The most impressive thing is, that this guy has 5 sheep. Size that up against US currency, and that would make him a millionaire.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1): There's only "good things" going on there, my friend, because we leveled the place, and we have to clean up our own mess. Those "good things" were unnecessary, and only at the cost of our own invasion. And at the cost of close to 2000 fine young Americans.

Leveled the place? This is the usual bitter political diatribe we often hear from a person who looks through dark clouded lenses that does not allow for any good to be seen. Whatsoever!!! Sorry, but that kind of response does not hold any water in today's world of intelligent thinking and insight.

Thank you very much.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20): Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 19): hen why don't you try tempering your bad news with some mention of the good? I don't often see those all-out for this conflict "temporizing" with balancing it with bad news, Capt, so why should I?

Because there is enough bad news to go around...the whole point of this thread Alpha is that not enough of the good is making it out. If you truly cared about the men and women in uniform as you so often claim you do you would have reacted differently in the FIRST response on this thread.

Something along the lines of-Great news to hear that servicemen are making headway, it is a shame they had to be there in the first place-would have been more apropos.

No...not you...you immediately jumped on the negativitiy bandwagon...as you are prone to do.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter): I await the usual flaming . . .

And I never expected to hear something critical from you about the US invasion when US soldiers killed Iraqi civilians and didn't help them afterwards.
Some people here are FOX and Murdock-blind, unfortunatelly.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 28): when US soldiers killed Iraqi civilians and didn't help them afterwards.

1. Civilians do die in war. I don't like the fact we went into this war, but I'm also not blind, as you and many others seem to be when discussing any conflict, that civilians dle.

2. The point of the article, which I gladly conceed to my good friend ANC is that U.S. troops ARE helping the Iraqi people. Again, I wish our leaders hadn't made such "help" possible, but the only way to extract ourselves from this war is to help these people rebuild their lives.

My views are one of a patriotic American, who vehemently disagreed with going to war, but also realizes that we MUST make the best of a good situation-and I should have made that known at the outset of this post, but I failed to do so.

You, #12, can always be found damning my nation for whatever it does, past, present or future, out of pure spite for my country.

Twelve, unfortunately, I failed to live up to your expectations.

If you've read anything I've written as it relates to the deaths of civilians, the activities of the Guards at Abu Ghraib, the suspected activities if some Guards at GitMo, you'll see where I condemned them. In fact, civilian casualties happen in war - it's senseless, tragic - but a fact of war.

So, you see where you expected me to say nothing I in fact said plenty.

You however, live up to my expectations every single time. You simply condemn this country and it's soldiers no matter what event occurs.

ANCFlyer, the "we are sooo good to the Iraqi people" thread is just boring - are all the reports from free media wrong who show soldiers shooting onto Civilians and fear helping them?
Soldiers who were so brave to shoot a 8 years old girl and didn't want to help her because they feared to be shot by Iraqis and so journalists helped her? Brave Soldiers who wanted to stop reports?
Young brave soldiers who laugh about massacred Iraqi Civilians? Brave US soldiers who kill helpless people laying on the ground?

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 31): the "we are sooo good to the Iraqi people" thread is just boring

Not enough sensationalism for you?

Nothing for you to pick on?

Nothing giving you an opportunity to rant about the US #12?

  

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 31): are all the reports from free media wrong who show soldiers shooting onto Civilians and fear helping them?

What network are YOU watching, dude? I don't see any such media reports. I see the troops going after the terrorists, and those still taking up arms-they'er not considered "civilians", 12, they're considered "combatants".

You show me a case where soldiers have opened fire on obviously unarmed civilians. You won't find it. More bullshit from someone full of hate.

I'd say something a little more direct, but someone like you isn't worth getting banned over.

All he does is rant, ANC. He still is mad at the U.S. for daring to drop the bomb on Japan-never mind Japan started a war against us, and had committed 15 years of atrocities. It's always the U.S. who is the bad guy in his warped mind.

I feel said for such delusional people. I really do.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 33): What network are YOU watching, dude?

I'm watching free press, Falcon. Maybe you should do the same. Aaaah, ok, now I kow: I see all the German propaganda channels like ZDF, right?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 33): I'd say something a little more direct, but someone like you isn't worth getting banned over.

Oh sure, Falcon. One of the poorest answers you gave.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 35): m watching free press, Falcon.

So do I, and I've never seen anything like what you've say you've seen. I think you're either making stuff up, or being deliberately misinformed. If such things were taking place, trust me, we'd see them. But for all the bad news that's shown on the war, such atrocities as you hint at are not showing up here. Probalby beause there not true.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 35): Oh sure, Falcon. One of the poorest answers you gave.

Actually, one of the more honest answers I'll ever give. You're simply not worth it, you and your blind, raging anti-Americanism.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 36): So do I, and I've never seen anything like what you've say you've seen. I think you're either making stuff up, or being deliberately misinformed...

Sorry, Falcon, continue dreaming. You were able to see these reports short after "mission accomplished" on German TV: a girl which got woonded by US soldiers because they thought she was one of your combatants. Also soldiers who shot old people. You think this is "deliberately misinformed"?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 36): raging anti-Americanism.

lol, bad argument that tries to avoid any discussions.
I have lots of contact to people in the US who are critical against Iraq War, critical against Guantanamo, Abu Ghreib, critical against the use of Nukes against Japanese Civilians (or were they all combatants). So are also these people anti-American? Because they are against a Fundamental Christian Government or against Nuclear Weapons?

And if I am not worth it, why do you answer?   

[Edited 2005-08-01 16:58:22]

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 37): You were able to see these reports short after "mission accomplished" on German TV: a girl which got woonded by US soldiers because they thought she was one of your combatants. Also soldiers who shot old people. You think this is "deliberately misinformed"?

Yes. Absolutely. You probably got "part of the story", and that's it. It's never been shown here, and trust me, if it really happened, it would be shown here.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 37): lol, bad argument that tries to avoid any discussions.

Not at all. It was a characterization, and a pretty accurate one, within the confines of this debate.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 37): I have lots of contact to people in the US who are critical against Iraq War, critical against Guantanamo, Abu Ghreib, critical against the use of Nukes against Japanese Civilians (or were they all combatants). So are also these people anti-American? Because they are against a Fundamental Christian Government or against Nuclear Weapons?

I'm critical of the Iraq war; I'm critical of Guantanamo and Abu Gharib. I sleep well at night knowing old Harry Truman dropped the bomb on Japan and ended a war they started (what about the hudreds of thousands of people Japanese soldiers tortured and murdered between 1931 and 1945?).

Secondly, we do not have a fundamentalist Christian government. If the far right had their way, we would. But we don't.

And I'm against nuclear weapons, but unlike you, I don't try to rewrite history becasue I'm naive about what the world was like in 1945, and the fact that those bombs were simply new weapons then, and were legitimately used against a nation who had warred on the U.S.

I'll stand by what I said-you have a raging anti-Americanism, and if you deny it, you're not being honest with us or yourself.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): and were legitimately used

The targeting of innocent civilians, even in warfare, is nothing close to legitimate. While people can cry conspiracy theory about believing Japan was about to surrender, how can you justify the 2nd bomb being dropped?

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 37): Sorry, Falcon, continue dreaming. You were able to see these reports short after "mission accomplished" on German TV: a girl which got woonded by US soldiers because they thought she was one of your combatants. Also soldiers who shot old people. You think this is "deliberately misinformed"?

I am against the war in Iraq and think that Bush was an idiot for starting this whole mess. However I support our troops and know that they are doing the best they can. American soldiers do not intentionally target civilians. It is unfortunate that civilians have died in this war, especially considering this war never should have happened, but you accusing American soldiers of murdering civilians is a lie.

If we really wanted to win this war quickly we would have carpet bombed all of Iraq in a WWII fashion. Instead we used precision weapons to minimize civilian deaths and target military targets. Unfortunately smart bombs miss sometimes which leads to civilian deaths. However we have never deliberately targeted civilians as you suggest. American ground forces also have a strict set of rules of engagement which they follow to protect civilians. However the fact that this war is being fought in cities and not in the open desert means that there will be civilian casualties. Bottom line is this, American soldiers DO NOT target civilians. You are a fool to believe they would.

BTW "woonded" is not a word, it is wounded.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 37): I have lots of contact to people in the US who are critical against Iraq War, critical against Guantanamo, Abu Ghreib, critical against the use of Nukes against Japanese Civilians (or were they all combatants). So are also these people anti-American? Because they are against a Fundamental Christian Government or against Nuclear Weapons?

That's funny, I happen to live in an area filled with such people 99% of them support our troops and believe that they are trying to help the Iraqi people and make the best of a bad situation. VERY VERY few of them, except the most extreme (probably psychotic) believe that American soldiers are deliberately targeting civilians. These are probably the same people who write the news articles you read   .

Quoting B744F (Reply 39): The targeting of innocent civilians, even in warfare, is nothing close to legitimate. While people can cry conspiracy theory about believing Japan was about to surrender, how can you justify the 2nd bomb being dropped?

The Japanese didn't surrender after a first? Is that a good enough reason?

Quoting NorCal (Reply 40): The Japanese didn't surrender after a first? Is that a good enough reason?

There were no plans to wait for a surrender or ask for one, they were going to drop 2 of the bombs and they did.

Quoting B744F (Reply 39): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): and were legitimately used The targeting of innocent civilians, even in warfare, is nothing close to legitimate. While people can cry conspiracy theory about believing Japan was about to surrender, how can you justify the 2nd bomb being dropped?

B744F - go read this thread . . . might learn something and the answers to your question are in there. . .
Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Saved Lives? (by EZEIZA Feb 4 2005 in Non Aviation)

Quoting B744F (Reply 39): The targeting of innocent civilians, even in warfare, is nothing close to legitimate.

It absolutely is, my friend. Both sides did it in WWII. And besides, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military commands and bases in them. They were absolutely legit targets. In a country the size of Japan, with a military as large as theirs was back then, it was pretty hard NOT to have bases in cities.

And Japan had absolutely no place to complain, after their torture and murder of citizens in China for the decade before that. When you start a war, you take some risks, and Japan did-and lost.

Quoting B744F (Reply 39): While people can cry conspiracy theory about believing Japan was about to surrender, how can you justify the 2nd bomb being dropped?

Because Japan had refused to surrender after the first one. The second bomb was sending the message "Japan, let us make this perfectly clear", and it did. The war ended, unofficially, 3 days after the 2nd one was dropped.

Quoting B744F (Reply 41): There were no plans to wait for a surrender or ask for one, they were going to drop 2 of the bombs and they did.

Had Japan sued for peace after Hiroshima, the 2nd one would not have been dropped. All indications that the Allies had is that Japan was going to press the war. Indeed, there were army officers, inside Japan, who were ready to overthrow Hirohito and kill him, because they were afraid Japan would sue for peace. One of Japan's great aviators, Mitsuo Fuchida, who led the raid on Pearl Harbor, almost joined them, in fact.

Quoting B744F (Reply 41): There were no plans to wait for a surrender or ask for one, they were going to drop 2 of the bombs and they did.

Actually they did ask for a surrender, but the Japanese didn't. They had three days between the bombs to surrender.


BTW it was estimated that it would have cost 1 million American lives to invade Japan (haven't found any estimates on Japanese lives, but it probably would have been higher). The Japanese would have fought to the last man, we had seen it before during countless Pacific island campaigns in which the Japanese did suicide charges. That and the numerous kamikaze planes against our navy was proof enough that this would have been a very bloody invasion. It was a cultural thing to them, they were going to fight to the end just like the samurai of the past.
The fact is that the Japanese started a war and we had to end it. We took the option which we thought and probably did result in the least number of casualties. Either way to end the war, thousands of people were going to die there was no way around it.

You criticize our decision to use the bombs, what do you suggest we should have done instead?

Quoting NorCal (Reply 44): BTW it was estimated that it would have cost 1 million American lives to invade Japan

Sorry that's a completely unproven myth, one of the many.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43): It absolutely is, my friend. Both sides did it in WWII. And besides, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military commands and bases in them. They were absolutely legit targets. In a country the size of Japan, with a military as large as theirs was back then, it was pretty hard NOT to have bases in cities.

Military commands and bases! That classifies every city in the world as a legit target then. They were not legit targets, period.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43): And Japan had absolutely no place to complain, after their torture and murder of citizens in China for the decade before that. When you start a war, you take some risks, and Japan did-and lost.

I never said they had a place to complain, I was talking about the Americans actions. Oh and if you want to get technical, people justify the Nazi's actions by the Versailles sanctions but the US had some pretty tough sanctions on Japan which some say lead to Pearl Harbor.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43): Because Japan had refused to surrender after the first one. The second bomb was sending the message "Japan, let us make this perfectly clear", and it did. The war ended, unofficially, 3 days after the 2nd one was dropped.

Wow, 3 entire days you give them to decide! Maybe in the technology age of today that is enough time

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43): Had Japan sued for peace after Hiroshima, the 2nd one would not have been dropped. All indications that the Allies had is that Japan was going to press the war. Indeed, there were army officers, inside Japan, who were ready to overthrow Hirohito and kill him, because they were afraid Japan would sue for peace. One of Japan's great aviators, Mitsuo Fuchida, who led the raid on Pearl Harbor, almost joined them, in fact.

That's nonsense, "all indications"

There were cables intercepted BEFORE the first bombing that showed they were planning on surrendering but kept up the propaganda campaign of never surrender and prepare to fight to the death to their people, as propaganda machines always do, even in the face of defeat.

How dare you guys not invite me to another Iraq War morality war? HOW DARE YOU?

Although Falcon I must deem its a better place for you than the Warsaw Uprising thread cuz I swear to god you dont have a clue what your talking about  

Quoting B744F (Reply 45): Sorry that's a completely unproven myth, one of the many.

No it isn't, you just choose to ignore facts. Maybe you should read up on two terms called Bushido and Kamikaze and then you will understand why the military estimates of 1 millions casualties were correct.

"As Japan's desperation worsened, the ferocity of the fighting intensified. The code of bushido -- "the way of the warrior" -- was deeply ingrained. Surrender was dishonorable. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (called hara kiri in the West. Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect. This explains, in part, the Japanese mistreatment, torture, and summary execution of POWs). There was no shortage of volunteers for kamikaze missions or of troops willing to serve as human torpedoes or to ride to honorable death on piloted buzz bombs.

Japan was dead on its feet in every way but one: The Japanese still had the means -- and the determination -- to make the invading Allied forces pay a terrible price for the final victory. Since the summer of 1944, the armed forces had been drawing units back to Japan in anticipation of a final stand there.

The Japanese were prepared to absorb massive casualties. According to Gen. Korechika Anami, the War Minister, the military could commit 2.3 million troops. Commanders were authorized to call up four million civil servants to augment the troops. The Japanese Cabinet extended the draft to cover most civilians (men from ages fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five).

The defending force would have upwards of 10,000 aircraft, most of them kamikaze. Suicide boats and human torpedoes would defend the beaches. The Japanese Army planned to attack the Allied landing force with a three-to-one advantage in manpower. If that failed, the militia and the people of Japan were expected to carry on the fight. Civilians were being taught to strap explosives to their bodies and throw themselves under advancing tanks. Construction battalions had fortified the shorelines of Kyushu and Honshu with tunnels, bunkers, and barbed wire.

As late as August 1945, the Japanese Army thought it could destroy most of the invading force and that there was a fair chance the invasion could be defeated."

"Truman was acutely aware that hesitation would be paid for in blood. The Japanese refusal to surrender led to 48,000 American casualties in the battle for Okinawa between April and June. Kamikaze attacks in that battle sank twenty-eight US ships and did severe damage to hundreds more. The Japanese force on Okinawa was only a fraction the size of the one waiting in the home islands."

http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/07-02.asp

Quoting B744F (Reply 45): Military commands and bases! That classifies every city in the world as a legit target then. They were not legit targets, period.

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force."

"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."

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

Quoting B744F (Reply 45): I never said they had a place to complain, I was talking about the Americans actions. Oh and if you want to get technical, people justify the Nazi's actions by the Versailles sanctions but the US had some pretty tough sanctions on Japan which some say lead to Pearl Harbor.

Sanctions to try and counter Japanese aggression in the Pacific. Aggression against countries like China, where thousands were slaughtered by the Japanese. The sanctions were a peaceful attempt to try and stop Japanese aggression. There is no doubt that these sanctions lead to Pearl Harbor, but what were we supposed to do sit by and do nothing and let them conquer the whole Pacific?


All you do is criticize the actions that the U.S. took.

I'll ask again, what do you suggest we should have done that would have resulted in fewer deaths and end the war?

Interesting that this thread has continued on the subject of the Atomic Bombs dropped in WW2.

Interesting that it continues with ignorance after the referencing of a previous thread that was quite in depth, with quite a lot of information. . .

I suggest, again, B744F and a few others go read those other threads and educate themselves. I simply won't waste any more time reposting the things that have already been discussed.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 47): No it isn't, you just choose to ignore facts. Maybe you should read up on two terms called Bushido and Kamikaze and then you will understand why the military estimates of 1 millions casualties were correct.

Sorry but again, this is just ridiculous, the militaries "guesstimate" of 1 million + lives lost was an overexaggeration to justify the atomic bombs.

And Bushido means you have enough honor to know when to give up and not fight an impossible battle, the exact opposite from the Kamikaze tactics used as desperate attempts.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 47): allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb

And the truth comes out, the Japanese were used as test subjects to see how much damage this bomb could really do.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 47): I'll ask again, what do you suggest we should have done that would have resulted in fewer deaths and end the war?

First of all they could have listened to the warnings about Pearl Harbor to begin with, but in the end, they could have kept the blockade going and awaited the surrender that was coming.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 48): I suggest, again, B744F and a few others go read those other threads and educate themselves. I simply won't waste any more time reposting the things that have already been discussed.

There is nothing to read there of any importance, the only history you know is what's in our biased textbooks, why don't you take the time to educate yourself with the documents released 30 years ago which show our military knew they were going to surrender, and how the casuality numbers were laughable.