Political Crossfire Forums

[XxMorningStarxX]

MoscowMatt wrote: Gitana wrote: It is convenient to ignore a couple of facts when making the case against Iran:

Iran was already one of the most democratic & westernized countries in the ME


:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Sorry that's too hilarious for me to even begin to think of a response to that!!!!


I bet if A Iran-China coalition invaded this country (or nuked it) these people will just sit back, do nothing, and say "hey, we deserved this"

guess what they will all get shot in the head!

:rofl: :rofl:

[Gitana]

Where Iran has an advantage is that many of it's people, for the last 24 years, (and especially it's youth) wanted democracy and progress. That's a growing and inevitable tide - however long it takes; they will succeed - and all on their own, without a western power invading to 'establish' it for them. My statement was relative; ME democracy is not overnight democracy US style. But you cannot negate the direction they are (were?) headed:

http://www.alternative-online.org/Issue4.htm

http://www.films.com/id/6581/Inside_Iran.htm

I reread my post ...mea culpa, I overstated that a bit. :!oops: Sowwy, sowwy.

[Poon]

Every nation should be allowed access to nuclear power and weapons, just like every citizen should be allowed to bear arms. Mutually assured destruction is the only viable means of ensuring world peace.

[njlemire87]

fiction416 wrote: XxMorningStarxX wrote:
Your rhetorical questions (except for the last one) are completely unfair and out of context.

Not really, they are questions everyone should be asking

XxMorningStarxX wrote:

if we had not bombed Japan, Japan would have fought to the death and would no doubt have committed civilians beyond conscription age to fight in their fanatic (and unjustified) war of defense

Oh, and this is a FACT

?


XxMorningStarxX wrote: The fact is, Iran has extremely radical tendencies, and they will not hesitate to aid terrorist organizations (as they have shown to be capable of doing in the past).

So does the USA, have radical tendencies, towards the Middle East & anyone who they consider a 'threat'. That is also a fact.


XxMorningStarxX wrote: Iran has serious humn rights issues,

So does teh USA:

Racial profiling

Treatment of combatants

Etc...



XxMorningStarxX wrote: in the Iraq Iran war of 1988, Iran used masses of children in human waves, tied to ropes, to charge at the professoinal Iraqi army. How does that sound to you?


It sounds like I would like a link.


XxMorningStarxX wrote:
If Iran was in the position of the U.S. they would have completely forced the world into radical Islam already.


LOL is this another Fact of yours?

hmm.... racial profiling v. genocide.... :think:

[Golden Child]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: Your rhetorical questions (except for the last one) are completely unfair and out of context. if you're referring to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can argue about that later- most people (around the world) in allied nations, in hindsight to WWII, find the bombings justified because it would have saved millions of japanese and american lives.

if we had not bombed Japan, Japan would have fought to the death and would no doubt have committed civilians beyond conscription age to fight in their fanatic (and unjustified) war of defense.

Not true. That's what American history books want you to believe. Infact the Japanese were already readying a peace treaty.

Quote: Militarily unnecessary
Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, 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."

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[48] Major General Curtis LeMay,[49] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[50] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[51]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[52]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[52]
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"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."[53][52]
The survey assumed that continued conventional bombing attacks on Japan—with additional direct and indirect casualties—would be needed to force surrender by the November or December dates mentioned.

Many, including General MacArthur, have contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on Kyushu, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.

Source

[superskippy]

We have extensivly discussed this in the History Forum, including the benefit that the Atom Bombs had. You may want to direct your arguments there.