Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Only a matter of time before the middle east nukes itself
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380772105&pagename=JPost%2FJP Article%2FShowFull Quote: Egyptian and Saudi Arabian intentions to begin or revive their nuclear programs in the face of Iran's continued race toward nuclear power present an "apocalyptic scenario" for Israel as well as for the rest of the world. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced a decision to restart his country's nuclear program. On Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had begun operating 3,000 centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. Lieberman also said Pakistan was a major threat to Israel due to the political instability there and the fact that the country had "missiles, nuclear weapons and a proven capability." Sometimes I wish they would go ahead and do it, it's the only way they will ever stop fighting. Sadly the radioactive fallout will fuck up the rest of the world.
Re: Only a matter of time before the middle east nukes itself
This is just flexing muscles and nothing more. It gets blown completely out of proportion as always. They very well know that if one did nuke the other it would go both ways. I would actually like to see what would happen if the media stop paying attention to this as it just fuels them on.
Memphis wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 16:49 This is just flexing muscles and nothing more. It gets blown completely out of proportion as always. They very well know that if one did nuke the other it would go both ways. I would actually like to see what would happen if the media stop paying attention to this as it just fuels them on. Wouldn't it be hard to pay attention if the media stopped reporting what went on? Sorry, obvious question. On topic, This won't go anywhere, they just want their little lukewarm war. (It's not a cold war, because they're firing on occasion, but it's not a "hot" war, because no one's launched a nuke or equally large bomb)
Nukes should only be used in video games.
Ryu wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 17:49 Nukes should only be used in video games. this is a video game
That's the real reason we should pull out of Iraq. We don't want our soldiers melting when the whole Middle East clusterfuck happens.
They wont start launching nukes until 2012.
All these Arab/Persian Middle Eastern nations know of Mutually Assisted Destruction (MAD). The ONLY REAL REASON Iran so desperately want nuclear capability is to achieve military paritity with Israel....and along with that the political prominence. Iran knows very well that Israel's military would murder them if a conventional war erupted. So, to negate Israel's superior military advantage, Iran needs nuclear weapons that can be used to threaten Israel from afar. They already have the missiles and launch vehicles...they only need the nuclear warheads to put in them. This won't lead to nuclear war but a cold war with only nukes as detterents against invasion. If Iran goes nuclear, game over in the Middle East...welcome the new cold war. And even then, the possibility of terrorists getting nuclear weapons is high. Iran believes Israel should be wiped out and Jerusalem "restored." They will use those to their advantage. Just imagine Israeli civilians abandoning cities and huge swatches of Israeli lands in fear of a lone-nuclear suicide bomber...that is what the Persians will be going for.
There was a prediction by some guy... I forgot who... He said the world would end in 2012, and he said how as well. It was translated to something like "Nuclear Holocaust"
Iran isn't just trying to keep up...they have repeatedly said their goal is to "erase Israel from the earth". They would like nothing more than to develop nukes and turn Israel into a smoking crater. Like I said, that's fine with me, they can blow the fuck out of themselves for all I care, I'm just worried about the radioactive fallout that will go into the atmosphere and own the rest of the world. That and if they are so eager to nuke their neighbors whats to stop them from nuking any and everyone else who pisses them off...like the US, Russia, etc
"Oblivion165 from a locked thread thats why their isn't a time stamp here" Countries like Iraq and Iran are not apart of the greater plan. When the world unites into a single government they will not withhold the standards and ideals that are required, they are far too reliant on religion and it fogs their perception of reality. Let them smolder, if they don't want to evolve then they need to be left behind.
Israel did well to develop their nuclear program on the sly. It was only because details of it got leaked that the world found out and everyone crapped themselves. I think Iran's bark is a hell of a lot worse than its bite. Yes you may think of them as 'simpletons living in caves' but in reality while they may wish to seek revenge you have to be realistic and launching a nuclear weapon would mean destruction of all parties involved.
They are messing around with stuff they don't understand. They think: "Oh nuke! Big big boom! Israel gone! We be free forever!" But they don't realize they hurt themselves and everyone else in a couple thousand miles of the radius... for years to come.
razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 16:03 There was a prediction by some guy... I forgot who... He said the world would end in 2012, and he said how as well. It was translated to something like "Nuclear Holocaust" Nostradamus?
Jecht wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 23:14 razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 16:03 There was a prediction by some guy... I forgot who... He said the world would end in 2012, and he said how as well. It was translated to something like "Nuclear Holocaust" Nostradamus? That fucker's been associated with a lot of things. None of this prediction/prophesy bullshit is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_clairvoyance
It's power politics, and that's it. Saudi Arabia, and it's Wahhabist Sunni regime is worried that Iran, and its Shiite people will be the 'beacon' of Islam for the Middle East. Shiite's and Sunni's don't get along much anymore... think along the lines of Catholics and Protestants a few centuries ago. Mind you, this sort of happened in the 50's too, between Nasserist Egypt, and Syria; their political competition led to the 'Six Day War' against Israel, all because both Egypt and Syria both wanted to 'lead' the Arab world.
This may seem wrong. but did anyone prefer it when Saddam was in power and was there to fight with Iran?
Rocko wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 02:56 This may seem wrong. but did anyone prefer it when Saddam was in power and was there to fight with Iran? Removing the man was a mistake, and I said that back in 2003.
nikki6ixx wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 02:58 Rocko wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 02:56 This may seem wrong. but did anyone prefer it when Saddam was in power and was there to fight with Iran? Removing the man was a mistake, and I said that back in 2003. My thoughts exactly ever since President Bush went on TV and said Saddam must step down "in 72 hours." A blunder mistake...if I may add.
PlastoJoe wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 12:24 That's the real reason we should pull out of Iraq. We don't want our soldiers melting when the whole Middle East clusterfuck happens. Iran is waiting for the U.S. to do just that. As soon as we pull out I can bet that they are going to sweep over Iraq.
Starbuzz wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 00:52 Jecht wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 23:14 razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 16:03 There was a prediction by some guy... I forgot who... He said the world would end in 2012, and he said how as well. It was translated to something like "Nuclear Holocaust" Nostradamus? That fucker's been associated with a lot of things. None of this prediction/prophesy bullshit is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_clairvoyance He predicted 9/11
razorblade001 wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 15:48 Starbuzz wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 00:52 Jecht wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 23:14 razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 09 November 2007 16:03 There was a prediction by some guy... I forgot who... He said the world would end in 2012, and he said how as well. It was translated to something like "Nuclear Holocaust" Nostradamus? That fucker's been associated with a lot of things. None of this prediction/prophesy bullshit is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_clairvoyance He predicted 9/11 Or you think he did. Even some Bible-lovers said that the Bible talks about 9/11 in the Book of Revelation. Read information in link please.
I did read it. It wasn't altered after it happened... because I heard the prediction on the Discovery channel before it even happened. It was this documentary on Nostradamus. It showed some of the things he predicted and some that happened. It even said a few that where supposed to happen in the future. If I remember correctly, the one about 9/11 was under a category of predicted, but has not happened. I mean, no one would put 2 and 2 together until the actual event happened, because nobody even saw what happened on 9/11 coming anyway...
Rocko wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 02:56 This may seem wrong. but did anyone prefer it when Saddam was in power and was there to fight with Iran? The US government certainly preferred it until they decided cheap oil was better than selling Saddam weapons and then using those weapons as a pretext for war. Before anyone calls me anti-American, no, that's not anti-US because my country's done even more to fuck up the Iraq situation than America has.
You think the US selling weapons to Saddam to kill more people with was better than oil to kill no people with?
No, I dislike the fact we've been selling weapons to psychopaths and still do. I'm merely pointing out the utter stupidity of trying to use WMDs as a pretext for war when the truth is we've known the kind of atrocities Saddam perpetrated and we carried on selling him weapons regardless so he could carry on doing them. It'd be awesome if we just got out of the Middle East and stayed out. Sadly we're too dependent on oil for that.
If we leave now, it is going to blow sky high...
Indeed, but a. that's our fault b. that's not why we're not leaving
It may not be our fault, but if we leave, than that gives the US a bad image. That be like the US helping a poor person, then suddenly quitting because they came to the resolution "Hey, why do I have to help you? I'm rich, your poor! HAHAHA *walks away*"
razorblade001 wrote on Sun, 11 November 2007 17:29 It may not be our fault I didn't say "that's not our fault". I said "that's our fault". razorblade001 wrote on Sun, 11 November 2007 17:29 but if we leave, than that gives the US a bad image. worse than it already is thanks to Iraq? and since when is this worth one person's life let alone the thousands of American, hundred-plus British and fuck knows how many Iraqi lives this war has cost? razorblade001 wrote on Sun, 11 November 2007 17:29 That be like the US helping a poor person, then suddenly quitting because they came to the resolution "Hey, why do I have to help you? I'm rich, your poor! HAHAHA *walks away*" I don't know where to begin telling you why this analogy doesn't fit the Iraq war, I really don't.
Well, regardless of what has transpired, we need to let them have enough time to cleanup the mess. Give our troops enough time to rebuild what was bombed, reestablish order in the communities and develop enough government to leave them more than an Al Queada power vaccuum. If we don't, we are irresponsible and will be back to do it later when the fundamentalists seize control and use the assets of Iraq to perpetrate their agenda. (See the Nod World Domination handbook page 33 in the section about using media)
Ok, you said it IS our fault. That gives the US an even WORSE image. We mess something up, then leave without fixing it? Thats like me coming to your house, blasting a hole in the wall and leaving without saying anything... Also, to what I described, it would give a worse image to what the US has done already. I personally don't see anything wrong with what the US is doing now... Also the analogy, that is what I do, I make up stuff like that to make the situation seem more understandable. By no means was I indicating economic standings by saying that. I was indicating that a capable being was able to help an incapable being but then suddenly stopping cause they felt like it.
KIRBY-098 wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 11:05 Well, regardless of what has transpired, we need to let them have enough time to cleanup the mess. Give our troops enough time to rebuild what was bombed, reestablish order in the communities and develop enough government to leave them more than an Al Queada power vaccuum. If we don't, we are irresponsible and will be back to do it later when the fundamentalists seize control and use the assets of Iraq to perpetrate their agenda. (See the Nod World Domination handbook page 33 in the section about using media) The West is the reason the Iraqi government is so feeble, which is why we're getting such a good deal for the "assets of Iraq" right now.
How do you figure 100 dollars a barrell is a good deal?
KIRBY-098 wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 16:07 How do you figure 100 dollars a barrell is a good deal? It's the proper price. Plus, it's an incentive to find alternative fuels.
going on the history of the world there is only 1 country that has ever nuked another in anger. They are also the country with the most warheads at the moment. If anyone is likely to nuke anything its gonna be the US
jimmyny wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 17:19 going on the history of the world there is only 1 country that has ever nuked another in anger. They are also the country with the most warheads at the moment. If anyone is likely to nuke anything its gonna be the US You sound a litte contradictory there in regards to Iran.
KIRBY-098 wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 16:07 How do you figure 100 dollars a barrell is a good deal? - The fact the law allocating Iraqi oil reserves was written by the American government, and it gives 17 of the 80 known Iraqi oil fields to the Iraqis (lol) - The fact that millions of Iraqi middle class have fled the country thanks to the violence, meaning the oil industry can't be run by that middle class, meaning it has to be run by America - The fact that the Iraqi govermnent is sufficiently weak to ratify America's law. Were they stronger (and if America hadn't disbanded the civil service and the army, they probably would be) America wouldn't have gotten such a good deal. Were they very strong and independent, Iraq could have simply nationalised the oil, and god knows America didn't want that - The fact that the violence in Iraq justifies the Americans being there at all and building their permanent bases, one of which (Balad) has the second busiest runway in the world, only behind Heathrow (again, "lol" is the only word that really sums this up) It's a good deal for the ones pulling the strings behind the war in the first place. They're getting what they wanted. I didn't say anything about the end consumer getting a cheaper gas tank. There's a very strong argument for saying that the "mess" Iraq is in isn't a "mess" at all, but a remarkably well-executed plan.
Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 18:01 There's a very strong argument for saying that the "mess" Iraq is in isn't a "mess" at all, but a remarkably well-executed plan. Indeed. And the name of the plan is: Toggle Spoiler Project for a New American Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/ And it's working. Needless to say: shocking and true.
Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 18:13 Indeed. And the name of the plan is: Toggle Spoiler Project for a New American Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/ And it's working. Needless to say: shocking and true. I'm sorry dude, but it'd be wiser to take foreign policy advice from a bloody, meth-laced, coke-ridden stool expelled from Paris Hilton's rectum, than that organization. Spreading 'Americanism' barely worked against the Communists, and it certainly won't work in today's world.
Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 17:22 jimmyny wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 17:19 going on the history of the world there is only 1 country that has ever nuked another in anger. They are also the country with the most warheads at the moment. If anyone is likely to nuke anything its gonna be the US You sound a litte contradictory there in regards to Iran. no, its just a lot of country's have nuked other parts of the world to "test" them. The US is the only one that nuked a place to try to kill people
jimmyny wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 18:52 Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 17:22 jimmyny wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 17:19 going on the history of the world there is only 1 country that has ever nuked another in anger. They are also the country with the most warheads at the moment. If anyone is likely to nuke anything its gonna be the US You sound a litte contradictory there in regards to Iran. no, its just a lot of country's have nuked other parts of the world to "test" them. The US is the only one that nuked a place to try to kill people Self defense, mate. But, I may not know much about politics, I believe that US agreed with other countries to never use nuclear warfare again.
jimmyny wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 18:19 If anyone is likely to nuke anything its gonna be the US Don't get your hopes up with that. The US is the most LEAST likely country to nuke another out of anger. I mean even if we wanted to, it would take more than just one person saying "LOLK NUKE!" The only time the US even needed to use a nuke was to end WWII quickly after the Japanese randomly attacked Pearl Harbor. However, as it turns out if we had not of used it, the war would of ended anyway, because they were about to surrender... but it just goes to show you that we don't need nuclear weapons.
Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 01:45 razorblade001 wrote on Sun, 11 November 2007 17:29 but if we leave, than that gives the US a bad image. worse than it already is thanks to Iraq? and since when is this worth one person's life let alone the thousands of American, hundred-plus British and fuck knows how many Iraqi lives this war has cost? After 6 years dumbass. Think about how many lives WW1 and WW2 cost after 4 and 6 respectivly years of fighting. Over 1.5MILLION for WW1 and about 1 Million for WW2. How many have we lost in 6 years? About 250,000? That's only a quarter of WW2 which was fought in the same amount of time.
There are a plethura of responses to all your conspiracies. I'll reserve them all as I have a feeling you've also heard them. In fact, I'm fairly certain we've both had this very same debate with others and it is very clear before we even start that there won't be an open dialogue. I see plenty of idiocy and corruption in the running of the Iraqi government. What I don't see is the US "stealing" oil. Otherwise I wouldn't be going bankrupt right now filling my tank every week. Quite frankly I wish we HAD seized at least one field so we could be recompensed a little for the enormous expense of being over there. Something all the oil fileds in Iraq couldn't make up for in a decade. The truth isn't one extreem or another. It's in the middle somewhere and is very often unclear. Best of luck.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 20:33 Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 01:45 razorblade001 wrote on Sun, 11 November 2007 17:29 but if we leave, than that gives the US a bad image. worse than it already is thanks to Iraq? and since when is this worth one person's life let alone the thousands of American, hundred-plus British and fuck knows how many Iraqi lives this war has cost? After 6 years dumbass. Think about how many lives WW1 and WW2 cost after 4 and 6 respectivly years of fighting. Over 1.5MILLION for WW1 and about 1 Million for WW2. How many have we lost in 6 years? About 250,000? That's only a quarter of WW2 which was fought in the same amount of time. While you have a point, you really need to hush. You aren't helping intelligent debate.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 20:33 Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 01:45 worse than it already is thanks to Iraq? and since when is this worth one person's life let alone the thousands of American, hundred-plus British and fuck knows how many Iraqi lives this war has cost? After 6 years dumbass. What the fuck kind of rebuttal is that? You have to divide the total dead by how long the war lasted all of a sudden? Where the hell is the logic in that? A war costing, say, 2000 lives and lasting one year is somehow twice as bad as a war costing 2000 lives and lasting two years? Muad Dib15 wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 20:33 Think about how many lives WW1 and WW2 cost after 4 and 6 respectivly years of fighting. Over 1.5MILLION for WW1 and about 1 Million for WW2. How many have we lost in 6 years? About 250,000? That's only a quarter of WW2 which was fought in the same amount of time. Don't even dare to try to compare Iraq to World War 2... for starters, World War 2 was necessary (from the Allies' perspective, obviously) and the "bad guys" "started it". KIRBY-098 wrote There are a plethura of responses to all your conspiracies. I'll reserve them all as I have a feeling you've also heard them. In fact, I'm fairly certain we've both had this very same debate with others and it is very clear before we even start that there won't be an open dialogue. I see plenty of idiocy and corruption in the running of the Iraqi government. What I don't see is the US "stealing" oil. Otherwise I wouldn't be going bankrupt right now filling my tank every week. Quite frankly I wish we HAD seized at least one field so we could be recompensed a little for the enormous expense of being over there. Something all the oil fileds in Iraq couldn't make up for in a decade. I fail to see the connection between the price you, the American public, are charged for gas, and between anything I've said.
jimmyny wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 16:19 going on the history of the world there is only 1 country that has ever nuked another in anger. They are also the country with the most warheads at the moment. If anyone is likely to nuke anything its gonna be the US It's true the US is the only country to use nukes while AT WAR (and used them to END THE WAR), but several countries in the middle east have flat out said, that they want to "Reduce Israel to dust", and "Wipe Israel from the earth". While we have nukes they are for defensive purposes (or MAD)...we don't go around saying that we are going to use them...because we don't want to. By contrast, a country like Iran flat out says they want WMD to destroy Israel...see a slight difference between us and them now?
Just a quick reality check... Middle Eastern countries have been saying that they will reduce Israel to dust since 1948. Their track record of success is just astonishing.
There are many theories that the U.S. saved millions of lives by the use of the Atom Bomb in WWII. I've heard that if the war were to continue, every invasion on Japanese soil would have been like another D-Day, but probably less successful.
nikki6ixx wrote on Tue, 13 November 2007 10:44 Just a quick reality check... Middle Eastern countries have been saying that they will reduce Israel to dust since 1948. Their track record of success is just astonishing. RIGHT ON! You prove my earlier point: The Israeli military will MURDER any Arab military that will threaten them. The inferiority of Arab militaries compared to Israel is why Arabs have an incredible failure rate in their attempts to fullfill their dream. Which is why Iran so desperately wants and will do anything to get atleast one nuclear weapon. And they will get it while we stand unable to do anything. Iran already has the second most capable military after Israel in comparision to other Middle East nations. It has conventional missiles that can strike anywhere within this zone: And with nuclear capability to boot, Iran becomes formidable, immune, and resilient to ANY OUTSIDE THREAT. Bottom line: If Iran goes nuclear, American influence/actions in the Middle East would then count a litte more than shit. And Israel can never sleep at night.
Starbuzz wrote on Tue, 13 November 2007 11:18 Iran already has the second most capable military after Israel in comparision to other Middle East nations. not for long, if we've got anything to do with it. We need Saudi Arabia oil, so we sell them top-of-the-range weaponry to keep them happy despite their despicable human rights record, nearly as bad as Pakistan. Gotta keep those medieval Saudi gangsters happy, whatever it takes... treat them as honoured guests, sell them fighter jets, agree to cease corruption investigations... Mentioning Pakistan, gotta love a country that only exists because Hindus and Muslims couldn't stop butchering each other so the only solution was to start a whole new country. They still hate each other and they're both developing nuclear arsenals, so that'll end well. One of these days we will realise that it's a TEENSY BIT STUPID to sell arms to every psycho on the planet with the right cash if we also want to start wars for oil and pretend it's about stopping them getting the weapons we love selling them. I'm sorry, but the Middle East is too fucked up for the West to do much about it, and we're a big reason it's fucked up in the first place. If we weren't so dependent on oil (my fellow Brits who were around 6-7 years ago probably know where I'm going with that) it'd be prudent to simply get the fuck out of the Middle East and stay out. That includes stop supporting Israel, which is a big reason why the Arab world despises us.
Spoony wrote on Tue, 13 November 2007 12:48 not for long, if we've got anything to do with it. We need Saudi Arabia oil, so we sell them top-of-the-range weaponry to keep them happy despite their despicable human rights record, nearly as bad as Pakistan. That is one of the most "appealing" options on the table now since trying to stop Iran through diplomacy will fail and have failed. However, should Iran go nuclear, all that money spent to pimp up the Saudi military would be wasted. So, the alternative is a nightmarish scenario in which other Middle East nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons of their own. Egypt has already announced that they have set plans in motion regarding nuclear capability. But I wonder if the most promient Mid-East nations having nukes will actually be a good thing? What if they all go nuclear and the concept of Mutually-Assisted-Destruction (MAD) beat some sense into their puny brains? But terrorists getting hold of it is the most major concern. Anyway, the Pakistanis better fix their shit soon. It is so damn dangerous to have political instability in a country that has nuclear arms. That Musharraf, if he wants to save himself, better put away his fetish for military uniforms. Spoony wrote on Tue, 13 November 2007 12:48 That includes stop supporting Israel, which is a big reason why the Arab world despises us. I agree fully. But like you said, oil is a critical factor and I think Israel is merely the Western excuse to stay in the Middle East right in sight of that precious oil.
Can other countries really trust a country that turns its back on an ally?
Quote: If I remember correctly, the one about 9/11 was under a category of predicted, but has not happened. I mean, no one would put 2 and 2 together until the actual event happened, because nobody even saw what happened on 9/11 coming anyway... Except the White House, and after George Bush heard it he took a month long vacation. Then 911 happened. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 18:01 There's a very strong argument for saying that the "mess" Iraq is in isn't a "mess" at all, but a remarkably well-executed plan. Indeed. And the name of the plan is: Toggle Spoiler Project for a New American Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/ America's world domination plan.
razorblade001 wrote on Mon, 12 November 2007 20:08 The only time the US even needed to use a nuke was to end WWII quickly after the Japanese randomly attacked Pearl Harbor. However, as it turns out if we had not of used it, the war would of ended anyway, because they were about to surrender... but it just goes to show you that we don't need nuclear weapons. About to surrender? Maybe I heard wrong, but I heard they were prepared to fight to the death with millions to defend their home. Note: I'm NOT suggesting my thoughts about using the bomb in response to that. I'm simply stating the intentions of the Japanese in response to an American invasion.
America took one look at Iwo Jima, and realized that it would next-to-impossible to get Japan to surrender if they 'island hopped' using conventional warfare. Japan's soldiers were willing to die for their country, and the emperor. That kind of mindset in a war, makes for high casualties. Hell, it was only a couple years ago, that people STILL found Japanese soldiers on Pacific islands who were patiently waiting for the American forces. Although dropping the two bombs on Japan was not right, it was the BEST decision out of a range of other possible decisions that were much worse.
nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 18 November 2007 13:47 America took one look at Iwo Jima, and realized that it would next-to-impossible to get Japan to surrender if they 'island hopped' using conventional warfare. Japan's soldiers were willing to die for their country, and the emperor. That kind of mindset in a war, makes for high casualties. Hell, it was only a couple years ago, that people STILL found Japanese soldiers on Pacific islands who were patiently waiting for the American forces. Although dropping the two bombs on Japan was not right, it was the BEST decision out of a range of other possible decisions that were much worse. The other generals said that if the US, Britan, and all the other countries attacked Japan, that over 1.5 million would die just in the invasion. That's not counting the sweep through Japan where everyone in the country was willing to die for the emporeor. SO you are one of the generals for the ALlied army. Would you rather have over 3 million of your guys die to take over a country using conventional warfare or only about 1.2 million of them die in a nueclear blast. Pick your poison.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Sun, 18 November 2007 13:51 The other generals said that if the US, Britan, and all the other countries attacked Japan, that over 1.5 million would die just in the invasion. That's not counting the sweep through Japan where everyone in the country was willing to die for the emporeor. Yepper. Plus, that would mean the Allies would have had to traverse through Russia, who had its own interests in mind as well. Speaking of Russia, one other reason that America nuked Japan, was so that the USSR wouldn't gain a foothold in Japan. Even in the mid-40's, America's 'Containment Policy' , a major part of the Truman Doctrine, was alive, and in full-swing.
nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 18 November 2007 13:47 ...Hell, it was only a couple years ago, that people STILL found Japanese soldiers on Pacific islands who were patiently waiting for the American forces. that's really interesting, do u have a link to a news article or something about it?
Right here. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1378815.htm Now that's devotion.
Oh yeah, forgot to to include this in my first post on this topic. Quote: Quote: Egyptian and Saudi Arabian intentions to begin or revive their nuclear programs in the face of Iran's continued race toward nuclear power present an "apocalyptic scenario" for Israel as well as for the rest of the world. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced a decision to restart his country's nuclear program. On Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had begun operating 3,000 centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. Lieberman also said Pakistan was a major threat to Israel due to the political instability there and the fact that the country had "missiles, nuclear weapons and a proven capability." This is all Israeli propaganda to justify an unprovoked attack on Iran.
prasp wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 22:20 Oh yeah, forgot to to include this in my first post on this topic. Quote: Quote: Egyptian and Saudi Arabian intentions to begin or revive their nuclear programs in the face of Iran's continued race toward nuclear power present an "apocalyptic scenario" for Israel as well as for the rest of the world. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced a decision to restart his country's nuclear program. On Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had begun operating 3,000 centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. Lieberman also said Pakistan was a major threat to Israel due to the political instability there and the fact that the country had "missiles, nuclear weapons and a proven capability." This is all Israeli propaganda to justify an unprovoked attack on Iran. That's not propaganda... That's actually quite a bit of truth...
i'd be happy if the middle east was 1 big israel
Propaganda can be true. 1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2.the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. 3.the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. From dictionary.com