I like how Israel is invading Lebanon to find two kidnapped soldiers....

[The Notorious LOL]

but in the process they've got a bunch of their soldiers killed thru military action.

[Waus]

Leave no man behind!

[kaiser soze]

alterior motives well before the kidnappings, there is a bigger picture to this namely the Caspian Sea and water supplies

so my conspiracy cap thinks

[Qdrop]

Israel does not believe in "proportional response".

i would tend to agree with them.
if they believe this IS a war, and that Hezbola is a perenial threat....
a proportional response would be futile.

mow 'em down...leave nothing or no one.

[SobaViolence]

there are now reports that witnessed an Israeli tank with a squad of soldiers within the Lebanese border, and that is where the attack took place, busting the tank, killing 6 and abducting 2...


but who really knows...

[fucktopgirl]

alterior motives well before the kidnappings, there is a bigger picture to this namely the Caspian Sea and water supplies

so my conspiracy cap thinks


Well, it is like in the 6 days war in 1967, the Jordan river was a bit of an issue !

http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/stia/students/vol.02/klumpv.htm

[Dr Deaf]

its like the US going into IRAQ for the WMD / Al-Qaeda-911 connection / spreading democracy angle.

lebanese civilian casualties (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=24885)

[Echewta]

There is so much more to this than we usually tend to dig up. Start at Operation Ajax and work from there.

No side is innocent. Mowing them down solves nothing. Decades have been spent "mowing" them down and yet the "weeds" still grow back.

Maybe Isreal should move somewhere else. Like Africa or something. That might help.

[Qdrop]

lebanese civilian casualties (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=24885)

oh don't start that shit.

like israeli lives don't count...
particularly the ones hezbolla took...

[Echewta]

Or the thousands Isreal took? Don't start that rightous bullshit because America backs and supplies the Jewish state. No side is innocent.

[Dr Deaf]

any loss of life is unfortunate. i had the lebanese casualty link handy is all.

[Qdrop]

any loss of life is unfortunate. i had the lebanese casualty link handy is all.

than i apologize.


yes, no side is innocent.

[SobaViolence]

casualties are 10:1 for Lebanon.

'proportional' and 'use of restraint' indeed...

[Qdrop]

casualties are 10:1 for Lebanon.

'proportional' and 'use of restraint' indeed...

no...NON proprotional response is the name of the game here.

that's how superiour militaries win wars.
when you try and minimize collateral damage or loss of life...you lose the war.

compare ww2 and hiroshima....with vietnam.

why did we win one...and lose the other?

[kaiser soze]

actually Q, Vietnamese civilian deaths exceeded Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (initial deaths due to detonation)

estimates are roughly around 2 million for north and 2 million for the south

we won the war against Japan because we used nuclear weapons

[Waus]

compare ww2 and hiroshima....with vietnam.

why did we win one...and lose the other?


Police action/difficult rules of engagement vs. actual war.

You can't win a war where you're trying not to make the suppliers of arms mad, and there are rules for your fighting but not for the enemy.

Honestly though, I don't think that any sort of response or attack matters on either side ultimately. They will be fighting until the end of time.

[GetYourWarOn]

fuck israel.

[Qdrop]

actually Q, Vietnamese civilian deaths exceeded Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (initial deaths due to detonation)

estimates are roughly around 2 million for north and 2 million for the south

we won the war against Japan because we used nuclear weapons

exactly.

that's what Macnamara tried to explain in Fog of War....

you piddly fart around with proportional responses...you lose wars...and sometimes lose MORE lives...
because it drags on forever.

[Qdrop]

Honestly though, I don't think that any sort of response or attack matters on either side ultimately. They will be fighting until the end of time.

or until some goes nuclear.

[Waus]

Frankly I don't even think that would stop it. There's bound to be people in other countries loyal to the cause of either side who would continue on some kind of guerilla activity.

It's a division started way back with Isaac & Ishmael and I don't really think it'll be resolved.

[SobaViolence]

It's a division started way back with Isaac & Ishmael and I don't really think it'll be resolved.

it's not even that simple...

:( *sigh*

[GetYourWarOn]

we won the war against Japan because we used nuclear weapons

actually we won the war against japan prior to nuking hiroshima and nagasaki. by 1945 they were an utterly defeated nation, and had we waited a few weeks before dropping those bombs, there's no doubt japan would have agreed to the unconditional surrender we were seeking.... or as dwight eisenhower said "I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act...first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."







sorry, that was totally off topic.:o

[SobaViolence]

didn't a lot of the generals/admirals/etc distance themselves from Truman because they thought it was a bad idea...?

[GetYourWarOn]

didn't a lot of the generals/admirals/etc distance themselves from Truman because they thought it was a bad idea...?

i know there were a lot of high ranking military officials who disagreed with truman's decision to drop the bomb...


for example, douglas macArthur didn't just distance himself from the president, he was openly critical of truman...but not for the atomic bomb decision though. it was mostly for the way truman handled the korean war. but still...

[GetYourWarOn]

yeah, so anyways...israel is really fucking aggressive

[Qdrop]

yeah, so anyways...israel is really fucking aggressive

no less than palestine/hamas/hezbolla.

i really hate when people try to (under their breath) paint a picture of Israel being "america lite"- little minny imperialists....
while palestine and hezbolla and muslims in general are just "freedom fighters" trying to "defend themselves".

[drizl]

i just wanted to chime in....


fuck israel is right. im starting to believe all this talk from the other side of all of this being a "war against islam". it sure fucking seems that way, and its easy to understand why muslims feel that the us and israel are enemies of the koran.

i hope we all get to the point of being sick of all this war and fear, and hatred. i hope we can all embrace the idea of peace. we need conscious rising, masses upon masses in civil disobedience. beyond borders, beyond fear and into compassion and nonviolence. what we need is a global revolution.

[drizl]

paradigm shift

[Drederick Tatum]

Israel doesn't do irony.

[GetYourWarOn]

i just wanted to chime in....


fuck israel is right. im starting to believe all this talk from the other side of all of this being a "war against islam". it sure fucking seems that way, and its easy to understand why muslims feel that the us and israel are enemies of the koran.

i hope we all get to the point of being sick of all this war and fear, and hatred. i hope we can all embrace the idea of peace. we need conscious rising, masses upon masses in civil disobedience. beyond borders, beyond fear and into compassion and nonviolence. what we need is a global revolution.


i think there is a pragmatic resolution. first, israel has to decide if they prefer expansion over security. if they choose security it means withdrawal from the occupied territory, the west bank and gaza strip--the 2 state solution. a win-win situation where everyone has to give something up.

only way to win is if everyone loses.

[Whatitis]

....and nobody likes to lose.

[SobaViolence]

Israel doesn't do irony.

yeah, i wonder how they would like it if some country systematically put them into ghett...oh

and invaded other countries to hunt down and kil....umm


*sigh*

[The Notorious LOL]

go nuts, I hope all of the religious zealots just kill each other...then those of us that arent religious can live in peace.

[GetYourWarOn]

go nuts, I hope all of the religious zealots just kill each other...then those of us that arent religious can live in peace.

indeed.

[Qdrop]

actually we won the war against japan prior to nuking hiroshima and nagasaki. by 1945 they were an utterly defeated nation, and had we waited a few weeks before dropping those bombs, there's no doubt japan would have agreed to the unconditional surrender we were seeking.... or as dwight eisenhower said "I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act...first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."







sorry, that was totally off topic.:o

that's an extremely biased and one-sided take on history.
and the fact that you present it so matter of factly, as if it was indeed fact, without any source or referance....

[synch]

or until some goes nuclear.
Doesn't really work with neighbouring countries.

[synch]

that's an extremely biased and one-sided take on history.
and the fact that you present it so matter of factly, as if it was indeed fact, without any source or referance....
I thought it was common knowledge that the Japanese had surrendered prior to the nuclear launch. If this is an urban myth then I'd be grateful if you clear it up.

Look it up myself? I claim time difference. I'm off to sleep.

I'd appreciate a nice little essay when I get up in the morning.

edit: correction, announced an impending surrender

[GetYourWarOn]

that's an extremely biased and one-sided take on history.
and the fact that you present it so matter of factly, as if it was indeed fact, without any source or referance....


linkified for the haters.


united states strategic bombing survey summary report.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."




as for that eisenhower quote you can read his biography, or just google it. wordever you prefer.

[vickista]

alterior motives well before the kidnappings, there is a bigger picture to this namely the Caspian Sea and water supplies

so my conspiracy cap thinks

i agree with your conspiracy cap,

i also think that they want to get into syria and iran once there done with hezbola

[GetYourWarOn]

I thought it was common knowledge that the Japanese had surrendered prior to the nuclear launch. If this is an urban myth then I'd be grateful if you clear it up.

Look it up myself? I claim time difference. I'm off to sleep.

I'd appreciate a nice little essay when I get up in the morning.

edit: correction, announced an impending surrender

prior to the bombings, japan was divided on what course of action to take with regards to surrender. the military leaders favored a continuation of battle, while the diplomats wanted to accept the terms being offered them, and see what they could do to preserve their monarchy. ultimately, it was the emperor who stepped in and agreed to an unconditional surrender. the terms of surrender were publicly accepted on 15 august 1945.

one important thing to note is the soviet union's involvment in all this. at the time, the soviets had not declared war on japan, and because of this the japanese were hoping the soviets would remain neutral and eventually help negotiate a peace settlement between the u.s. and japan. what the u.s. knew however was that the soviets would enter into the pacific theatre and declare war on japan, which they did on 8 august 1945 -- 2 days after we vaporized hiroshima. some historians consider this, and not the atomic bombs, to be the biggest factor in japan's surrender.

what a lot of people have a problem with is our apparent sense of urgency put these nukes into action. as many people have pointed out, there were not any imminent plans for a "d-day " like assault on the island of japan. their navy was destroyed, their armies had long stopped advancing, and we knew ahead of time that the soviets were going to attack japan. why not wait a week, or a month and see what effect the presence of the russians would have on the mindset of the japanese? they were a defeated nation on the very brink of unconditional surrender, and killing a quarter of a million innocent civilians was entirely unneccesary.






edit: multiple sources used and f.u. qdrop, i'm too tired to link them. just google it if you don't believe me. it's all there.

[roosta]

I really think Israel's reaction has been completely out of proportion. The death toll speaks for itself. Someone need to give them a slap..or a hug.

[synch]

Thanks for the essay GetYourWarOn :)

[Qdrop]

edit: multiple sources used and f.u. qdrop, i'm too tired to link them. just google it if you don't believe me. it's all there.

you'll be sorry.......

[Qdrop]

let's start with good old wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

"Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification of them, have been subject to much debate. In the U.S., the prevailing view is that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, saving many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place.[5] In Japan, the general public tends to think that the bombings were unnecessary, as the preparation for the surrender was in progress in Tokyo.[6]"

- that's "DEBATE", meaning there is no general concensus. How much loss of life (both american AND japanese) would have taken place if a final months long invasion took place instead of the bombs?

"Over 3½ years of direct U.S. involvement in World War II, approximately 400,000 American lives had been lost, roughly half of them incurred in the war against Japan. In the months prior to the bombings, the Battle of Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50,000–150,000 civilian deaths, 100,000–125,000 Japanese or Okinawan military or conscript deaths and over 72,000 American casualties. An invasion of Japan was expected to result in casualties many times greater than in Okinawa."

http://www.dannen.com/decision/
-alot of official documentation about the decision.

and now:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5894

-sift through that, little boy^.

there, i googled it.
it's all there.

what you come up with through all of this, is that there really isn't a general consensus or understanding that truman dropped the bomb purely for political reasons.

[SobaViolence]

history is biased.
get used to it.

war is fucked up and lots of innocents (or non-combattants, whatever the fuck you want to call them) die.

fuck the military. fuck industry. fuck totalitarianism.

[synch]

what you come up with through all of this, is that there really isn't a general consensus or understanding that truman dropped the bomb purely for political reasons.
Another theory is that the US was aching to try out their new toy and impress friend and foe with the new destructive capabilities.

[GuzzO]

I've lost my keys in the shopcenter; maybe i should call them to find it...:p