What would be the worse thing to happen if the US lost the war on terrorism?

Started by docb7715 pages
Originally posted by Alliance
Evil is a point of view.

BS, evil is real. Unless you think that rapists and murderers are just misunderstood.

Originally posted by Alliance
Oh...as oppsed to the US which invades entire nations. The Trade center was also selected as a symbol of American dominance over the world.

Generally after we've been provoked somehow. Symbol my foot! They picked their targets to inflict damage - economic, inspire fear, and kill as many people as they could.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes. Thats why we carpet bombed?

Are you talking about vietman now? Innocent people shouldn't be hiding in the Jungle with the military now should they?

Originally posted by Alliance
Oh and and tourture, illegal imprisonment, sodomy, desecrations, and cold blooded killing don't compare?

Alleged. What proven case of sodomy or desecrations do you have? I haven't heard of any "cold-blooded" killings either. The allegations I have heard have some men snapping and going on a spree (that wouldn't be cold blood in case you didn't catch it)

Originally posted by docb77
Are you talking about vietman now? Innocent people shouldn't be hiding in the Jungle with the military now should they?
No they were evil horrible women and children. They were going to come after you and rake at your fighter planes with their pitchforks.

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats called torture under international law. Maybe I should sodomize you and see how you like it.

You could try... You'd end up dead, but you could try. Since when does international law classify keeping someone up at night torture? And how does that compare to real torture like beatings and acid burns, dunkings. No, if your going to classify sleep deprivation and letting the AC go too long as torture you still have to say that they do worse things.

Originally posted by Alliance
And RIGHTS? is that why the Senate is trying to pass an amendment banning flag burning? please. the US doenst give a ****about terrorists.

I agree that rights in the US have been degraded somewhat over the years, but we're still freer than a lot of places. We can still own guns, still speak out against the govt., still belong to whatever church we wish. Believe it or not we do have rights. And if the terrorists didn't have rights then why haven't we really tortured them? Why are any of the gitmo prisoners ever released? Why don't they just put down any of the little uprisings like happened a few weeks ago with lead? Answer, the prisoners have recognized rights. (Now whether or not the administration likes that is another topic.)

Originally posted by Alliance
Oh...wait...what did we do to Iraw and Afghanistan...Iran...North Korea...Somalia....

Hmm... last I checked those were still on the map. The people who lived there before still do. And somalia? If we did anything wrong there it was leaving before the job was done.

Originally posted by docb77
We can still own guns.
Yes, freedom is determined by the number of semiautomatic weapons you're allowed to own. Go freedom!

Originally posted by Alliance
If by "free" you mean possible killed 100,000 civilians in the "war on terror"

Just wondering where your getting your facts here. Also, how many people in Iraq and Afghanistan no longer have to put up with people who would as soon kill them as look at them anymore?

Originally posted by Alliance
Appaernetly he's not the only one who needs to brush up on his facts. Look into what caused all this extremism to rise in the Midldle East. You might find that the US is linked to it. ANd review the US's current policies while you're at it.

Like I've said before, the terrorists are responsible for their own actions no matter who horrible their childhood was.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No they were evil horrible women and children. They were going to come after you and rake at your fighter planes with their pitchforks.

Actually they were VC fighters. And Napalm was one of the few ways to get at them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes, freedom is determined by the number of semiautomatic weapons you're allowed to own. Go freedom!

You jest, but in some cases that may turn out to be true.

Originally posted by docb77
Actually they were VC fighters. And Napalm was one of the few ways to get at them.
You jest, but in some cases that may turn out to be true.
There were approximately 2 million+ civilian casualties in the Vietnam war. Many deaths classified as 'enemy' and not civilian were done so solely because they were present in the free fire zone. It's not the first time unnecessary civilian casualties have been inflicted either.

Originally posted by docb77
BS, evil is real. Unless you think that rapists and murderers are just misunderstood.

Maybe they're wrong...but the only real evil si done in ignorance.
Originally posted by docb77
Generally after we've been provoked somehow. Symbol my foot! They picked their targets to inflict damage - economic, inspire fear, and kill as many people as they could.

Oh please...did Iraq provoke us. BIG FAT NO! Adn yes...its called symbolism. The first thing you mentioned was economic damage...hmmmwas that not what I mentioned. If they really wanted to inflict maximum damage...why not go for the Sears Tower. Tis bigger, more recognizable, would cause greater damage to surrounding community...why...It doesnt have the symbolic importance of being the symbolic icon of American econimic power.
Originally posted by docb77
Are you talking about vietman now? Innocent people shouldn't be hiding in the Jungle with the military now should they?

No I'm talking about Afghanistan. And besides civilians hav eno chicae where the military goes. The US couldnt even figure you who they were effing fighting.
Originally posted by docb77
Alleged. What proven case of sodomy or desecrations do you have? I haven't heard of any "cold-blooded" killings either. The allegations I have heard have some men snapping and going on a spree (that wouldn't be cold blood in case you didn't catch it)

Have you seen the photos fro Abu Ghareb? ANd its still cold blooded killing...but thin agian...I'd snap too if my goevernment couldn't even plate my vehicle or give me the lowest protection (2-piece) body armor kit available.

Originally posted by docb77
You could try... You'd end up dead, but you could try.

You're a real twisted ****
Originally posted by docb77
Since when does international law classify keeping someone up at night torture? And how does that compare to real torture like beatings and acid burns, dunkings. No, if your going to classify sleep deprivation and letting the AC go too long as torture you still have to say that they do worse things.

It IS classified as torture under international law. I don't consider Abu Gharib, Hadita, and others to be "better" than what the insergency does.
Originally posted by docb77
I agree that rights in the US have been degraded somewhat over the years, but we're still freer than a lot of places. We can still own guns, still speak out against the govt., still belong to whatever church we wish. Believe it or not we do have rights. And if the terrorists didn't have rights then why haven't we really tortured them? Why are any of the gitmo prisoners ever released? Why don't they just put down any of the little uprisings like happened a few weeks ago with lead? Answer, the prisoners have recognized rights. (Now whether or not the administration likes that is another topic.)

BS...if you think rightes are bearing arms and being religous you got issues. What abou tthe treatment of homosexuals...hate crimes...hmmm? Why does the US break its own laws at Gitmo. Flushing Qurans down the toilet come on. Secret CIA prisions across Europe. Read a little.[/B][/QUOTE] Hmm... last I checked those were still on the map. The people who lived there before still do. And somalia? If we did anything wrong there it was leaving before the job was done. [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah they're there...the peopel wh olive there are the ones who weren't massacred. There was no job...were a nation...not the UN.

Originally posted by docb77
Actually they were VC fighters. And Napalm was one of the few ways to get at them.
You jest, but in some cases that may turn out to be true.

Oh please. Half the time we were fighting the SOuth Vietnamese that hated their government and the US just as much. Yeah...those peasants with stones were a real threat...Lets just napalm the landscape.

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe they're wrong...but the only real evil si done in ignorance.

Oh please...did Iraq provoke us. BIG FAT NO! Adn yes...its called symbolism. The first thing you mentioned was economic damage...hmmmwas that not what I mentioned. If they really wanted to inflict maximum damage...why not go for the Sears Tower. Tis bigger, more recognizable, would cause greater damage to surrounding community...why...It doesnt have the symbolic importance of being the symbolic icon of American econimic power.

No I'm talking about Afghanistan. And besides civilians hav eno chicae where the military goes. The US couldnt even figure you who they were effing fighting.

Have you seen the photos fro Abu Ghareb? ANd its still cold blooded killing...but thin agian...I'd snap too if my goevernment couldn't even plate my vehicle or give me the lowest protection (2-piece) body armor kit available.

Oh, I think that evil can be done intentionally, but the worst evil is believing you're doing good when you hack someone to pieces.

Yes, Iraq did provoke us. They invaded Kuwait and then through out the cease-fire, Saddam basically stuck his tongue out and said I dare you. If he'd just showed that he'd ended his weapons program the invasion never would have happened.

It's true that civilians die in any war. The thing isn't that the US doesn't end up killing civilians, it's that they don't target them. They do their best to save civilian lives with the technology they have.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't people punished for Abu Grhaib? And what I've heard amounts more to sexual harrassment than rape. Agreed about the armor though. Add to that that these guys apparently saw one of their buddies get blown apart and well, If they did it they should still be held responsible, but it wasn't cold-blood. That would be the very definition of hot-blood.

Originally posted by docb77
It's true that civilians die in any war. The thing isn't that the US doesn't end up killing civilians, it's that they don't target them. They do their best to save civilian lives with the technology they have.
Nagasaki
Hiroshima

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Nagasaki
Hiroshima

Thanks for pointing out the exception that proves the rule. Nobody wanted to use the A-bombs. The people who made them were extremely reluctant (no, the government didn't coerce them into it), they did it because they saw how the war was going and knew that if something didn't change it would keep happening for quite a while. Read a Truman biography. The decision to drop the bomb was the hardest decision he ever made.

Originally posted by docb77
Thanks for pointing out the exception that proves the rule. Nobody wanted to use the A-bombs. The people who made them were extremely reluctant (no, the government didn't coerce them into it), they did it because they saw how the war was going and knew that if something didn't change it would keep happening for quite a while. Read a Truman biography. The decision to drop the bomb was the hardest decision he ever made.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Many commentators have stated that the bombing [b]of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wholly unnecessary, including many of Truman's political and military contemporaries.

The death resulting from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was not confined to the day they were dropped. Many times more than the initial 100,000 or so killed due to the blasts, were killed as a result of the radioactivity of the bombs.
(237,062 cum. total according to the city of Hiroshima. 270,000 hibakusha, "bomb affected people," still living in Japan.)

A major reason for Imperial Japan's hesitancy to surrender was that the terms of surrender being offered may have meant the forfeit of their Emperor. After the bombings they were allowed to keep their Emperor anyway.

Dwight Eisenhower
"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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'."
"the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Admiral William D. Leahy
Chief of Staff in Roosevelt and Truman Administrations.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Herbert Hoover
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

May 28, 1945, to President Truman:
"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

William Manchester
Biographer to Gen. MacArthur.
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

Norman Cousins
Consultant to Gen. MacArthur during occupation of Japan.
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Albert Einstein
“I made one mistake in my life when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the atomic bomb should be built."
(Little known fact, Albert Einstein sent a second letter to Roosevelt warning of the destruction that would result if the bomb was ever used, March 25, 1945. Roosevelt died the following month having never read the letter.)
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." (New York Times)

Leo Szilard
Manhattan Project
"In the spring of '45 it was clear that the war against Germany would soon end, and so I began to ask myself, 'What is the purpose of continuing the development of the bomb, and how would the bomb be used if the war with Japan has not ended by the time we have the first bombs?"
May 28, 1945, Szilard attempted to meet with Truman, but instead ended up talking to John Byrnes, he told him that the atomic bomb should not be used on Japan.
"Byrnes... was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Romania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia." Szilard could see that he wasn't getting though to Byrnes; "I was concerned at this point that by demonstrating the bomb and using it in the war against Japan, we might start an atomic arms race between America and Russia which might end with the destruction of both countries.".

Those who defend President Truman's action concede that this was the deliberate targeting of civilians, with the implicit political goal of having the Empire of Japan surrender. Now by it's definition isn't the targeting of civilians in order to achieve a political goal an act of terrorism?

Though I personally don't believe it was necessary or justified, whether it was justified or not is a moot point. History cannot be undone. The important thing is to make sure nuclear weapons are never used again. [/B]


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Actually alot of modern historical work, such as that done over the last five to six years, shows that the civilian population of Japan was to a large extent ignorant of the state of the war, and while it is purely theoretical it is coming to be believed that if the US had invaded the entire nation wouldn't have turned against them. It is misleading propaganda of the day that it was a nation of samurai prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child.

Rather more disturbing is the fact that in the months before the bombing Japan had actually been negotiating is surrender with the main powers. However they said they would not surrender unless the Emperor could remain in power. The US flat out said no to this, the surrender had to be unconditional. However at the time of the bombings the Japanese were reasonably advanced in surrender negotiations with the USSR, who were prepared to allow the Emperor to remain in power. Then the atomic bombs were dropped a short time later, and Japan surrendered a short time later, however the US then allowed the Emperor a kind of amnesty, the very thing the Japanese wanted to begin with that could have led the way to a *peaceful* surrender.

Likewise, in the lead up to the bombings there was alot of discontent in the American leadership ranks. A number of prominent scientists joined together to protest the use of the bomb, while high ranking men like Eisenhower advocated if the bomb had to be used, it should be used on a neutral ground with low human losses, that there was no need to actually use it on a populated area, as the affect would have been sufficient regardless of where it was dropped.

Really it is hard to judge the validity of the bomb as a *last resort* when it might not have needed to be. There sufficient evidence available today that shows it could have been handled quite differently, that the bombing was more to scare Russia and the world, and as an act of revenge, rather then winning a war which level headed military experts of the day, from Gen. Douglas MacArthur to Gen. Dwight Eisenhower believed to be already basically won.

Originally posted by docb77
Oh, I think that evil can be done intentionally, but the worst evil is believing you're doing good when you hack someone to pieces.
This would be evil done in ignorance.

Originally posted by docb77
Yes, Iraq did provoke us. They invaded Kuwait and then through out the cease-fire, Saddam basically stuck his tongue out and said I dare you. If he'd just showed that he'd ended his weapons program the invasion never would have happened.

Ummm..that was Gulf War I my friend. Um he said blatantly that he had no weapons...he even let inspecors in. Before they could even report...the US invaded. Oh....and Saddam was right...He had not WMDS...he already used all the ones we gave him.

Originally posted by docb77
It's true that civilians die in any war. The thing isn't that the US doesn't end up killing civilians, it's that they don't target them. They do their best to save civilian lives with the technology they have.
Then why are we detaining civillians at Gitmo...things like Haditha are imo inexusable behavior.

Originally posted by docb77
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't people punished for Abu Grhaib? And what I've heard amounts more to sexual harrassment than rape. Agreed about the armor though. Add to that that these guys apparently saw one of their buddies get blown apart and well, If they did it they should still be held responsible, but it wasn't cold-blood. That would be the very definition of hot-blood.
A few minor players were punished... not highre up officials who knew about the incident. People get blown up in war...killing civilians is killing in cold blood. No matter who gets blown up...it doesnt justify flipping out. I'm not in the military, but I have friends who are/have been who agree with me.

Originally posted by docb77
Thanks for pointing out the exception that proves the rule. Nobody wanted to use the A-bombs. The people who made them were extremely reluctant (no, the government didn't coerce them into it), they did it because they saw how the war was going and knew that if something didn't change it would keep happening for quite a while. Read a Truman biography. The decision to drop the bomb was the hardest decision he ever made.

No it wasn't. Truman weas estatic over the possibility of the bomb. Many scientists and military leaders said that it was too dangerous and did not needed to be used. Many scientist severely regretted it and did nto know that It was actually going to be used.

Japan was on the verge of quitting and had serously considered doing so REPEATEDLY. The US knew this. Besides, even if the US did drop it...a drop over Tokyo harbor would have been just as effective. Instead they dropped it on TWO heavily populated cities. It wsa creul and the US should never forget that we are the only nation stupid enough to have actualyl dropped any sort of nuclear weapon.

I think we're shifting out of the main topic. I'll just say one thing on bombing of Japan....that there was a way for Nagasaki and Hiroshima to have been saved....The US doesn't enter WWII. Let the Axis and the Europeans handle their own wars.

well, we never declared war on Nazi Germany. After Pearl Harbor...there was no stopping us from going to war with Japan.

Originally posted by Alliance
This would be evil done in ignorance.

Ummm..that was Gulf War I my friend. Um he said blatantly that he had no weapons...he even let inspecors in. Before they could even report...the US invaded. Oh....and Saddam was right...He had not WMDS...he already used all the ones we gave him.

Then why are we detaining civillians at Gitmo...things like Haditha are imo inexusable behavior.

A few minor players were punished... not highre up officials who knew about the incident. People get blown up in war...killing civilians is killing in cold blood. No matter who gets blown up...it doesnt justify flipping out. I'm not in the military, but I have friends who are/have been who agree with me.

And this was really an extension of the gulf war, a "resumption of hostilities" if you will. As far as Saddam saying he didn't have them... He said he'd use them in the very next breath. Not to mention that caches of chemical weapons have been found - something like 400 barrels since 2003. Plenty enough to show that Saddam was a liar (or truth teller?). As far as the inspectors go, Saddam's Govt. controlled where they went and what they were able to see. There was a reason there were, what was it, 17 or so resolutions against him.

In this country we're innocent until proven guilty. There was enough evidence to convict those "minor players". Simple as that. I agree that what is alleged to have happened at Haditha is inexcusable. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't "in cold-blood" (cold-blood to me means methodical, thought out, calmly). And after an investigation appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.

I'll have to look more into the A-bomb thing.

Originally posted by docb77
That may be their justification, but not the real reason. The real reason is that they hate. They are simply evil. If reasons like those really were enough to make people go around killing then:

- Native Americans would be terrorists
- African Americans would be terrorists
- Mormons would be terrorists

Those people have at least as much of a greivance as these Islamofacists. They are still peaceful. Their nobility puts the lie to the Al Qaeda and the like.

You are right to a degree, these people want power, but we (the US) have participated in creating the environment for them to flourish. Don’t get me wrong, I do not want them to win, but when this is over (when ever), I want us (the US) to learn something. Maybe then we will not have to fight another war.