai massacre (16 March 1968) . From An Intimate History of Killing, p 160.

"[Sergeant Bruce F. Anello] describes the grotesque pranks played upon corpses, the rapes, and the way platoons were 'willing to kill any body' simply in order to beat another platoon's 'kill record.'"

—from An Intimate History of Killing, p 205

Yes you are right ... only the Japanese did such things and should be bombed for that.






Click on #'s for pictures (Explicit Pictures)

So the enemy has a couple nukes and all of a sudden the "Screaming Eagle" ... the WORLD POWER is helpless in the face of it?

Chemical and gas weapons and dirty bombs by the hundreds in the hands of suicidal fanatics (as was proposed) are meaningless next to 2 nukes from a third rate power. You think the US has no missle removal capabilities? We could annihilate that country without nukes or troops.

The real reason we havent done away with North Korea but so easily dispatched Iraq has yet to be seen I am betting.

Im wondering when the moderators are going to get smart to the fact that Ytrok is posting under Milyenu's account. Its so blatant its not even funny.

If youre going to ban someone, do it right.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Yes Ytrok..

Bombing isnt pretty..

It is horrifying, death is ugly. Its the reason why war should be a last resort.

But we are talking about different levels. What the Japanese did is beyond hell..
Those fetus were cut out with Samuari swords.
This was butchery on the scale that makes it almost unhuman.
Those pictures were taken by Japanese to keep as memories.

Can you grasp that? Can you understand the difference between the whole sale butchery of a people and the tragedies of war?

Civilian casualties in the War were amazingly low, as the US did everything humanly possible to avoid that... as hard as it was because Saddam used his people and the Iraqi children as shields. Weapons Caches in schools, Command Bunkers in crowded neighborhoods.

Sorry Ytrok.. if you wanna make a connection between the Japanese in WW2 and the United States now... youre going to have to leap alot farther than that..

Assuming the Devs keep allowing you post despite you being Banned.

and btw..

The author of "An Intimate Look at Killing" that you quote so often is an, at best, biased source.
as one History Professor reviewed
[The common reader may think this a perfectly comprehensible point. We write history books because otherwise we might forget. We are at risk of forgetting. But why are we at risk of "forgetting"? And so it goes. We start to get the sense the author is trying to communicate with us in code. What on earth does it mean to say that we are "all potentially ‘evil’"? If Bourke has any idea what she’s talking about I’d say it’s past time she let us all in on the secret.

Nor is this all. Another over- and misused style point is her habit of following up simple statements with explanations and clarifications beginning with "In other words . . . " Unfortunately it is only very rarely that the follow-up puts the original thought in other words. Usually it says something quite different in meaning. Would a proofreader have been too much to ask?

Then there is the substance of what Bourke has to say. For the most part her observations are so general as to be commonplace. In other places, however, we find truly surprising conclusions tossed off as glib asides. At one point we are told that American racist attitudes toward the Japanese "almost lost them the war." How so? Was it really that close a thing? Even more shocking is the revelation that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because they "seemed to have nothing to lose" - a statement so patently absurd, indeed incomprehensible, that it is flatly contradicted two pages later, where it is said that "a lot was at stake" in the attack.[/quote]

Sorry Ytrok.. if you wanna make a connection between the Japanese in WW2 and the United States now... youre going to have to leap alot farther than that..

1) I am not Ytrok but it seems the females should have no opinion on this board.

2) I made no reference to the Americans in particular, I made reference to variable nations doing the same what the Japanese did.

All quotes are not by the author, quotes are by the people who experianced it.

In every war there is brutal rape of women children babies etc , it happens today still in indonesia and no one acts.

Rape in any way is no excuse to kill over 200.000 innocent people just to make a point that you are stronger.

OK gonna go put on my hip waders now cause the shit is getting WAY too deep. And on a side note cool it with the pictures like that please. Dont really wanna see stuff like that first thing in the morning

I am not Ytrok but it seems the females should have no opinion on this board.

ok.. whatever.. lead with a lie.. a good start..

what a strange coincidence that no even though Milenaeu stayef awa from these posts for 3 years... the moment Ytrok gets banned you start with posts 100% like his, not only here, but in Nuggets..

Ytrok.. you are a fucking liar.. there is nothing lower or worse that I can call you. You have no Honor.

I don't claim to be a huge history buff and I'm not one for spouting facts and I don't usually post on this stuff but...The way I see it is this.

War is horrific...people die...that's a fact...but the Japanese would have stayed in it until the bitter end and how many soilder's lives had to be sacrificed before the end finally came? My father was in the Navy during WWII - he was on the aircraft carrier Belleau Wood. On 30 October 1944, while Belleau Wood was patrolling with her task group east of Leyte, she shot down a Japanese suicide plane which fell on her flight deck aft causing fires which set off ammunition. Before the holocaust could be brought under control 92 men were killed or missing. Had my father not been ill during this attack he would have been dead...as the Japanese suicide bomber's plane landed right where he would have been standing...so yeah...I guess I take this personally. That's just one incident...how many others had to die before the situation was under control.

And weren't the Japanese allied with Germany? Oh yeah... that's right...Hitler! So basically if the US and it's allies hadn't stepped in all of Europe would be sitting around eating brats and singing Auf Weidersehen!

I believe everyone has an opinion...but don't come here bashing the means to an end while you're sitting safely behind your computer. If you're going to act like a tree hugging activist then get off your EQ playing ass and get out there and be pro-active instead of trolling this board and starting an uproar.

Oh...and by the way...this is the opinion of a woman. Having a penis does not give you the right to corner the market on opinions...no matter how small your genetalia may be.

Chemical and gas weapons and dirty bombs by the hundreds in the hands of suicidal fanatics (as was proposed) are meaningless next to 2 nukes from a third rate power. You think the US has no missle removal capabilities? We could annihilate that country without nukes or troops.


Have those missle removal systems ever had a real test? no.

But hey..you trust them, so sure.

Afterall, its just a few nukes right? not like just two or three nukes can't wipe out a good few dozen million people on our west coast quite easily if detonated.

If you really can't see the differance your hopeless and I'm done bothering to respond ;>.

1) I am not Ytrok but it seems the females should have no opinion on this board.

Oh.. yeah.. youre not Ytrok.. that makes sense. As L2 pointed out, you just coincidentally started posting in RL Nag right after Ytrok got himself banned... and according to the search feature you had NEVER POSTED HERE BEFORE. And as L2 also pointed out, you are starting to post those retarded links in Nuggets that Milyenu had never posted before, but Im sure thats just a coincidence also. Not to mention you make all the same grammar and spelling errors that Ytrok did.. so yeah I guess youre not Ytrok.

And wtf is with the females comment? When has anyones opinion on this board been disregarded cause they had a vagina? Ok.. well Elazul but otherwise.. well.. ok... Jessamyn but anyone that dates Trilkin doesnt deserve an opinion.. other than them :\

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Oh fuck me, how could I miss this. Ytrok posting under another name, this is just classic. Too bad I'm already 30 minutes late for work.

'After the bomb was dropped and all the devastation was seen I think that everyone that was a part of building or the decision to make the bomb felt extremely bad. I don’t think anyone realized the true devastation of this bomb,'

- Aww.. they felt bad? That makes everything OK.

the basis of the united states was to sit back and let the world go but the rest of the world sucked us in to your affairs.

When was this?
I can't remember a time when the US sat back and let the world go.

we got sick of bailing you out, so accept our control or fuck off.

So the US is after world control and domination.

The real reason we havent done away with North Korea but so easily dispatched Iraq has yet to be seen I am betting.

Yup
We can only guess the real reasons.

I can't remember a time when the US sat back and let the world go.

When did World War 2 begin? When did we enter it?

Fuck off. You're the biggest idiot on this board.

I think that joke's on you actually Shew.
Go away and sort out your girl problems.

halo wtf! ur raiding atm, u should be mezzing!! and i need haste too plz

Shieet, at least he doesnt have BOY problems like yourself.

wait me?.... what?

We attacked Iraq because they posed a "Clear and Present Danger" but never found any weapons. North Korea gets nothing when they flaunt them in public ... strange to me can someone explain?

Because we are the most powerful nation in the world,and we can do whatever we want. /shrug

I mean,who's gonna stop us?


This is what pisses the eurotrash off so much,but think its funny.

Halo, I have a request of you.

"Existance-proof" please.

You are claiming all these nations are horrible for what they did. This is cute and all.

The goal of "Proof of Concept" or "Existance-proof" is to provide a nation that isn't horrible for what they did. Prove to me, by its existance, that there exists a nation that isn't horrible.

The reason why this request is somewhat reasonable is that otherwise, your standard for non-"horrible" might be impossible to achieve or maintain, or even a logical impossibility.

If you want me to push it, I'll even require you to provide a nation who fought a war against a nation that was a challenge to its power, and won it, in a non-horrible way. This war may be defensive or offensive.

Thank you.

You're this kid on the short bus with a padded helmet bashing his head against the window repeating "US Sucks, US Sucks!" over and over, and you don't have anything except some deep-seated resentment from a childhood incident where you were beaten with a copy of the US Bill of Rights every time you came home later for dinner.

Good stuff, good stuff.

Halo, it's hilarious how much of a pathetic troll you have become. Although your repitition is indeed getting old. Try another method of stupidness, your current one is losing it's edge.

I <3 you guys.

It really is amazing what people dig up in order to win a arguement. What I find funny is that the U.S. and Brits are closer now then since the end of the second world war. Sure, there are people in both countries who are rebelling and saying that we are all evil, but when it came to Iraq, who was the first to side with the US? yup England. So, lets stop talking about who owes who, and what nasty things were done SIXTY years ago.

What about Iraq?

Well, I could give two shits if we EVER find weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq. It really boils down to the fact that Saddam had to go. The way that he exploited the people, and controlled the country with a iron fist is something that this world did not need. Many of you really have no idea what the hell you are talking about when you talk about Iraq. You only know what the media DECIDES to tell you. You only know about the Jessica Lynch's of the world, or how many troops have died since Bush called the end of major conflicts. This is all designed to sway the public image one way or the other. Make no mistake, each time the media mentions the number killed since the day Bush made that statement, it is designed to slowly turn the voters toward the Democrats.

After seeing and talking to people that suffered under Saddam, I am glad that we are here. Earlier in the post, it was mentioned that Iraq could not have 20 billion dollars since they could not feed thier own people. Make no mistake, Saddam had that kind of money, and he could care less if the people had food. The palaces that were built for him showed exactly how much he cared for his people. The mass graves show exactly how much he cared for his people. There are many people who are happy that we are here. Why is that? Would you be happy if someone bombed and invaded your country? I think not. You are not living in hell under total tyranny.

I am proud to be serving next to the Brits, and the Aussie's. They are friends to not only me, but fellow comrades in arms. I have been invited to visit each place when I leave here, and I will. I really could give a shit about what happened 60 years ago. What is happening now is what matters. I cannot wait for the day I can leave this country, but I know that what we are doing here now is the right thing.

Shanno Flybane
Monk IvM
1LT US Army (baghdad)

It really boils down to the fact that Saddam had to go. The way that he exploited the people, and controlled the country with a iron fist is something that this world did not need.

I fully agree with this.
I also think this was the only "solid" reason given, to start the war against Iraq.
If this was the reason to start the war why give all the other reasons?
Why just not say "We are going there to liberate the Iraqi people and for no other reason." ?
Why the rest of the reasons?
My point is simple: they needed the rest of the reasons to justify the war to alot of people that do not think "overthrowing a dictator" is a good enough reason in itself.
People might object to that and point at the oil reserves and call that the real reason.
So in order to "sell" the war they needed more reasons, so they found some other reasons and put the focus on these other reasons and "sold" public opinion a war.
Now we start finding out that most of the other reasons where a bit excagerated.
The only reason that still stands is the "overthrowing a dictator" .

But do you really believe that:
"we are going to invade Iraq to overthrow a dictator"
would have been a good enough reason to get a broad public support to start this war?
Maybe for some yes, but I don't think you will get broad public support with this.

I like peanuts. Btw we aren't taking over the world. McDonald
s is doing that for us. Doing a good job actually.

'Shieet, at least he doesnt have BOY problems like yourself. '

- Wow. What a mistake hitting 'add post' that was.
How do you actually survive on this board?

How do you actually survive on this board?

Simple. I'm not a whiny bitch like you.

This is all designed to sway the public image one way or the other. Make no mistake, each time the media mentions the number killed since the day Bush made that statement, it is designed to slowly turn the voters toward the Democrats.

Careful, the Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy has brain control chips in you. If you speak out, it will zap you.

I dunno, could the mentions of the number killed be, I dunno, facts? And could mentioning it be, I dunno, the fucking job of the media?

After seeing and talking to people that suffered under Saddam, I am glad that we are here.

Ditto. I am however ashamed at the lies the USA meted out in an attempt to get a UN resolution backing their action.

The White House lied in the UN, then got all huffy when people refused to follow their lead.

The White House lied to and mislead the american people. They said "trust me, I know things you don't, Iraq is a proximite danger". You don't pull presidential authority, make non-equivicating statements, then turn out to be lieing out your ass, and expect people not to be upset.

Just ask clinton. *grin*

I dunno, could the mentions of the number killed be, I dunno, facts? And could mentioning it be, I dunno, the fucking job of the media?

My brainchip says..bullshit. Every time there is a artical in the paper, it has to mention the number of casualties since "major operations" has ceased. Tell me I am wrong. There can be a story about how Saddam's second cousin was caught, and right in the middle.... yup..how many have died. Why is that? because it is a fact? It has anything to do with the story? Not likely.

I am sure that if you browse CNN today..you will find this printed somewhere in the middle of the article. It never mentions total losses for the whole war..just after Bush made his statement on May 1st. Tell me that is not intended to deface him.

Shanno
Monk IvM