america is losing its support for its "war on terror" in at the the european, if not the world community. What support the u.s. has for its continuing war on terroriam and the attack on iraq, which with support or not will probably still take place, is from the governments of the european nations but without the support of the people themselves. great britian is one of our biggest supporters in the idea of a war with iraq but its the prime minister not the majority of the people who agree with this idea. The number one selling book in france right now blames figures in the us government or the "u.s. machine" for the sept. 11 attacks. suggests that figures in the u.s. government or civilian ordered the attacks on sept. 11. And this is the top selling book in france and is also selling hundreds of thousands of copies worldwide in ten languages.in english i believe its called 9/11 The Big Lie. among friendly governments we may have support but among the world population do we really have the support we think we do? im not so sure.

False. Look at today's news.

Nox

So far the only one that has turned down bush is Canada I believe. Isnt he representing his case to the UN on 9-11-02(oOOoOOo)?

thats not false. among the general populations of many european nations we dont have as much support as we would like to think we have. and 9/11 The Big Lie is the number one selling book in france and is selling hundreds of thousands of copies in ten languages world wide. THat was from todays news.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MR.SMITH:
So far the only one that has turned down bush is Canada I believe.

---

Thats true but its the governing administrations of the countries that make that decsion not the general population which i was refereing to. And so far the only really outspoken support the u.s. has is great britian. The others just havent said no

As you put it, we didn't have as much world-wide support in the Gulf War either...until we won big time. Then the me-too crowd couldn't find enough room on the bandwagon.

I dismiss your allegation about the lack of world-wide support.

Nox

we may have won the gulf war but many of our men and women came home with gulf war sydrome not that the government or me too crowd gave a damn but thats not important nor does the gulf war have anything to do with the topic but haey you brought it up...

anyway dismiss what you like but only fools ignore the evidence when its staring them in the face... the general population of some european countries are starting to see us as "bullies"(and yes thats from the news too before you ask/comment)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askr:
the general population of some european countries are starting to see us as "bullies"(and yes thats from the news too before you ask/comment)

---

There is no doubt that there is opposition in Europe. The problem is your general population comment. This is a generalization that you are trying to make into a fact.

Nox

im sorry but when i hear that a mojority of the population of a country has an opinion on something then i think of that as being the general population of that country. maybe i miss spoke... but the idea is the same

(sorry forgot to put "of a country"...)

[This message has been edited by Askr (edited 09-10-2002).]

Blairs only backing America so if the shit hits his fan america can give backing to his country "so he hopes".

Peace Renegade,

Askr,

Let's see what happens after thursday.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askr:
we may have won the gulf war but many of our men and women came home with gulf war sydrome not that the government or me too crowd gave a damn but thats not important nor does the gulf war have anything to do with the topic but haey you brought it up...

anyway dismiss what you like but only fools ignore the evidence when its staring them in the face... the general population of some european countries are starting to see us as "bullies"(and yes thats from the news too before you ask/comment)

---

They see us as bullies mainly because they had Clinton kissing their ass. Bush made it clear he would not do so, and this is their revenge.

Not all of them came back with Gulf War Syndrome. They could come back with the Clap, Leprosy, or whatever, Saddam retreated out of Kuwait, that was our mission, we did it, we won.

first i didnt say they all came back with gulf war syndrome i said most and i accept that that was an exageration. but like i said earlier thats beside the point.

and second clinton kissed the ass, as you put it, of the governments not the poeple of the european countries who i was refering to so that comment is also irrelivent.

I have made my mind up and I now support the attack on Iraq. The ties that bind the US and UK and the danger that is posed to us from these rogue states who wish to harm us just as in WW2 is to strong not to take defensive action first. Iraq has acquired and used weapons of mass destruction on their own people along with against our troops. Many US/UK troops who thought in the gulf war have suffered the ultimate price as a direct result of Saddam and his willingness to unleash these weapons on the world. When is it okay to take action against those who wish you harm, when 3000 people die or when 3 million die?

v i p e r

I very much doubt that attacking Iraq has anything whatsoever to do with any percieved NBC threat. We have known that he has stockpiles since the gulf war. The maximum range he can achieve with current technology is 650 km, which is far short of reaching any western country. To assume that any country (espescially America) involves itself in war on altruistic grounds is naive to say the least. However, even assuming America is stepping in on some others' behalf, who are they trying to defend? The Muslim states within range of Saddam, for example Turkey and the United Arab Emerits dont percieve him as a threat. In fact they see Iraq as a partner in trade and a closer companion than America. Not even Iran wants to see Iraq invaded. So what can we infer from this? America has some alterior motive. Im guessing their fucking enormous oil reserves cant have slipped from Bush's attention. Neither can the fact that his so called "war on terror" has been a near complete failure. Presumably he reasons that diverting attention from this by invading yet another scapegoat country will boost his popularity with the American electorate. A further point is that war is inevitably good for the American economy. They were the only country to profit from the second world war, effectively selling their services to the floundering Allies. The gulf war was particularly effective, providing a 9 billion dollar net gain that suceeded in preventing an American recession.
If you examine the current economic state of America it is not good. The recent corporate scandals have done more damage to the economy than Ossama Bin Laden ever achieved.
A war would be exactly the shot in the arm that the economy requires, espescially in such a lucrative area as Iraq.
Bush's incessant missionary ranting about good and evil is the most disgusting hypocrasy. You realise when you travel to non western countries the extent to which the information we recieve is biased towards the consensus western viewpoint. Ive just returned from Laos, the most bombed country in the world. People build fences and houses out of bomb casings. thousands of children are maimed or killed every year from playing with unexploded clusterbombs. So who indiscriminately bombed the fuck out of this peaceful shit poor Buddhist country, maiming and killing their population and indifferently abandoning a 40 year legasy of murder? Yep America.
Believe me theyre not stupid enough to believe that the incipient war on Iraq has anything to do with "good" or "evil" in Laos.
America is not a "good" country in any sense. Whilst dashing for the moral highground Bush must be aware that in terms of human rights abuses America has a shitty record. He Informs us of the "evils" of weapons of mass destruction whilst sitting quite happily on the largest NBC arsenal in the world. Whilst he waxes lyrical about tyrants, not responsible enough to posess nuclear capability lets try and remember our second world war history. Only one country has ever deployed nuclear weapons in anger, at the cost of MILLIONS of innocent lives. Yes again its America.
Can you see now why this september the 11th stuff smacks of bullshit to the rest of the world? 3000 innocent people lost their lives on that day, and the civillians of Afghanistan payed back for it with 6000 of their own lives as a direct result of American bombing. Where are their tearful eulogies on prime time news? 5000 babies die every month from starvation and malnutrition in Iraq mainly due to the exorbitant economic sanctions imposed by an America led UN. Now why dont we have minutes silences for them? The fact is America is a greedy faceless global tyrant. The world is only just becoming aware of the fact that behind the the glossy God, country and apple pie image, America is callous, avaricious, inhumane, calculating, and worst of all in my opinion disgustingly hypocritical.

The analogy of a bully is a very apt one. "Either youre with us or youre with the terrorists" is remeniscant of "either youre in my gang or Ill kick youre head in". The fact is that if you dont tow America's line on the grounds of moral objection then it has the ability to make your life hell. Take for example Turkey, a muslim country firmly opposed to attacking Iraq, but with a shocking inflation rate and collapsing economy. If they do not allow America the use of their eastern Airbases to bomb Iraq then America simply withdraws its financial support plunging the country into further recession. Is blackmailing a state to relinquish a sound moral objection the action of a "good" country?

In Europe we are growing progressively more and more sick of listening to Bush's tedious september the 11th mantras. Europe is not as insular as America and has a far less egotistical view of the world. True 3000 deaths is a tragedy, but we have it in more perspective. The truth is the world is wracked by bigger tragedies on a daily basis. 40000 kids die of starvation EVERY DAY, mainly as a result of western greed and corruption. 3000 deaths is a drop in the ocean.

September the 11th was a wake up call to America to change its manipulative, devious, inhumane, unfair and greedy foreign policy. A lot of good could have resulted from some hard introspective questions. However instead of listening to the obvious message "stop shitting on Arabs" America promptly fucked over Afghanistan, began screwing the Palastinians to an even greater degree and is now going to war with the completely innocent and downtrodden Iraqis.

Do you see there is only so far you can stretch our sympathy?

"War does not determine who is right, only who is left"

There you have it nox and the others who have tried to tell me we have support. From the very mouth of one of the people in the european nations i was refering to. and its very true too. i am very much i agreement with all of that. and i will not buy this sadam is aquiring weapons bullshit because if he was aquiring weapons he probably would have done so already and already has them. he probably would have had them for some time now. If he was going to use them at least on the western world would it not seem logical for him to have attempted to do so already? all our security messures are bullshit when it really comes down to a threat from certain things. if he had one nuclear warhead even without a missle he would need only to get his hands on a ship sail it into a harbor and detonate it before the ship was searched. He talks alot I'll admit but does he have the balls to even do anything or is he even a real threat? or is bush just trying to distract from his failure to capture osama or find osama's body to prove hes dead or to destroy al queda?(sorry cant quite spell that but you know what i mean)A large portion of the world sees this war a bullshit and america as bullies and there may not even be a real threat. is it really worth it? i'm not so sure and i think drunk doctor and millions of others in countries around the world would agree with me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askr:
There you have it nox and the others who have tried to tell me we have support.

---

The "doctor's" claim to fame appears to be that the doctor claimed to have been to Laos. I too have been to Laos, specifically Vientiane. Therefore, Askr, I must assume that my opinion bears equal weight with the knowledgeable doctor.

However, I will give this wise sage three quick history lessons:

1. Adolph Hitler declared war on the US. Your trivialization of US involvement and motivation is merely a reflection of your European politics. We bailed you folks out of two world wars and this is the thanks we get.

2. The Kuwaiti government asked for and received or help in the Gulf War. We did not remain as an occupying force.

3. Millions killed in Nuclear blasts? Check your numbers kid. The millions are the lives saved by not invading mainland Japan.

And two small points...When your Princess Diana was still alive, I seem to recall that she visited a place called Afghanistan and made a somewhat unfavorable assessment of the number of Afghani children killed by Soviet landmines and booby traps left over from that little war. I also seem to recall reading a small tome about the number of folks in the Flanders area of France who get killed each year from relic shells from WWI.

Your little cheap shot on America and Laos inhales abruptly...but what can you expect from an "objective" European who requires US assistance to keep his own backyard (aka The Balkans) in order.

Nox

I see the French, like for the most part of their history, suddenly showing "intel" of Iraqi WMD production.

does any of you even remember what the topic of this thread is or are you just randomly typing things to pass the time?

I think it is probably true to say that less than 50% of the general public in European countries support war. I read that a survey suggested that might be true even in the US.

However, much of this opposition to war is based more on apathy and uncertainty rather than a hardline anti-war stance, so politicians are pretty much free to ignore the public on the basis that the quick and decisive victory they hope to achieve will change the public's minds. People are fickle; if the war they once opposed turns out to be a resounding victory it'll boost the popularity of the government. This is the gamble that Blair and maybe others will take. So far, Bush's stated intention to act through the UN has won him quite a bit of support for his cause, so you can pretty much guarantee that the American army won't be acting alone.

17% of british wanted no attack to happen.

Peace Renegade,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askr:
does any of you even remember what the topic of this thread is or are you just randomly typing things to pass the time?

---

Yes I DOES remember.

If what I wrote was "random" to "pass the time", then I submit that the same was true for 'doctor' whatever, who you yourself referenced as supporting your proposition. My retort to the 'doctor' addressed his shortcomings of both fact and logic.

Nox

Bush's reasoning for bombing Saddam seems to be that he has the capacity to build a nuke if he could:
a) find the bits
b) put them together

under those criteria he should invade my local primary school too.

Does that sound "logical" to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
under those criteria he should invade my local primary school too.

---

WOW. I am impressed. I was totally unaware of the educational sophistication of Scottish primary schools and their unfettered access to nuclear materials. Thank you for educating me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Does that sound "logical" to you?

---

No. Do you see the lack of logic in your logic train?

Now, shifting gears, I read your response to the tome posted by freeman et al. You found it "interesting". I read the post you have in this thread. I find it more than "interesting" the number of flagrant historical errors in both documents. I am not talking errors of interpretation, but errors of fact.

Don't you see a problem with the points that are trying to be made when these huge errors are used as a foundation for the argument?

Nox

[This message has been edited by Nox (edited 09-14-2002).]

>>>under those criteria he should invade my local primary school too.<<<

I thought about saying something very insulting, but for once, i'll swallow it, now isn't the time to bash the minority in the U.K. when the rest of the country is behind us.

"1. Adolph Hitler declared war on the US. Your trivialization of US involvement and motivation is merely a reflection of your European politics. We bailed you folks out of two world wars and this is the thanks we get."

So America was content to squat on the sidelines pedalling arms until the Japanese blew up your navy. In what way exactly does this demonstrate American philanthropy?

"2. The Kuwaiti government asked for and received or help in the Gulf War. We did not remain as an occupying force."

And?.... Where did I claim you did? I simply stated that America benefited financially at the time, and is still benefiting from their shit cheap oil. Why would you want to go to all the trouble of occupying a country when you can rape their economy from thousands of miles away in total safety?

If America's involvement in the gulf was such a humanitarian affair it shouldn�t be possible to calculate how many "miles per dead baby" your oversized cars can pull should it?

May I also point out that George Bush senior sold Saddam the weapons he used to invade Kuwait.

"3. Millions killed in Nuclear blasts? Check your numbers kid. The millions are the lives saved by not invading mainland Japan."

Essentially America traded the lives of its paid SOLDIERS with those of Japanese WOMEN, CHILDREN, and OLD PEOPLE.

In case it has escaped your attention: murdering countless innocent civilians to demoralise a country into surrender is a barbaric act of terrorism.

Id rather see a soldier killed by a bullet than a baby have her skin stripped off by ionising radiation only to die a week later of systematic infection and organ failure.

I don�t give a shit where either come from, a civilian is a civilian.

I'm not sure I quite understand why princess Diana has suddenly entered the debate. Your new tangential argument could be surmised by. "The Russians indiscriminately maim and kill kids so why cant we?� The only difference between America and Russia it seems is that America has better PR.

I note that you refer to my comments about Laos as a "cheap shot". I'll take it that this has come rather close to home. Did you try informing the people of Vientien that it was okay to be carpet-bombed by America "we're the good guys"? I�m guessing you kept your opinions to yourself or I doubt you'd be able to type.

As to the Kosovo campaign. In which you so magnanimously cleared up our "backyard" as you put it. Are you aware that Madeline Albright postponed the ground invasion several hours until the CNN crews could arrive?

If you read my post you will perhaps observe that nothing in your "quick history lesson" contradicts anything in it. Instead you have presented some rather weak arguments that seem to suggest that America goes to war to defend humanity.

I�m not naive enough to swallow that. If that�s the cosy world you want to live in then far be it from me to disillusion you. One more credulous voter swallowing propagandist bullshit is not going to make any difference.


PS Nox: �Does any of you� is perfectly correct English. �Any� in this context is an abbreviated form of �any one�. If you substitute that back into the sentence you will perhaps notice it makes complete grammatical sense. Before you attempt to give the rest of us grammar lessons why don�t you try and get them right first? That way you won�t look stupid.

*Suspects Nox is vice President Dan Quayle in bored retirement*

These are the only official polls I'm aware of. I dont know where 17% against came from but its risible.

Here are the correct statistics if you want it settled.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,781744,00.html

As far as the rest of Europe is concerned I dont have any figures. I am prepard to guarantee you that no other Nation supports America to the same extent as Britain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
So America was content to squat on the sidelines pedalling arms until the Japanese blew up your navy. In what way exactly does this demonstrate American philanthropy?

---

Since you missed it the first time around, I'll repeat it..."We bailed you out of two world wars. Sounds pretty philanthropic to me, especially considering for the first one, we had no royalty or "cousins" and in the second one, your countries' "appeasement" failed miserably.

That is the way we have DEMONSTRATED our philanthropy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
And?.... Where did I claim you did? I simply stated that America benefited financially at the time, and is still benefiting from their shit cheap oil. Why would you want to go to all the trouble of occupying a country when you can rape their economy from thousands of miles away in total safety?

---

Seems to me that the Brits spent considerable time and effort kissing up to the oil sheikdoms until they discovered oil in the North Sea. Now that the Brits have a supply of oil, they can get pompous (as usual) and uppity about oil.

Raping the Kuwaiti economy? Hardly. But a nice try in attempting to confuse the subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
If America's involvement in the gulf was such a humanitarian affair it shouldn�t be possible to calculate how many "miles per dead baby" your oversized cars can pull should it?

---

This is supposed to mean something, but I haven't a clue what it is. Sounds like you've one too many Guiness, or is that Shandy...Yes, in your case, Shandy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
May I also point out that George Bush senior sold Saddam the weapons he used to invade Kuwait.

---

WOW! Thank you Mr. Jane's All The World's Military Hardware for educating me about the country of manufacture/origin of the T-72 tank.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Essentially America traded the lives of its paid SOLDIERS with those of Japanese WOMEN, CHILDREN, and OLD PEOPLE.

---

Again you try to dodge the topic. You stated that the US killed MILLIONS in the atomic attacks. Totally and completely false. I stand by my statement of the lives "saved" by using the bomb(s). And the vast majority of those lives were Japanese. But then what do I know. I guess I believed some ignoramous named Winston Churchill when he essentially said the same thing...Silly Me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
I'm not sure I quite understand why princess Diana has suddenly entered the debate. Your new tangential argument could be surmised by. "The Russians indiscriminately maim and kill kids so why cant we?� The only difference between America and Russia it seems is that America has better PR.

---

No. Your cheap comment implied that the only people dying from left over ordnance were the Laotians who were still suffering from US "carpet bombing". The phrase 'carpet bombing' refers to cities, ie London, Dresden, Berlin, Moscow et al. Bombing raids that took place in SEA could hardly be described as 'carpet bombing'. But yet again, the drunk doctor has a firm handle on things military so I must bow to his superior intellect in these matters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
I note that you refer to my comments about Laos as a "cheap shot". I'll take it that this has come rather close to home. Did you try informing the people of Vientien that it was okay to be carpet-bombed by America "we're the good guys"?

---

Yes, but I didn't have to...they told me. In fact, I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of Laotians who specifically asked for my help in coming to the USA. By the way, where in Laos were you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
As to the Kosovo campaign. In which you so magnanimously cleared up our "backyard" as you put it. Are you aware that Madeline Albright postponed the ground invasion several hours until the CNN crews could arrive?

---

As a matter of fact I did not know that. And with no sarcasm, I thank you for that information. Now, my question still remains, why are the US soldiers taking care of a European problem? Are you too afraid? Or are you too willing to let American mothers provide the sons and daughters for peacekeeping so the Europeans can remain "holier than thou"? And don't tell me that some of the Peacekeepers are European...ALL of them should be European.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
If you read my post you will perhaps observe that nothing in your "quick history lesson" contradicts anything in it. Instead you have presented some rather weak arguments that seem to suggest that America goes to war to defend humanity.

---

False...see above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
I�m not naive enough to swallow that. If that�s the cosy world you want to live in then far be it from me to disillusion you. One more credulous voter swallowing propagandist bullshit is not going to make any difference.

---

Your choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
PS Nox: �Does any of you� is perfectly correct English. �Any� in this context is an abbreviated form of �any one�. If you substitute that back into the sentence you will perhaps notice it makes complete grammatical sense. Before you attempt to give the rest of us grammar lessons why don�t you try and get them right first? That way you won�t look stupid.

---

Yet again FALSE. Now you are trying to add words. The problem with the sentence is called 'agreement'. And yes, your feeble attempt at word addition does indeed make you look stupid. But then, at this stage of your post, why quit...you're already on a roll.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
*Suspects Nox is vice President Dan Quayle in bored retirement*

---

And for whatever foibles and errors Dan may have commited, unlike you, he did hold the office of Vice President of the United States. Yes, because of your nationality you are not able/want to hold that position but I sincerely doubt that you would be able to come anywhere close to that level of importance in your country (but then I could be wrong).

Nox

>>>and is still benefiting from their shit cheap oil. Why would you want to go to all the trouble of occupying a country when you can rape their economy from thousands of miles away in total safety?<<<

If you did live in America, You would know that our oil is not "shit cheap" nor has it been for awhile. living proof that Assuming does make you an ass.

>>>May I also point out that George Bush senior sold Saddam the weapons he used to invade Kuwait.<<<

Klashnikov, Sukhoi, Mikoyan and Gurevich, and SCUD are American, as is the manufacturer of the Gazelle helicopter, and Dassault. Try again.


>>>Essentially America traded the lives of its paid SOLDIERS with those of Japanese WOMEN, CHILDREN, and OLD PEOPLE. In case it has escaped your attention: murdering countless innocent civilians to demoralise a country into surrender is a barbaric act of terrorism.<<<

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you probably weren't aware that the Japanese were going to fight TO THE LAST MAN WOMAN AND CHILD during the invasion of Mainland Japan. For fuck's sake, they were drilling 5 year olds with bamboo spears, and anyone with a little knowledge of Japanese history knows they have this habit of commiting suicide attacks, or killing themselves to avoid capture. That atomic bomb saved many, if not all, Japanese.

>>>I don�t give a shit where either come from, a civilian is a civilian.<<<

until pointing a weapon at a soldier, then that civilian is no longer a civilian, and can be engaged, And were do you get this idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not involved in the war effort?

>>>The only difference between America and Russia it seems is that America has better PR.<<<

And our soldiers don't slit the throat of a prisoner we capture. did you see that video that was going around on the internet a few years back?

>>>I'll take it that this has come rather close to home. Did you try informing the people of Vientien that it was okay to be carpet-bombed by America "we're the good guys"? I�m guessing you kept your opinions to yourself or I doubt you'd be able to type.<<<


I went to Vietnam, and just like what Nox encountered in Laos, I encountered there, some offering their daughters to me in return for me taking to America.



[This message has been edited by Joe Boo (edited 09-14-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
And for whatever foibles and errors Dan may have commited, unlike you, he did hold the office of Vice President of the United States. Yes, because of your nationality you are not able/want to hold that position but I sincerely doubt that you would be able to come anywhere close to that level of importance in your country (but then I could be wrong).

Nox

---

we bailed no one out of WW2, it was the russians. or more to the point, hitler made the idiotic mistake of invading russia.

quote:

---

until pointing a weapon at a soldier, then that civilian is no longer a civilian, and can be engaged, And were do you get this idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not involved in the war effort?

---

this is bullshit. hiroshima and nagasaki not bombed for about a year before the abombs were dropped. this was so that the military ccould have a better understanding of what the effects of the bomb would be on an area that was untouched. Because of this there were very many civilians and also some american prisoners of war. this doesn't even take into account the fire bombing of tokyo which caused massive civilian casualties. another incident would be the destriuction of Dresden. give me one good reason for the destruction of Dresden other than to strike terror in the hearts of germans. there were american POWs in Dresden as well.

Who bombed Dresden and why?

Nox

alright fine i give up on this thread no one seems to give a damn about the actual topic at all...

Could it be because maybe America isn't loosing support? I fully understand folks thoughout the world not wanting to feel that the USA is running their foreign policy, but the bottom line is Saddam and what this idiot is capable (and has demonstrated) of doing.

Do I WANT war...NO...been there, done that. But I don't want nukes or dirty bombs being pickeled off either. The lesser of the two evils is getting rid of the lunatic.

Nox

the US bombed dresden. there was no reason what so ever to do it. and they didn't just bomb it, they turned it into a firestorm, that's what 'slaughter house five' is about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
the US bombed dresden.

---

Wrong. The Brits did that.

At about 9pm on 13 February 1945, 805 British bomber planes dropped 2690 tonnes of bombs on Dresden. It was a perfect raid. The weather was clear and there was no resistance from German fighter planes or anti-aircraft guns.

Dresden burned for 7 days. No one knows how many people died but the estimated figure was between 35,000 and 150,000. More people died here than in the atomic bomb attacks on Japan in August 1945.

Nox

[This message has been edited by Nox (edited 09-15-2002).]

Dresden was bombed by the Brits, who were responsible for most of the futile area bombing of Germany (in mitigation, they were on the receiving end too). The US, whose European bombing raids were more focused on destroying production, did similar incendiary attacks on Japanese cities.

quote:

---

More people died here than in the atomic bomb attacks on Japan in August 1945

---

Dresden death toll: usually estimated below 150000, probably lower

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: estimated 200,000 killed outright with subsequent deaths due to radiation sickness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
Dresden death toll: usually estimated below 150000, probably lower

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: estimated 200,000 killed outright with subsequent deaths due to radiation sickness.

---

The information I posted was directly from the Dresden website. My bad for non-attribution.

I will not debate the numbers because I think there is the potential for inflation/inaccuracy in those reports.

Nox

i stand corrected.
the US did similarly bomb tokyo, and tho it was almost definitly a military target the bombing was indiscriminent because the majority took place at night.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
i stand corrected.
the US did similarly bomb tokyo, and tho it was almost definitly a military target the bombing was indiscriminent because the majority took place at night.

---

I don't see how it's any more moral to send our airmen to a firey death just to save the lives of the enemy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
I don't see how it's any more moral to send our airmen to a firey death just to save the lives of the enemy.

---

so you condone the deliberate bombing of civilian targets. its good to know we have such upstanding people in our military.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
so you condone the deliberate bombing of civilian targets.

---

The reason we have this War on Terrorism is because the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center (and the Pentagon). I don't know about you, but I have never felt that the WTC was a military establishment.

My friend, I think you have lost sight of the events that started all of this. I think you have spent too much time trying to rationalize away the actions UBL and AQ and justify their hienous acts of murder.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
so you condone the deliberate bombing of civilian targets. its good to know we have such upstanding people in our military.

---

Bombing cities with factories providing for the war effort is justified. Back then, we didn't have this wonderful technology to appease people like you. It's also good to know we have such great Americans who can rationalize the murder of over 2,000 Americans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:

Bombing cities with factories providing for the war effort is justified. Back then, we didn't have this wonderful technology to appease people like you. It's also good to know we have such great Americans who can rationalize the murder of over 2,000 Americans.

---

once again you put words in my mouth, i didn't rationalize the murder of americans. i said there were reasons that they did it more than "they hate our freedom" on top of that it isn't necesary to firebomb an entire city when you are trying to bomb factories. we managed to target factories in germany pretty well when we wanted to, yes the bombs could go off course, but the bombing of tokyo was a deliberate act to instill terror in civilians. exactly the thing we now claim is immoral.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
but the bombing of tokyo was a deliberate act to instill terror in civilians. exactly the thing we now claim is immoral.

---

As I interpret history, the Tokyo firebombing was an attempt to make the Emporer surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think the goal was to demoralize (terrorize) the Japanese civilians who were supposed to bring pressure against the Japanese Imperial Government. That plan (to initiate civilian action against the Imperial Government) was a miserable failure (someone forgot the briefing on the Code of Bushido). That is why the next step (atom bombs) had as its goal, changing the mind of the Emporer himself. Hirohito himself viewed the ruins and was briefed about one plane, one bomb, no city. Unbeknownst to the Emporer at that time, we were out of bombs (more were being manufactured but they were stateside, and as such, unusable...for the moment).

Now to the last part of the quote: Remember, that we were at war at the time and the casualty figures from the Okinawa campaign were staggaring...even by wartime standards. Don't forget, 12,000 native Okinawans jumped off the cliffs at the southern end of the island of Okinawa rather than surrender to the US forces. The sheer brutality of that campaign cannot be underemphasized. That brutality was the mindset of the time on both sides. That is why you cannot take the firebombing of Tokyo in isolation. It must be viewed within the context of the times.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
once again you put words in my mouth, i didn't rationalize the murder of americans. i said there were reasons that they did it more than "they hate our freedom" on top of that it isn't necesary to firebomb an entire city when you are trying to bomb factories. we managed to target factories in germany pretty well when we wanted to, yes the bombs could go off course, but the bombing of tokyo was a deliberate act to instill terror in civilians. exactly the thing we now claim is immoral.

---

Yes, there are more reasons they did it then they hate freedom. Saying that their cause was justified because we "occupy" their two holy cities (I've been there several times, and have yet to see an American military base in the city of Mecca and Medina) or are in cahoots with the Zionists, is rationalizing their acts. Most who do so have yet to lose a loved one to terror acts. On to WWII..

Those Atomic bombs saved countless Japanese lives, because they were drilling 5 year-olds with bamboo spears to fight the allies. The inevitable invasion would have been the bloodiest military campaign in history, possibly for 1,000 years. Saipan and Okinawa had Japanese civilians leaping off of cliffs, and the last Japanese soldier didn't surrender until 1975. That's the measure of their resolve. Had we not used them, we would have had to kill nearly every single man,woman, and child to end the war.

Firebombing Tokyo wasn't bright. Like Nox said, the higher ups didn't know about the Code of Bushido

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
Yes, there are more reasons they did it then they hate freedom. Saying that their cause was justified because we "occupy" their two holy cities (I've been there several times, and have yet to see an American military base in the city of Mecca and Medina) or are in cahoots with the Zionists, is rationalizing their acts. Most who do so have yet to lose a loved one to terror acts. On to WWII..

Those Atomic bombs saved countless Japanese lives, because they were drilling 5 year-olds with bamboo spears to fight the allies. The inevitable invasion would have been the bloodiest military campaign in history, possibly for 1,000 years. Saipan and Okinawa had Japanese civilians leaping off of cliffs, and the last Japanese soldier didn't surrender until 1975. That's the measure of their resolve. Had we not used them, we would have had to kill nearly every single man,woman, and child to end the war.

Firebombing Tokyo wasn't bright. Like Nox said, the higher ups didn't know about the Code of Bushido

---

and supporting corrupt military/puppet regimes that oppress muslims would have nothing to do with thier hatred of us.
i agree that the abombs may have saved many lives, but we could have dropped them on a military target instead of using terror tactics on civilians.

i agree that the abombs may have saved many lives, but we could have dropped them on a military target instead of using terror tactics on civilians.

I guess it slipped your mind that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both producing for the war effort, And Hiroshima was a rather large military base.

The military base was on the periphery of the bomb blast...

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
but we could have dropped them on a military target instead of using terror tactics on civilians.

---

At this stage of the war the military targets had already been hit.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
At this stage of the war the military targets had already been hit.

Nox

---

that doesn't make it any less of an attack on civilians. aren't civilians 'off limits'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
that doesn't make it any less of an attack on civilians. aren't civilians 'off limits'.

---

only if it was a deliberate attack.

They were as off limits as when the Rape of Nanking occured.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
only if it was a deliberate attack.

They were as off limits as when the Rape of Nanking occured.

---

it was a deliberate attack and it doesn't matter what they did first. what the military does doesn't deprive civilians of protection from deliberate attack

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4ot:
it was a deliberate attack and it doesn't matter what they did first. what the military does doesn't deprive civilians of protection from deliberate attack

---

They do have protection from attack. Like I said, big difference between deliberatly bombing civilians, and bombing them because your Aerial Photographs are wrong, or there is a cross wind several thousand feet below, bent bomb fins, and other things gone wrong.

If nothing else, they have bomb shelters.

Build your bases and other stuff in the middle of residential areas like the Taliban, Iraq, Libya and Palestinians, and what do you expect?

Act like a pussy and die liek a pussy.

If you actually knew how to process The material so its weapons grade, you'd agree that your primary school didn't have the resource. But if they did, bomb them. Nasty little scottish shits

But the one thing i will say, is if we wont let Saddam have nukes, why do we let Pakistan and India have them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by preying mantis:
But the one thing i will say, is if we wont let Saddam have nukes, why do we let Pakistan and India have them?

---

Let is the operative word...we did not "let" them. The "secret" of the atom bomb is the detonator mechanism. This mechanism creates (and holds for a short time) the critical mass required for detonation of a nuclear blast. The Pakistani's stole the detonators...no one "gave" them away.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Let is the operative word...we did not "let" them. The "secret" of the atom bomb is the detonator mechanism. This mechanism creates (and holds for a short time) the critical mass required for detonation of a nuclear blast. The Pakistani's stole the detonators...no one "gave" them away.

Nox

---

Right, except for North Korea, China and Iran giving them Long Range Missile Technology, funny, I thought India was just across the border, and in range of SCUDS and SS-2's

really now, who cares who is behind america in the war on terorism. you can rest assured that if any other country was attacked like us, and there are a few, then they would want the same result. an end to terrorism. if you follow the news then you would understand that even though there are many countries that publicly state they want no part of the "american agression", these same countries are host to an army poised for the kill. (saudi, kuwait, yemen, djbouti, kenya...etc.) these countries just dont want to loose the tourism they already have. we will prevail

Hello again.

"...'We bailed you out of two world wars. Sounds pretty philanthropic to me, especially considering for the first one, we had no royalty or "cousins" and in the second one, your countries' "appeasement"
failed miserably"

Well for someone who claims to have served in the military you sound shockingly naive. If at the age of nineteen I am aware that if politicians do the right thing it is generally for the wrong reasons I find it difficult to grasp the fact that an adult finds this simple concept incomprehensible, please excuse me.

"seems to me that the Brits spent considerable time and effort kissing up to the oil sheikdoms until they discovered oil in the North Sea. Now that the Brits have a supply of oil, they can get pompous (as usual) and uppity about oil"

Don't get me wrong. Criticism of America does not equate to support of Britain. How could it when our prime minister behaves like Bush's performing poodle? Britain has a sordid past. The difference between you and me is that I dont endorse my country's disgusting track record.

"Raping the Kuwaiti economy? Hardly. But a nice try in attempting to confuse the subject."

I do apologise. I misread your post, replace Kuwaiti with Iraqi and you will find it makes sense.

"This is supposed to mean something, but I haven't a clue what it is. Sounds like you've one too many Guiness, or is that Shandy...Yes, in your case, Shandy."

Well yes it is meant to mean something. Perhaps if I spelled it out for you in language you can understand. "miles per dead (Iraqi) baby (murdered by extortionate UN sanctions), your oversized cars can pull"
You'll perhaps notice that in lowering it to your intellectual level it lost something in poingancy.
Lol Guinness is Irish, in Scotland we drink whisky. Insulting my drinking ability is not particularly mature now is it? Maybe when you find yourself capable of drinking a litre of tequila in half an hour you can get back to me on this one. We start drinking at 10 you begin at 21. Get real dude.

"WOW! Thank you Mr. Jane's All The World's Military Hardware for educating me about the country of manufacture/origin of the T-72 tank."

Well You really struck a nerve with this one. I dont read Jane's military hardware. How tragic. Well once you've finished prying through the sticky pages of your latest edition you'll wisen up to the fact that good old Bush senior sold Hussein 2 billion dollars worth of weapons whilst he was busy gassing his Curdish population.
Again Just cos the Russians are doing it dont make it right.

"Again you try to dodge the topic. You stated that the US killed MILLIONS in the atomic attacks. Totally and completely false. I stand by my statement of the lives "saved" by using the bomb(s). And the vast majority of those lives were Japanese. But then what do I know. I guess I believed some ignoramous named Winston Churchill when he essentially said the same thing...Silly Me."

yep well 200 000 killed outright, but when you take into account cancer victims and congenital deformities Id say we are dealing with millions. You know I never understood that incinerating all those Japanese civilians was for their own good. Well you learn something new every day. Again dont think that attacking Britain deflates my argument. I am fully aware of Britain's dirty past. I however do not try to justify it.

"No. Your cheap comment implied that the only people dying from left over ordnance were the Laotians who were still suffering from US "carpet bombing".2

Bollocks where did I say "only"? It was merely an example.

"The phrase 'carpet bombing' refers to cities, ie London, Dresden, Berlin, Moscow et al. Bombing raids that took place in SEA could hardly be described as 'carpet bombing'. But yet again, the drunk doctor has a firm handle on things military so I must bow to his superior intellect in these matters."

Oh really, so its carpet bombing when you indiscriminately bomb an area of ground in Europe, but not in Asia? Well what do you call it? Rug bombing?

Here is Roget's dictionary definition:

car�pet-bomb (k�rpt-bm)
tr. & intr.v. car�pet-�bombed, car�pet-�bomb�ing, car�pet-�bombs
To bomb in a systematic and extensive pattern, so as to devastate a large target area uniformly.

Do you see the word "Europe" or "city" in there anywhere? Maybe you should spend a few more hours a day thumbing left handed through Jane's military hardware.

"Yes, but I didn't have to...they told me. In fact, I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of Laotians who specifically asked for my help in coming to the USA. By the way, where in Laos were you."

Uhhu well they wanted to go to Britain too. In fact anywhere in Europe in general. I didnt feel the need to count them on my fingers and toes however. Perhaps the universal factor was a desire to escape Laos? I can see why. Its a fucked up country, not least because of American imperialism. Just because they want to get out of there does not mean they were grateful to you for fucking them over.

I just had time to see Vientien and Vangvien if you care.

"Yet again FALSE. Now you are trying to add words. The problem with the sentence is called 'agreement'. And yes, your feeble attempt at word addition does indeed make you look stupid. But then, at this stage of your post, why quit...you're already on a roll."

Oh dear I really thought you'd stop digging.
You are really making yourself look a thorough arse.

Scan through these sentences if you would.

"Do any of you have a degree?" (expected number of positive responses 0-infinity)

"Does any of you have my dog?" (expected number of positive responses 0-1)

I dont know if I could make it any clearer if I tried. You do understand the difference between singular and plural don't you?

If this isn't easy enough why dont you type it into microsoft word. If you see a green zigzaggy line it means its gramatically incorrect. Hmm brought down by a corporation that's about as American as Macdonalds, how ironic.

"And for whatever foibles and errors Dan may have commited, unlike you, he did hold the office of Vice President of the United States. Yes, because of your nationality you are not able/want to hold that position but I sincerely doubt that you would be able to come anywhere close to that level of importance in your country (but then I could be wrong)."

But on the other hand, if he was any stupider he'd have to be watered twice a day. Id rather have a functional brain than a disfunctional country.

"If you actually knew how to process The material so its weapons grade, you'd agree that your primary school didn't have the resource. But if they did, bomb them. Nasty little scottish shits
But the one thing i will say, is if we wont let Saddam have nukes, why do we let Pakistan and India have them?"

lol Ive got a fairly good idea. Its called a gas centrifuge. A mass spectrometer would also work, and my dad uses them all the time. Now Please don't insult my understanding of Physics and Chemistry. Im guessing that if its good enough to get me accepted to the most academic college in Cambridge to study medicine, it is likely to be better than yours. If you would like some pertinent equations.

F= qv/d, F=am, s= ut + 1/2 at^2

so... a=qv/dm

therefore

s=0 + 1/2 (qv/dm)t^2

s= qvt^2/2dm

That is an equation that could quite easily be used to seperate 2 isotopes of Uranium from one another generated from first principles using my 5th year Physics after 2 years of heavy drug use.

*starts digging a bomb shelter*


[This message has been edited by doctor drunk (edited 09-28-2002).]

What's your point? I can make GB Agent easily, along with more chemical agents. Biological agents is harder, but not impossible, to make simply by turning a basement into a laboratory.

Well, here we go again. I will say this before I begin; this post was more cogent than the last. I guess maybe it was because of your superior ability to translate your deepest thoughts to my shallow intellectual capabilities.

Now, it's showtime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Well for someone who claims to have served in the military you sound shockingly naive. If at the age of nineteen I am aware that if politicians do the right thing it is generally for the wrong reasons I find it difficult to grasp the fact that an adult finds this simple concept incomprehensible, please excuse me.

---

Not only am I naive, but I am clueless as to what this means (except for excuse me).

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Don't get me wrong. Criticism of America does not equate to support of Britain. How could it when our prime minister behaves like Bush's performing poodle? Britain has a sordid past. The difference between you and me is that I dont endorse my country's disgusting track record.

---

Here you are wrong. We do not endorse our respective countries' disgusting track records'. There are multiple examples where I have been adamant in my revulsion of things my government has done, beginning with the treatment of our Native Americans. We do, however, appear to disagree about elements of the "track record".

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Well yes it is meant to mean something. Perhaps if I spelled it out for you in language you can understand. "miles per dead (Iraqi) baby (murdered by extortionate UN sanctions), your oversized cars can pull"
You'll perhaps notice that in lowering it to your intellectual level it lost something in poingancy.

---

Now I understand your point and I reject it. Saddam could provide all the items necessary to keep those babies alive. He refuses. I refuse to accept any responsibility for Saddams lack of responsibility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Lol Guinness is Irish, in Scotland we drink whisky. Insulting my drinking ability is not particularly mature now is it? Maybe when you find yourself capable of drinking a litre of tequila in half an hour you can get back to me on this one. We start drinking at 10 you begin at 21. Get real dude.

---

I will give you this one. It was a cheap shot on my part. You also win on tequila, I really don't like tequila.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Well You really struck a nerve with this one. I dont read Jane's military hardware. How tragic. Well once you've finished prying through the sticky pages of your latest edition you'll wisen up to the fact that good old Bush senior sold Hussein 2 billion dollars worth of weapons whilst he was busy gassing his Curdish population.
Again Just cos the Russians are doing it dont make it right.

---

And the Russian Tanks was exactly the point I was trying to make.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
You know I never understood that incinerating all those Japanese civilians was for their own good. Well you learn something new every day.

---

I know that you are being facetious with this remark, but your statement is sadly true. If you are interested, look at the Code of Bushido. Look how closely the Japanese military/people followed it and you will begin to understand (not like) the accuracy of my statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
I just had time to see Vientien and Vangvien if you care.

---

I do care. There have been multiple people make false claims about where they've been and what they've done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Oh dear I really thought you'd stop digging.
You are really making yourself look a thorough arse.

---

As I recall, you are the one who implied a diminished intellectual capability on my part because I find "simple concept incomprehensible". So when I "dig" I am holding you to your own standard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Hmm brought down by a corporation that's about as American as Macdonalds, how ironic.

---

This must be another simple concept, because I find the meaning of the incomprehensible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
"And for whatever foibles and errors Dan may have committed, unlike you, he did hold the office of Vice President of the United States. Yes, because of your nationality you are not able/want to hold that position but I sincerely doubt that you would be able to come anywhere close to that level of importance in your country (but then I could be wrong)."

But on the other hand, if he was any stupider he'd have to be watered twice a day. Id rather have a functional brain than a disfunctional country.

---

While I do not disagree with the first sentence of your reply, your overall response fails to address my point.

Nox

Despite what we were told Canada will go in if it happens ( it looks like they will). The PM is always looking for a chance to kiss the presidents ass.