• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 1...345
Pink...?
BRONZE Member since Apr 2002

Pink...?

Mistress of Pink...Multicoloured
Location: Over There, United Kingdom

Total posts: 6140
Posted:I know there's been a lot of talk about this on HoP, and a lot of people probably dont want to talk about it.

Just wondering how many people want to stop the war?

Alice


Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...

Delete Topic

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California

Total posts: 2905
Posted:Quite a few other countries have exploded nukes, France, India, Packistan, Russia just to name a few. They may not have done so in war, but the US has also never used Chemical weapons. Germany has, so has, Iraq, China, Korea. Those are weapons desined to kill humans not plant life.

No country is innocent of attrocities. So why point the blame. We should try to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, world wide.

Now if you were the leader of a country with a good stock pile of WMD, would you not want to get rid of everyone elses that you didnt trust before getting rid of yours?

I think that each country who dissarms these weapons is just one rung on the ladder of a nuke free world.


There is an estimated 6 billion people in the world, now hypothetically could a 1% cut from the whole worlds military budget help out? Yes

Realistically, no it wouldnt. Due to greedy people, take somalia, N. Korea, Ethiopia places like that, that aid goes to every year and the people it is designed to go to never get it.


I will never be ashamed of what I am, NEVER.


I have to admit, Clinton should have done something, but then again I think he was too busy handing Monica a cigar!


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Kat
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Kat

Pooh-Bah
Location: London, Wales (UK)

Total posts: 2211
Posted:quote:what would you do to prevent war in Iraq I'm with you on increasing the number of weapons inspectors.

War on iraq will kill many innocent people. Also, this action will rebound on us, and hatred towards the Western world will increase, with more and more terrorist activity.

The US insists that they know Iraq are hiding weapons. Talk about a catch 22 situation for Iraq. Is the US not the country that says 'innocent until proven guilty?' I imagine the reason they state they know Iraw has weapons is that they helped supply them.

I think all the companies who sold weapons to Iraq should be prosecuted and fined, with the money going to help the war torn poverty stricken countries.

Actually I think all companies that make arms should be shut down altogether.

Unfortunately I think that the pro-war governments will not listen no matter how much we protest.

What should we do if you are voices are not heard?

Stop everything!

If the whole country went on strike, the government would have to listen to the people. How the hell can a government get away with ignoring the people!??? They are listening but not hearing us.


Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.

- W B Yeats

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California

Total posts: 2905
Posted:All weapons?

I think hunting is just fine, what should we hunt with? Table knives?


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Kat
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Kat

Pooh-Bah
Location: London, Wales (UK)

Total posts: 2211
Posted:Raymund

quote: The US did however drop two Atom bombs over Japan, then after all had calmed down rebuilt those cities. U.S. troops were in the vicinity of Hiroshima between Oct. 6, 1945, and March 6, 1946, and in the vicinity of Nagasaki principally between Sept. 11, 1945, and July 1, 1946.

The mission of the occupation was to establish control of the area, ensure compliance with surrender terms, and demilitarize the Japanese war machine. The mission did not include the cleanup or any radiological decontamination of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, any other areas, or the rebuilding of Japan.

Info Here

They may have gotten some help from abroad but it was the Japanese who rebuilt Hiroshima,lets not hail the US for rebuilding a city it flattened. It certainly could not ressurrect the 80000 or so innocents that died, not to mention the number equal to that that died in the fallout.

For more information about the bombings, this article is quite interesting Hiroshima article

Its what? 6 years now since the earthquake that devestated Kobe and that city has been rebuilt so you would never guess at the devestation that occurred. The Japanese are a resilient bunch, but the scars that don't show on the outside show on the inside. The Japanese today are very much pacifists.

and


Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.

- W B Yeats

Delete

poiaholic22


member


Total posts: 531
Posted:Kat what's to say that the motives for the coming war are dissimilar from the motives of using the atom bomb on Japan?

I have presented the possibility that this is more about weapons testing than oil in the past on this thread.It wouldn't be the first time this country has gone to war or invaded another country for said reason.Will post some links later.Thanks for the links about Japan.

Also bear in mind that for every person who doesn't want this war there is a person who does.No amount of protesting is going to prevent war with Iraq.The only thing that would stop it maybe,is if Saddam actually stepped away from power in Iraq.Though as badly as Bush wants war even that's questionable.

Ray I agree killing a deer is really difficult with a butter knife.
Non-Https Image Link


[ 14. February 2003, 11:40: Message edited by: poiaholic22 ]


Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California

Total posts: 2905
Posted:The Japanesse as a whole could be considerd pacifists, actually the majority of Asia could be seen that way. In all honesty there are only two groups of people I would not like to fight.

1. being ROK (Republic of Korea) Marines, lets just say I have seen them train hehe YIKES hehe. It is about average to have 3 or 4 recruits die during basic training, thats per platoon! Graduate 6 or 7 platoons at a time, and you get some interesting numbers. I guess Mothers of Korea just doesnt exist over there.

2. Japanesse Police (the ones that dont carry weapons), ya hehe I have seen these guys drop a small mob with like 5 cops! hehe I see those guys running I just try to climb the nearest wall hehe. *imagines a cartoon cat getting scared and jumping up and sticking its claws in the roof!*

Hmm... both are Asian countrys, maybe they arnt as peace loving as we thought. They may not be militant like some western countries but they are not true pacifists.


True the US didnt rebuild the city while Japan stood by and did nothing, but help was there. I doubt it was from the military.

Also 80,000 is a small number compared to the projected death toll if there was an actual invaision of mainland Japan. We are talking millions! Tragic yes but it could have been worse. Personally I dont feel sorry for the people who died, mainly because I can do nothing for them some 50+ years later. We can only try not to let anything like that happen again. That is why people who are untrustworthy like Saddam and the N. Korean guy (I wont even try to butcher his name) need to be disarmed before something like that happens again.

Dont forget, the change has to start somewhere I seriously doubt it will start with a western country.


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

poiaholic22


member


Total posts: 531
Posted:* bump *

Hey anyone think we could get this put in the War topics board.


Delete

DaiTenshi


member
Location: Stillwater, OK

Total posts: 104
Posted:Actually Japan has lately been rumbling a lot about not enjoying the restrictions imposed by the constitution we wrote for them. I sizeable portion of Japan would like to have that larger army and that very fact alone makes the rest of Asia very, very nervous.

As for casualties due to nukes and casualties due to an invasion..... Ray's right, a land invasion of Japan would've seen death tolls easily in the millions. Add to that the fact that the Japanese air force was very close to deploying jet fighters with AAMs and SAMs and would've likely inflicted extreme casualties on the allied troops well before they landed and you add the possibility that Japan would've won.

If you have any doubts as to what life in Asia would be like right now if Japan had won the war, look up at least these three things the Rape of Nanking (Nanjing depending on your romanization), the "comfort women", and The 731 Unit stationed in Manchuria.

Also, had those early nukes (little boy and fat man) not been dropped I have zero doubts whatsoever that someone else somewhere else would've used a nuke at some point. It took the sight of nuked cities and the people dieing of fallout to make it very clear that we CANNOT use these things. Had they not been used in 45, even if the allies had won, chances are the Soviets or the US (hell maybe even China, UK, or France) would've bombed someone.

That's all i gots to say about that.


No one knows me like I do.

Delete

poiaholic22


member


Total posts: 531
Posted:DaiT, I can't help but wonder if you checked the links that Kat posted.In one of them it is reported that the Japanese were in the process of surrendering when we dropped the bombs on them anyway.Hence there would have been no inland invasion.

If you did check them than please accept my apology in advance.


Delete

DaiTenshi


member
Location: Stillwater, OK

Total posts: 104
Posted:Let me get this out in the open, I'm a history major specializing in Asia.

First things first, check out The Pacific War 1931-1945 by Saburo Ienaga, a damn good and thurough book on Japan's involvment in the pacific war by a Japanese scholar (note, not Japanese American) he was born in 1913 and lived through it.

While he does address gorwing social discontent near the end of the war (lot's of widows and parents with no more sons) there is zero mention that Japan was in the process of surrendering before the first bomb was dropped. Seeing as no one was sure just how powerful these bombs were (we didn't do that many tests) and the Japanese sure as hell weren't going to let us come inspect our handywork the plan was to drop two bombs.

If you've ever seen mock ups of those bombs you might find it odd that they looks so different from one another: each was a custom job. There was no certainty that one would work so they had two different bombs and they planned to use them both, they did.

Another thing, hind sight is 20/20. While we now know and can look back on certain reports of various suspicions that perhaps the Japanese were running low on food and couldn't afford to fight longer...... well, would you take the risk of not throwing the next punch if your buddy whispered in his ear "don't worry, I think he's almost ready to puke, just let him hit ya some more"?

The fact is, we probably could've just waited untill 1946 when the civilian population of Japan would've starved to death, but the point is no one knew that (accept for Japanese officials too concerned with honor and pride to care) and even if they had an idea that was all it was, an idea.

Nukes are terrible, and I hope we never see them used again, but I have about had it with the demonizing of America over what happened in the single most viscious and important war of this century (if not that last few). Roosevelt and MacArthur didn't sit there and say "let's just murder as many people as possible because we're Americans and we like that kind of thing" they sat there at the planning table saw a- seemingly- very dangerous and- deffintly, no questions asked, absolutly- very determined enemy and said "tell me about this new bomb that can keep us from sending more of our men to die" (like it or not it was an "us" vs "them" kind of thing...... ya know, a war).

We had already had our beach invasion on Normandy and Japan would've easily been exponentially more dangerous. Our troops and leaders had seen the horror of a beach landing invasion, no one had ever seen the after effects of a nuke.

What's done is done and if I hear another "well America is the only to have ever used nukes anyway, you barbarians" comment again I'm just gonna break down, cry, and go write poetry- that barbaric enough for ya?

Reality.

edit: and yes poiahollic I read it, bare in mind that there are a lot of facts, first hand accounts, and sources in the world and chances are we're never going to really know exactly why what happened when. History is very much open to intterpritation and everyone finds what they want to believe (but they damn well better have support). What's above may be just what I want to believe, but I've found it and the facts to support it, from the looks of it so does this peacewire.org article. However, peacewire.org is as likely to slant the facts and sources in their own favor as the DoD is in theirs, intterpritation goes both ways.

Side note, in all the books, specials, lectures, etc I've ever read, seen, or been to about Japan and America in WWII never once has it been mentioned that the Japanese were trying to surrender before the first bomb (though I wouldn't be surprsied if the thought crossed their minds before the second)..... and thats a damn lot of books, programs, and lectures.

[ 28. March 2003, 17:35: Message edited by: DaiTenshi ]


No one knows me like I do.

Delete

Mr Petey


member
Location: Sunny Sheffield

Total posts: 43
Posted:Actually the US has used chemical weapons. In WW1 all sides used Mustard Gas. And in Vietnam it used Agent Orange and Naplam. Both *are* chemical weapons. Appologists will argue that they weren't targated at the population, but non the less both had horrid effects on the population and the wildlife.

Many chemical weapons cause chemical burns and blisters (such as Mustard Gas), whereas Naplam is a chemical that combusts and clings, even underwater thus causing horrid burns and blisters. Really, what is the difference??


Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Water is a chemical. Is a water cannon a chemical weapon?

I see your point about napalm, but concerning chemical weapons, I've never seen that much of a difference between killing someone with gas, fire or flying pieces of lead.

Some methods are more 'humane' than others, but that isn't defined by whether they're "chemicals" or not.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Mr Petey


member
Location: Sunny Sheffield

Total posts: 43
Posted:I would agree with everything you have said.

What I'm trying to say it that if you apply the American rehtoric about WMD and chemical weapons to itself then it has clearly used them in the past.


Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:So a country shouldn't, for example, attempt to stop slavery, because in the past it dealt in slaves?

ah don't mind me. feeling a bit argumentative and pedantic today.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Dio


Dio

HoP Mechanical Engineer
Location: OK, USA

Total posts: 729
Posted:FBI, "The FBI and Weapons of Mass Destruction," August 1999 (http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/norfolk/wmd.htm)

"Mass casualties and extensive property damage are the trademarks of weapons of mass destruction, making their detection, prevention, and destruction an FBI priority. A weapon of mass destruction (WMD), though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders."

__________________________________________________


Declaration of the Heads of State and Government, 1994 NATO Summit, held in Brussels.

(quoted at http://library.fes.de/fulltext/id/00714014.htm)
br>
"Weapon of mass destruction" is a generic term for radionuclides, biological and chemical agents or materials, and their delivery means produced or used for non-peaceful purposes and whose effects can cause large numbers of casualties [and/or large-scale material damage.] and their delivery means constitutes a threat to international security and is a matter of concern to NATO."

__________________________________________________

It would seem "WMD" has never been conclusively defined and is more a subjective estimate than anything else. All of the attempts I found to compile a solid definition for this type of weapon have been within the last couple decades, as well. I would go with the NATO definition myself, as it deals with threatening international security... by the FBI definition, a WMD could include when DaiTenshi farted when we had a bunch of friends over to watch a movie in my little living room

Revisions to the Geneva Conventions tend to occur after the fact, as far as weapons development is concerned. One should notice, however, that newer, higher-tech weapons are designed with the goal in mind of minimizing casualties. Non-Lethal weaponry is gaining a lot of ground in the research department. The bombs and misiles in Iraq are very carefully chosen based on payload, how much damage they will deliver, times of day the targets have the least amount of [innocent] people in them, and even the direction of the explosion is taken into account to minimize collateral damage [referring solely to buildings not marked for destruction]. Lately it seems the trend is to use the minimal amount of force necessary to accomplish military missions.


What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.

Delete

poiaholic22


member


Total posts: 531
Posted:*bump*

Frosty last page midway down some info on the bombing of Japan.


Delete

Page: 1...345

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [war iraq] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Rally for Peace - No war on Iraq (Melbourne, Australia) - NEW! [1 reply]
2. Forums > Iraq - make art not war [7 replies]
3. Forums > War on Iraq [136 replies]
4. Forums > War in iraq reporter accused of both being gay and canadian by whitehouse [7 replies]
5. Forums > the cost of Iraq [69 replies]

     Show more..