Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
djxeno

Bush's "weapons Of Mass Destruction" Hoax:

Recommended Posts

Answering Bush's War Propaganda on Iraq

BUSH'S "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" HOAX:

BIG LIE MASKS REAL MOTIVE FOR IRAQ WAR

PART 1:

ANSWERING BUSH'S WAR PROPAGANDA

The tasks facing the new international anti-war movement include developing a popular and effective answer to the White House propaganda machine. Bush and the Pentagon are working non-stop to demonize the victims of their planned attack, while creating a credible pretext for war.

Working people in the United States, and especially the youth, must be able to learn the real causes for the coming conflict and learn how to respond to the Pentagon's lies. Otherwise people will be susceptible to the pro-war hype and frenzy that are being cynically generated to prepare public opinion for war.

The main argument used by the White House to scare up support for an invasion is that "Saddam Hussein must be prevented from acquiring or developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons--a.k.a. weapons of mass destruction."

The White House has focused on this bogus argument because it has no other. Every effort was made to connect Iraq to the Sept. 11 attack and later to the anthrax attacks in the autumn of 2001.

But there was no evidence of a connection, so Bush simply broadened the scope of the "war on terrorism" by proclaiming that Iraq, Iran, north Korea and other "evil" countries would be considered terrorist and subject to preemptive military attacks.

What made them terrorists? Bush said they were "trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Iraq certainly did possess and use chemical weapons in the 1980s. Both Iraq and Iran used such weapons against each other in that brutal and reactionary war. But these weapons were not "frightening" to the U.S. at the time of their use.

Donald Rumsfeld, the current secretary of defense, was meeting in Baghdad with Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders in December 1983 and March 1984, and improving U.S.-Iraqi relations on behalf of the Reagan administration when the allegations concerning chemical weapons surfaced. But this was when the U.S. was encouraging Iraq's war effort as part of a strategy to weaken and exhaust the Iranian Revolution.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq did not use chemical or non-conventional weapons, but the U.S. did. It dropped tons of depleted uranium weapons all over Iraq.

It is important to deconstruct the piece of propaganda regarding "weapons of mass destruction." It is the only pretext available to the war-makers and it needs to be answered effectively.

The facts are very crucial to understanding the duplicity of U.S. strategy. The U.S. is employing a classic Catch-22 public relations technique aimed at demonizing Iraq before an uninformed and unsuspecting public.

BACKGROUND TO OPERATION DESERT FOX

Iraq agreed in 1991 to let in UN weapons inspectors--a condition imposed by the United States at the end of the Gulf War. The U.S. insisted that economic sanctions would be lifted only after inspectors verified that Iraq was free from non-conventional weapons.

But for the last four years it has been the U.S. government that has worked hard at manipulating the UN so that there would be no inspectors in Iraq, thus eliminating any chance of ending sanctions.

After the U.S.-dominated team carried out 9,000 inspections over nearly eight years, Iraq demanded in 1998 that the UN/U.S. economic sanctions be ended. Most governments in the UN favored lifting sanctions.

The demand to end the sanctions was gaining irresistible momentum.

This prompted the Clinton administration to withdraw the weapons inspectors on Dec. 12, 1998, on the pretext that Iraq was not "fully cooperating," creating the impression that Iraq was leading inspectors on some wild goose chase or blocking their path.

Clinton argued that the U.S. had no choice but to bomb Iraq because it was blocking meaningful inspections.

In fact, the United Nations Special Commission--UNSCOM--cited only five "obstructions" to the 423 inspections conducted between Nov. 18-Dec.12, 1998. One was a 45-minute delay before allowing access. Another was Iraq's rebuff to a demand by a U.S. inspector that she be able to interview all the undergraduate students in Baghdad University's Science Department.

Two other cases of Iraq's alleged non-compliance had to do with UNSCOM's request to inspect two establishments on Friday--the Muslim holy day. Since the establishments were closed, Iraq asserted that the inspections must be held another day or that an Iraqi official would accompany the inspectors--in accordance with an agreement between UNSCOM and Iraq regarding Friday inspections.

Less than 48 hours after the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq, the Pentagon began the massive bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox on Dec. 16-19, 1998. U.S. and British warplanes dropped more than 1,000 missiles and bombs on the country during those four days.

Two weeks after Operation Desert Fox, U.S. officials publicly admitted the weapons inspectors were intelligence agents who provided Pentagon bombing planners with bombing coordinates. (New York Times, Jan. 7, 1999)

Predictably--and justifiably--the Iraqi government announced that it would no longer cooperate with the UN weapons inspections.

Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Richard Cheney now routinely bellow that Iraq has denied weapons inspectors access to the country for four years; Iraq is intransigent and defiant of UN resolutions.

And thus, the U.S. has cynically crafted the chief rationale for the coming invasion.

IRAQI DIPLOMACY REBUFFED AGAIN

Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. reveal the depth of their cynicism and duplicity as they work overtime now to make it nearly impossible for weapons inspectors to return to Iraq. That would slow down the invasion plan--their biggest fear of all.

On Aug. 1, the day the Senate hearings concluded, Iraq's foreign minister released a letter sent to UN General Secretary Kofi Annan announcing that Iraq was ready to resume discussions about the possible re-admission of UN weapons inspectors. Given the experience of the past, however, when so-called inspectors were actually gathering coordinates for cruise missile attacks, Iraq wanted discussions first to set terms.

Iraq also offered to allow a delegation of U.S. congressional representatives, accompanied by arms experts of their choice, to tour sites in Iraq where they suspect weapons of mass destruction are hidden.

Far from defusing the U.S. war drive, however, the Bush administration immediately dismissed the Iraqi invitation to discuss the return of the weapons inspectors or the invitation to an arms control delegation from Congress. Colin Powell, secretary of state, and frequently portrayed as less hawkish than the other Bushies, made it clear that the U.S. wouldn't take "yes" for an answer from Iraq.

"Inspection is not the issue, disarmament is ... we have seen the Iraqis fiddle with the inspection system before," Powell said dismissively while stopping over in the Philippines. (The Observer, Aug. 4)

Another official, John Bolton, U.S. under-secretary for arms control, was even more blunt: "Our policy ... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not." (British Radio 4 Today show, Aug. 4)

WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS?

If the production of weapons of mass destruction is the criteria to affix the terrorist label, then clearly George W. Bush presides over the biggest terrorist enterprise now or at any time in world history.

The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal--more than 6,000 nuclear missiles and bombs. It has spent $4 trillion on nuclear weapons since 1945. When it had a monopoly on these weapons it did not hesitate to use them against civilian centers--up to 200,000 civilians were instantly incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Bush is spending hundreds of billions on militarizing outer space. The recently-released Pentagon military doctrine includes a declaration of its right to first use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, north Korea, Iran, China and Russia. The U.S. has Trident submarines and U.S. aircraft carriers carrying nuclear weapons 24 hours a day as the imperial fleet roams the seven seas.

The U.S. government used chemical weapons in Vietnam, spraying Agent Orange over vast parts of that country. Thousands of U.S. GIs and an unknown number of Vietnamese people died, or live difficult and painful lives from the after-effects.

Today, the U.S. government manufactures chemical and biological weapons, a fact that was routinely denied and only admitted after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

And the U.S. government--led by both Democrats and Republicans--has knowingly and deliberately killed more than 1 million Iraqi civilians through the quieter, less dramatic weapon known as economic sanctions. This weapon that has killed 5,000 children every month for 12 years must be regarded as a weapon of mass destruction.

It's time for anti-war activists to begin going to U.S. military bases and demanding to see if they have weapons of mass destruction on their premises, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and depleted uranium.

GET INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ BEFORE IT STARTS!

1) October 26, 2002: Internationally Coordinated Day of Mass Actions. On this day, protests will take place around the U.S. and internationally. Organize an action in your city or town! Email [email protected] to add your group's endorsement and/or to let us know about an action taking place in your city.

2) January 18, 2003: Save the date for a National March on the White House in Washington DC

3) Make a donation to help stop the war. Tax-deductible donations can be made online at http://www.internationalanswer.org/donate.html

FOR MORE INFORMATION

[email protected]

New York: 212-633-6646

Washington DC: 202-332-5757

Chicago: 773-878-0166

Los Angeles: 213-487-2368

San Francisco: 415-821-6545

International A.N.S.W.E.R.

Act Now to Stop War & End Racism

http://www.internationalanswer.org

*To subscribe directly to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s email list (low volume), email [email protected] with "subscribe" in your subject line*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by djxeno

WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS?

If the production of weapons of mass destruction is the criteria to affix the terrorist label, then clearly George W. Bush presides over the biggest terrorist enterprise now or at any time in world history.

The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal--more than 6,000 nuclear missiles and bombs. It has spent $4 trillion on nuclear weapons since 1945. When it had a monopoly on these weapons it did not hesitate to use them against civilian centers--up to 200,000 civilians were instantly incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Bush is spending hundreds of billions on militarizing outer space. The recently-released Pentagon military doctrine includes a declaration of its right to first use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, north Korea, Iran, China and Russia. The U.S. has Trident submarines and U.S. aircraft carriers carrying nuclear weapons 24 hours a day as the imperial fleet roams the seven seas.

The U.S. government used chemical weapons in Vietnam, spraying Agent Orange over vast parts of that country. Thousands of U.S. GIs and an unknown number of Vietnamese people died, or live difficult and painful lives from the after-effects.

Today, the U.S. government manufactures chemical and biological weapons, a fact that was routinely denied and only admitted after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

And the U.S. government--led by both Democrats and Republicans--has knowingly and deliberately killed more than 1 million Iraqi civilians through the quieter, less dramatic weapon known as economic sanctions. This weapon that has killed 5,000 children every month for 12 years must be regarded as a weapon of mass destruction.

It's time for anti-war activists to begin going to U.S. military bases and demanding to see if they have weapons of mass destruction on their premises, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and depleted uranium.

RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH

1-Do you know how many of innocent AMERICAN lives would have been lost if the bombing of hiroshima didn't happen. Japan bombed us and we were wrong by defending our selves.

2- Agent orange was sprayed to kill the thick jungles that OUR enemies were using to hide and attack our troops.

3-The economic sanctions were placed by thE U.N and were not lifted becauses he violated the resolutions 16 to be exact. He is the cause of his peoples hardships not the U.N. Iraq sends 700,000 barrels of oil to the U.S do you know what he did withthe money he built 50 palaces with bunkers....

4-It's time for the anti war tree hugging liberal hippies to stop crying conspiracy and get behind our gov't because it ain't the sixties and were not in Kansas any more jack....

Oh depleted uranium is useless... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by bigmahs

Originally posted by djxeno

WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS?

If the production of weapons of mass destruction is the criteria to affix the terrorist label, then clearly George W. Bush presides over the biggest terrorist enterprise now or at any time in world history.

The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal--more than 6,000 nuclear missiles and bombs. It has spent $4 trillion on nuclear weapons since 1945. When it had a monopoly on these weapons it did not hesitate to use them against civilian centers--up to 200,000 civilians were instantly incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Bush is spending hundreds of billions on militarizing outer space. The recently-released Pentagon military doctrine includes a declaration of its right to first use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, north Korea, Iran, China and Russia. The U.S. has Trident submarines and U.S. aircraft carriers carrying nuclear weapons 24 hours a day as the imperial fleet roams the seven seas.

The U.S. government used chemical weapons in Vietnam, spraying Agent Orange over vast parts of that country. Thousands of U.S. GIs and an unknown number of Vietnamese people died, or live difficult and painful lives from the after-effects.

Today, the U.S. government manufactures chemical and biological weapons, a fact that was routinely denied and only admitted after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

And the U.S. government--led by both Democrats and Republicans--has knowingly and deliberately killed more than 1 million Iraqi civilians through the quieter, less dramatic weapon known as economic sanctions. This weapon that has killed 5,000 children every month for 12 years must be regarded as a weapon of mass destruction.

It's time for anti-war activists to begin going to U.S. military bases and demanding to see if they have weapons of mass destruction on their premises, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and depleted uranium.

RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH-RUBBISH

1-Do you know how many of innocent AMERICAN lives would have been lost if the bombing of hiroshima didn't happen. Japan bombed us and we were wrong by defending our selves.

2- Agent orange was sprayed to kill the thick jungles that OUR enemies were using to hide and attack our troops.

3-The economic sanctions were placed by thE U.N and were not lifted becauses he violated the resolutions 16 to be exact. He is the cause of his peoples hardships not the U.N. Iraq sends 700,000 barrels of oil to the U.S do you know what he did withthe money he built 50 palaces with bunkers....

4-It's time for the anti war tree hugging liberal hippies to stop crying conspiracy and get behind our gov't because it ain't the sixties and were not in Kansas any more jack....

Oh depleted uranium is useless... :)

4. what the hell does its not the sixties mean? so because its not the sixties people shouldnt excercise their rights to oppose war and freedom of speech? theres absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about protesting, but then again the national guard executed many students protesting on campuses(kent state university for example) so i dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly...It aint the 60's...The threat against this country is very real.....I dont think that terrorists were on everybody's mind then....And all the activists and liberals do have a right to free speech and all....Lets just remember something....They are not the one's who have defended that right....They arent the one's who have died for it.....Christ, they dont even support the people that allow that right to exist.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by t0nythelover

4. what the hell does its not the sixties mean? so because its not the sixties people shouldnt excercise their rights to oppose war and freedom of speech? theres absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about protesting, but then again the national guard executed many students protesting on campuses(kent state university for example) so i dunno.

Tony,

With the Vietnam war I can understand protest beleive me but it's not the sixties. Tony do you even know what you are protesting? Do you feel that you must speak out against the gov't just to speak out. The gov't is looking to protect please get past the "I must fight for free speech" because you have it and our troops are fighting to protect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by t0nythelover

4. what the hell does its not the sixties mean? so because its not the sixties people shouldnt excercise their rights to oppose war and freedom of speech? theres absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about protesting, but then again the national guard executed many students protesting on campuses(kent state university for example) so i dunno.

will it take the detonation of a nuclear weapon on us soil for u to support a war? iraq may not be the most immediate threat to us, but they are still a major threat (personally i think we should go after somalia and put pressue on saudi arabia up clean up its act). let's see:

-he's gassed his own people,

-tried to assassinate a us president,

-violated un resolutions

-he's supported terrorism,

-he's fired scud missiles at his neighbors threatening to destabilize the mid-east, and is starving the people of iraq, yes it's HIS fault, not the fault of the un.

-his chief nuclear scientist that defected to the us has said that saddam is close to developing three nuclear weapons.

-he's inflating the price of oil by place illegal taxes on it and with that money he's building up his military, instead of feeding the people.

do u really think he wouldnt provide nuclear material to terrorists? any lives that would be lost in a war with iraq pales in comparison to the deaths he's responsible for in iraq or the massive loss of life if he put nuclear material in the hands of terrorist.

hey u know what. when u see the mushroom cloud, it's too late!!! mushroom.gif

and this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. value ur free speech, b/c in iraq people dont have that. but you seem to think every time someone has a different opinion than you they are trying to stifle your free speech. no one is telling u to shut up. they're just disagreeing with u.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by asianvixen

will it take the detonation of a nuclear weapon on us soil for u to support a war? iraq may not be the most immediate threat to us, but they are still a major threat (personally i think we should go after somalia and put pressue on saudi arabia up clean up its act). let's see:

-he's gassed his own people,

-tried to assassinate a us president,

-violated un resolutions

-he's supported terrorism,

-he's fired scud missiles at his neighbors threatening to destabilize the mid-east, and is starving the people of iraq, yes it's HIS fault, not the fault of the un.

-his chief nuclear scientist that defected to the us has said that saddam is close to developing three nuclear weapons.

-he's inflating the price of oil by place illegal taxes on it and with that money he's building up his military, instead of feeding the people.

do u really think he wouldnt provide nuclear material to terrorists? any lives that would be lost in a war with iraq pales in comparison to the deaths he's responsible for in iraq or the massive loss of life if he put nuclear material in the hands of terrorist.

hey u know what. when u see the mushroom cloud, it's too late!!! mushroom.gif

and this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. value ur free speech, b/c in iraq people dont have that. but you seem to think every time someone has a different opinion than you they are trying to stifle your free speech. no one is telling u to shut up. they're just disagreeing with u.

let's see here.....israel has violated THIRTY UN violations for a number of years and no one raised their voices...Iraq violated SIXTEEN.

The US has supported terrorism, by funding groups in Central America and Asia for years. Of course, they will never directly come out and say this...:rolleyes:

Don't have time to really finish getting into this...I am not saying that Saddam should be kept in power...not at all...but a war from the US to take care of this? I don't think so...even as we speak, Iraq has said ok for the UN to send in inspectors, but you still see that old bastard Rumsfeld pushing for a war..EVEN though Bush said previously it was either war or UN inspections for Iraq to choose from. Now that Iraq has done so, the US is still not satisfied...

There is something clearly wrong with this picture...only one thing comes to mind right now...actually two...OIL and REELECTIONS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by asianvixen

will it take the detonation of a nuclear weapon on us soil for u to support a war? iraq may not be the most immediate threat to us, but they are still a major threat (personally i think we should go after somalia and put pressue on saudi arabia up clean up its act). let's see:

-he's gassed his own people,

-tried to assassinate a us president,

-violated un resolutions

-he's supported terrorism,

-he's fired scud missiles at his neighbors threatening to destabilize the mid-east, and is starving the people of iraq, yes it's HIS fault, not the fault of the un.

-his chief nuclear scientist that defected to the us has said that saddam is close to developing three nuclear weapons.

-he's inflating the price of oil by place illegal taxes on it and with that money he's building up his military, instead of feeding the people.

do u really think he wouldnt provide nuclear material to terrorists? any lives that would be lost in a war with iraq pales in comparison to the deaths he's responsible for in iraq or the massive loss of life if he put nuclear material in the hands of terrorist.

hey u know what. when u see the mushroom cloud, it's too late!!! mushroom.gif

and this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. value ur free speech, b/c in iraq people dont have that. but you seem to think every time someone has a different opinion than you they are trying to stifle your free speech. no one is telling u to shut up. they're just disagreeing with u.

Ummm...excuse me, talking about detonating a nuclear device...which is the ONLY country on earth to have used nuclear arms against civilians. And don't give me that utter BULLSHIT of "oh we saved so many thousands of american lives by doing that"...anyone can use that pretext, even in the present day, to start a nuclear war!

Bush's agenda is oil, and revenge, plain and simple. Again, when it comes to WMD, why is it the US has the largest stockpile in the world? So far, claims that he's linked to Al Queda don't amount to much without proof! I think Saddam should go, but who the fuck is the US government to go about a regime change in another country! Thats just arrogant bullshit.

Here's a link to a BBC in-depth analysis of Iraq, its ppl and its president...a bunch of articles, very interesting and informative.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm

I'm kinda glad Saddam threw in this little twist...lets see what happens next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

Iraq has said ok for the UN to send in inspectors, but you still see that old bastard Rumsfeld pushing for a war..EVEN though Bush said previously it was either war or UN inspections for Iraq to choose from. Now that Iraq has done so, the US is still not satisfied...

There is something clearly wrong with this picture...only one thing comes to mind right now...actually two...OIL and REELECTIONS.

the un has a whopping grand total of 16 nuclear inspectors. i'm sure u realize how big iraq is. inspections mean nothing given the limited resources the inspectors have and the fact that saddam has had 4 years to improve it's ability to develop and HIDE those weapons. inspectors arent even allowed to receive any intelligence from ANY country in order to preserve their neutrality. you have a better chance of finding a needle in a haystack. in any case, iraq's "offer" to allow inspectors to come back in was meaningless? inspectors can only inspect MILITARY sites. now, that leaves about 95% of the country where Saddam can hide his weapons. that's really helpful to us huh?

reelections and oil????? were u saying the same thing when clinton was threatening iraq in 1998?? be consistent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by asianvixen

the un has a whopping grand total of 16 nuclear inspectors. i'm sure u realize how big iraq is. inspections mean nothing given the limited resources the inspectors have and the fact that saddam has had 4 years to improve it's ability to develop and HIDE those weapons. inspectors arent even allowed to receive any intelligence from ANY country in order to preserve their neutrality. you have a better chance of finding a needle in a haystack. in any case, iraq's "offer" to allow inspectors to come back in was meaningless? inspectors can only inspect MILITARY sites. now, that leaves about 95% of the country where Saddam can hide his weapons. that's really helpful to us huh?

reelections and oil????? were u saying the same thing when clinton was threatening iraq in 1998?? be consistent!

uh....i didn't post here in 1998.... :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by raver_mania

Ummm...excuse me, talking about detonating a nuclear device...which is the ONLY country on earth to have used nuclear arms against civilians. And don't give me that utter BULLSHIT of "oh we saved so many thousands of american lives by doing that"...anyone can use that pretext, even in the present day, to start a nuclear war!

damn right it was the right thing to do to drop atomic bombs on japan in world war ii. it ended a war that could have gone on for years. any country that would threaten to nuke us, north korea, china etc. has to live with the consequences if they did--total annihilation. guess what? terrorists dont care.

Originally posted by raver_mania

I think Saddam should go, but who the fuck is the US government to go about a regime change in another country! Thats just arrogant bullshit.

so were u saying the same thing when we (us-led nato forces) booted milosevic from yugoslavia?

Originally posted by raver_mania

Again, when it comes to WMD, why is it the US has the largest stockpile in the world?

it's called the COLD WAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by asianvixen

damn right it was the right thing to do to drop atomic bombs on japan in world war ii. it ended a war that could have gone on for years. any country that would threaten to nuke us, north korea, china etc. has to live with the consequences if they did--total annihilation. guess what? terrorists dont care.

You ppl crack me up...on one hand you're screaming "WMD" "nukes", and the next second you turn around and condone the use of nukes as long as its by the USA. And who told you the war "could" have gone on for years...how do you know?

And was it really necessary to bomb two CITIES to show the effect of nuclear weapons? Don't be so hypocritical...

so were u saying the same thing when we (us-led nato forces) booted milosevic from yugoslavia?

Ummm...Yugoslavia was not unilateral action taken by the US...a 'regime change" wanted ONLY by the US is considered unilateral action. And Britain is nothing but a US puppet rightn now...it does not form a "coalition".

it's called the COLD WAR.

Whats your point? The fact is the US still has the largest stockpile of WMDs...and who knows if they've really stopped manufacturing them...its not like there are weapons inspectors here!

The US has a great history of fucking up majorly when it comes to foreign affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by raver_mania

You ppl crack me up...on one hand you're screaming "WMD" "nukes", and the next second you turn around and condone the use of nukes as long as its by the USA. And who told you the war "could" have gone on for years...how do you know?

And was it really necessary to bomb two CITIES to show the effect of nuclear weapons? Don't be so hypocritical...

Listen, pick up a history book and do your research or do you think the the text books are a conspiracy too. The United States lost over 200k men in WWII. Before the dropping of the bomb the generals were contemplating invading japan from the North and South that would have cost us another 200k + lives. They weren't any smart bombs then all combat hand to hand that's why we nuked and we warned them to surrender and they didn't so they got nuked again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by bigmahs

Originally posted by raver_mania

You ppl crack me up...on one hand you're screaming "WMD" "nukes", and the next second you turn around and condone the use of nukes as long as its by the USA. And who told you the war "could" have gone on for years...how do you know?

And was it really necessary to bomb two CITIES to show the effect of nuclear weapons? Don't be so hypocritical...

Listen, pick up a history book and do your research or do you think the the text books are a conspiracy too. The United States lost over 200k men in WWII. Before the dropping of the bomb the generals were contemplating invading japan from the North and South that would have cost us another 200k + lives. They weren't any smart bombs then all combat hand to hand that's why we nuked and we warned them to surrender and they didn't so they got nuked again.

That's cute.

Stepping aside from the propoganda issue for a second. In WWII, the US did indeed suffer almost 300,000 casualties. For your information, that number puts our body count, both military and civilian, slightly under Hungary. Well, better yet, here's an overview...

Country Military Civilian

Japan 1.700.000 360.000

USSR 13.600.000 7.700.000

Romania 200.000 465.000

France 250.000 360.000

Hungary 120.000 280.000

UK 452.000 60.000

China 3.500.000 10.000.000

Poland 120.000 5.300.000

Yugoslavia 300.000 1.300.000

Czech. 20.000 330.000

Austria 230.000 80.000

Germany 3.250.000 3.810.000

Italy 330.000 85.000

USA 295.000 0

You'll notice that US suffered considerably less casualties then many other countries. So let's not begin using the numbers as a point, because it doesn't help you. Well, better to save US lives, right? Then consider this: the US purposely dropped the Atom bomb on a civilian target without ANY previous attempt at striking a military target. And if you somehow don't realize this by now, Hiroshima was A HEAVILY POPULATED URBAN civilian target. I'd like to from hear every single one of you who is defending the usage of the atom bomb EXACTLY HOW the final decision made by Truman is any, ANY less than the murder of civilians.

History's been made, true enough. Action's been taken, true enough. But don't even think about justifying Hiroshima for your purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by xpander

That's cute.

Stepping aside from the propoganda issue for a second. In WWII, the US did indeed suffer almost 300,000 casualties. For your information, that number puts our body count, both military and civilian, slightly under Hungary. Well, better yet, here's an overview...

Country Military Civilian

Japan 1.700.000 360.000

USSR 13.600.000 7.700.000

Romania 200.000 465.000

France 250.000 360.000

Hungary 120.000 280.000

UK 452.000 60.000

China 3.500.000 10.000.000

Poland 120.000 5.300.000

Yugoslavia 300.000 1.300.000

Czech. 20.000 330.000

Austria 230.000 80.000

Germany 3.250.000 3.810.000

Italy 330.000 85.000

USA 295.000 0

You'll notice that US suffered considerably less casualties then many other countries. So let's not begin using the numbers as a point, because it doesn't help you. Well, better to save US lives, right? Then consider this: the US purposely dropped the Atom bomb on a civilian target without ANY previous attempt at striking a military target. And if you somehow don't realize this by now, Hiroshima was A HEAVILY POPULATED URBAN civilian target. I'd like to from hear every single one of you who is defending the usage of the atom bomb EXACTLY HOW the final decision made by Truman is any, ANY less than the murder of civilians.

History's been made, true enough. Action's been taken, true enough. But don't even think about justifying Hiroshima for your purposes.

bravo.... :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by xpander

History's been made, true enough. Action's been taken, true enough. But don't even think about justifying Hiroshima for your purposes.

But Who started it... Who supported it? Hmm? It's great how you take away the responsibility of the Agressors thier asses would have never been bombed if they had LEFT EVERY ONE ELSE THE FUCK ALONE!!!

those 10 million chinese civilian casualties were because the japanese tied them to trees and used them for bayonet practice and other horrible crimes... They started a war of Genocide and Hate Thier people were too morally Weak to stand up to the Gov't or they supported it...

You don't put a knife to the throat of freedom and realize when you're gonna lose expect mercy from your victims.

they took a risk and paid the price... Thats what war is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there is more hate for this country than any other place in world....I honestly do feel so....Just seeing some of the responses on this board has led me to believe this.....Evil America....Poor victims...Give me a damn break.....Alot of the wars and conflicts that America has been involved in have been started by the other country.....Then people say America shouldnt but into some other countries business....Fuck that...They bitch at America cause it doesnt donate enough money to fight AIDS in Africa......Let me guess what some will say....It has a global impact....You're right it does....Just as the war on terrorism or any other shit we might get involved in.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by siceone

But Who started it... Who supported it? Hmm? It's great how you take away the responsibility of the Agressors thier asses would have never been bombed if they had LEFT EVERY ONE ELSE THE FUCK ALONE!!!

those 10 million chinese civilian casualties were because the japanese tied them to trees and used them for bayonet practice and other horrible crimes... They started a war of Genocide and Hate Thier people were too morally Weak to stand up to the Gov't or they supported it...

You don't put a knife to the throat of freedom and realize when you're gonna lose expect mercy from your victims.

they took a risk and paid the price... Thats what war is...

Nobody is excusing the aggressors here. I think you should re-read what I wrote. And I can reassure you I know exactly what the Japanese did to the Chinese. In fact, I'm pretty familiar with what they did to the Chinese people THROUGHOUT history. But I'd like to point out to you that I did not ONCE mention of who bears the responsibility for starting the war.

Let me ask you. War being what it is, why wasn't the atom bomb targetted at a military base? A Japanese warship? A single Japanese soldier? Do you have a justification for why a city full of civilians were nuked as opposed to a battle fleet?

Those of you who have a said justification, feel free to provide it. And next time, I'll be glad to point back to it and provide a justification for you when a terrorist attack the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by nycmuzik2000

I think that there is more hate for this country than any other place in world....I honestly do feel so....Just seeing some of the responses on this board has led me to believe this.....Evil America....Poor victims...Give me a damn break.....Alot of the wars and conflicts that America has been involved in have been started by the other country.....Then people say America shouldnt but into some other countries business....Fuck that...They bitch at America cause it doesnt donate enough money to fight AIDS in Africa......Let me guess what some will say....It has a global impact....You're right it does....Just as the war on terrorism or any other shit we might get involved in.....

With US consistently positioned as the major superpower in the world today, it's not surprising that a lot of people dislikes the US. The US committed to its share of questionable actions. Do you suggest that the US should not be criticized?

Anyways, you consider it hate...but the fact is, there're people who criticize the US, there're people who love the US, and in many cases they're not mutually exclusive. Just because one side is more vocal doesn't mean the other side doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×