Iran General Discussion - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-25-2010, 01:22 PM   #16
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Except that sometimes who the "criminal" is and who the "policeman" is isn't always so clear.
I think in this case it's pretty damn clear.

Quote:
Citizens in Arab countries would probably feel differently about whether or not we or Israel are a threat. And as for the U.S., um, let's ask the people of Hiroshima about that, shall we? Last I checked it wasn't a Middle Eastern country responsible for that event.
Japan bears responsibility for what happened. They brought it upon themselves. Don't ask us to apologize for that, because we won't. In fact, you should be pissed even more at Japan because they made us do it twice.

Quote:
You know, I've heard people here in the States say that certain areas of the world should "just be nuked" numerous times, whether jokingly or dead serious (and sometimes it's hard to tell). Many an American has said we should just nuke the Middle East altogether. How is that any different?
They're not the ones in command...

Quote:
But if we do manage to get them out of the hands of Iran and other countries of that ilk, then why do we need ours? The threat's over, isn't it? It seems pointless to continue to keep a weapon if you've managed to get rid of the threat, doesn't it?
Right, because after the threats been dealt with the world goes back to being perfect. Why didn't we just disband the military after World War II? Or World War I? Or the war of 1812? Why do we even have a military? To protect us from threats, current and future.



Quote:
It just makes us seem hypocritical, sorry. I know it's hard for some people to accept that their own country can be seen as dangerous to other people, but the truth is it's all in the eye of the beholder.
No I can completely see why certain other countries see us as dangerous. Most of the time that keeps them from doing stupid things. A lot of people hate us, so why havn't any country (not state-sponsered terrorists) attacked us directly since Pearl Harbor? Because we have the strongest military in the world and we would walk all over them. It's not hypocritical at all, its just how the world works.
__________________

__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 04:02 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I think in this case it's pretty damn clear.
Not necessarily. The people of Iran, while they may not be fans of Ahmadinejad, might still see having weapons for protection as a good thing for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Japan bears responsibility for what happened. They brought it upon themselves. Don't ask us to apologize for that, because we won't. In fact, you should be pissed even more at Japan because they made us do it twice.
I have a problem believing it was necessary to take out a ton of innocent people for the actions of a few. I've always felt that way. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
They're not the ones in command...
You don't think there's anyone in a position or potential position of command that thinks that way? And we're the ones who vote for people who we want to carry out our wishes, so actually, yeah, we do have some power over that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Right, because after the threats been dealt with the world goes back to being perfect. Why didn't we just disband the military after World War II? Or World War I? Or the war of 1812? Why do we even have a military? To protect us from threats, current and future.
Yes, I understand that. I was talking about a permanent removal of the threat. If we made the lack of weapons in the Middle East a permanent thing, then there'd be no need for us to have any, 'cause the threat would be gone for good. A perfect world scenario, yes, but that's what I meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
No I can completely see why certain other countries see us as dangerous. Most of the time that keeps them from doing stupid things. A lot of people hate us, so why havn't any country (not state-sponsered terrorists) attacked us directly since Pearl Harbor? Because we have the strongest military in the world and we would walk all over them. It's not hypocritical at all, its just how the world works.
Yeah, we have a mighty military that can show off with its shock and awe and bombs and fancy technology, but that's all we're good at. We go in and make a mess, but we haven't solved the actual problem. We've just angered a bunch of people and made them more willing to join up with resistance groups and want weapons of their own for protection. Our reason for wanting weapons and a strong military is the exact same reason used by every other country that has them. The leaders and a few rogue groups may want them for other more sinister reasons, but the average citizen in those countries has the same mindset we do-protect your homeland at all costs.

So a country at large hasn't attacked us. We still get attacked by smaller groups, and that's just as unsettling as being at war with a nation at large. And if everyone involved on both sides isn't careful, eventually it could branch into a legitimate country vs. country war. Just as Iran has to stop rattling people's cages, we have to change some of our behavior, too.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 10:18 AM   #18
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Japan bears responsibility for what happened. They brought it upon themselves. Don't ask us to apologize for that, because we won't. In fact, you should be pissed even more at Japan because they made us do it twice.
Really? Really? Japan is entirely to blame? Japan made us drop an atomic bomb and instantaneously decimate tens of thousands of innocent lives? And then they made us do it twice?

America is the victim here?
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 10:27 AM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Isn't it mandatory to believe in American Exceptionalism in order to be a patriot?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 10:59 AM   #20
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AchtungBono View Post
What is there to say really? It's Hitler all over again.....a tiny man with delusions of grandeur who is fighting against the entire world......while the world sits by and does absolutely nothing.

Iran is actually a beautiful country. I've seen pictures of its countryside, cities and highway systems and its people could enjoy a wonderful and full life if they weren't ruled by a madman bent on destruction.

It frightens me that this idiot is within a hair's breadth of having a nuclear weapon, especially with his worldwide network of terrorists - the Hezbollah in particular. Can you imagine the horror that would be unleashed if they got a hold of a nuclear weapon? NOBODY would be safe......

Iran is acting like a spoiled child with a new toy.....but don't worry.......WE have toys of various kinds too and we know how to play with them.....

Israel will know how to defend itself against any threat and I can guarantee you that if ONE missile falls here Iran will be reduced to a large oil slick that will make the gulf look like a rain puddle.

Let's just hope we don't get to that situation......
I wish we were not even involved with the Middle East. I think our presence may be welcoming for Israel, but not for the other countries.
__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 05:13 PM   #21
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Really? Really? Japan is entirely to blame? Japan made us drop an atomic bomb and instantaneously decimate tens of thousands of innocent lives? And then they made us do it twice?

America is the victim here?
Let me quote wikipedia on operation downfall, the planned invasion of japan, the only other choice to end the war.

Quote:
Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties[1] and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.
Tens of millions. Anyone know about that? Probably not.

Did that sound like a better option?

Japan wasn't going to give up without a fight. So to answer your question, yes I do blame Japan, *ahem* the Japanese military leadership, for not surrendering KNOWING they had lost the war.

Quote:
I have a problem believing it was necessary to take out a ton of innocent people for the actions of a few. I've always felt that way. Two wrongs don't make a right.
So what was the point of bombing cities in Germany?

Quote:
You don't think there's anyone in a position or potential position of command that thinks that way? And we're the ones who vote for people who we want to carry out our wishes, so actually, yeah, we do have some power over that.
Well seeing as Obama is our president, no I don't.

Quote:
Yes, I understand that. I was talking about a permanent removal of the threat. If we made the lack of weapons in the Middle East a permanent thing, then there'd be no need for us to have any, 'cause the threat would be gone for good. A perfect world scenario, yes, but that's what I meant.
Okay, I see what you're saying. But there's just never going to be that perfect world scenario. Even if the middle east was somehow completly disarmed, theres always the possibility of someone re-aquiring dangerous weapons and technologies.

Quote:
Not necessarily. The people of Iran, while they may not be fans of Ahmadinejad, might still see having weapons for protection as a good thing for them.
I think most people in Iran realize how bad of an idea having a nuclear arsenal would be. But other than that I don't really care what Iran has.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 05:37 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post

Japan wasn't going to give up without a fight.
I think your entire argument rests on the assumption that this is true.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 05:57 PM   #23
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
I think your entire argument rests on the assumption that this is true.
Do you know how Japan fought during the war? Kamizee attacks, bonzai charges, etc. They regarded surrender as the most shameful thing possible. Just look at the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. They literally fought to the last man.

If you need more reinforcement, heres another two quotes from the wikipedia page about operation downfall, concering Japans plans to counter the planned invasion of Japan:

Quote:
While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, leading to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦, ketsugō sakusen?) ("Operation Codename Decision"). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and Imperial General staff.
Quote:
In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps—which included all healthy men aged 15–60 and women 17–40, numbering 28 million—to perform combat support, and ultimately combat jobs. Weapons, training, and uniforms were generally lacking: some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.[26]

One mobilized high school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl and told, "Even killing one American soldier will do. … You must aim for the abdomen."

So yeah, I'm pretty sure it was going to be ugly.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 06:03 PM   #24
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Wikipedia isn't exactly the place I would use for that type of information.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 06:07 PM   #25
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 02:42 PM
I know, but as a world war II historian this is all stuff I already know to be true and it's simply an easier way to convey. If I have time later I'll look for some other sources later
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 08:25 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I know, but as a world war II historian this is all stuff I already know to be true
Well then your mind is already closed on the matter.

Dwight Eisenhower:

Quote:
During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face."
Admiral Leahy:

Quote:
It is my opinion that the use of the 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.
Then there is also this gem:

Quote:
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey rejected the notion that Japan gave up because of the atomic bombings. In its authoritative 1946 report, the Survey concluded:

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms ...
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 09:04 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I think most people in Iran realize how bad of an idea having a nuclear arsenal would be. But other than that I don't really care what Iran has.
The implied callousness for human life in the above post is deeply scary, but, sadly, unsurprising.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 09:19 PM   #28
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 02:42 PM
I've read that quote by Eisenhower before, along with some similar. While I totally respect their opinions (as well as everyone's here), I don't buy them.
After the fact, a lot of the Japanese high command claimed they were going to surrender anyways. But given the facts, all I see is the Japanese trying to save as much face as possible and make us look bad. We warned them very thoroughly before we dropped the first bomb, so why didn't they surrender? Or why didn't they surrender immediatly afterwards? It doesn't make sense.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 09:20 PM   #29
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
The implied callousness for human life in the above post is deeply scary, but, sadly, unsurprising.
What, that I don't care what kind of conventional weaponry Iran carries for it's protection? I'm confused as to how I implied a lack of respect for peoples lives..
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 09:32 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:42 AM
July 3, 1945
A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan.

We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power for a number of years. Until recently we have had to reckon with the possibility that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today with this danger averted we feel impelled to say what follows:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.

Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.

The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.

Atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of this development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.

Leo Szilard and 58 co-signers
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com