Originally posted by Azrael ...I just remind you of WW2 - tonns of people where folowing Hitler and BELIEVED in him though he was only abusing everybody.
And one thing is for sure - NO war is good - for no reason AT ALL. There is ALWAYS a peacefull way. I cannot understand ANYONE who says "we have to make war for i think its the best solution". are you the one who dies there?...

You have blown huge holes in your own argument here, without any need for me to explain further!

Originally posted by Azrael And? 2? 2000? where is the difference? are we now counting who has dropped more nuclear bombs to determine who is more evil? do you think bomb attacks by iraq are more cruel than bomb attacks by the US? i wish you would stand there in the aftermath and see the impact after the US drops a bomb.

Documentaton of the aftermath of those bombings is widely available as a matter of public record. You don't have to actually hit your own hand with a hammer to know that it would hurt!

Yes, a first-strike nuclear bomb attack by Saddam Hussein [u]is[/u] more cruel than the American bombing of Japan. And there is such a huge difference between America's use of these weapons as a last resort in a war that had been raging for years, and Saddam Husein's intent to use them as a first-strike offensive weapon!

Please don't bother to tell me that you believe he doesn't intend to use them as the opening move in the destruction of Israel. I recognise that you are determined to ignore facts that do not support the conclusion you have decided to reach.

Especially in light of the evidence Colin Powell presented to the UN, it becomes obvious that anyone who clings to the belief that this situation can be peacefully resolved, or that nothing needs to be done, is in such an acute state of denial as to be beyond reason. The UN in general, and France and Germany in particular, have become irrelevant. They have no credibility, no moral suasion, no gravitas, no right to claim anything but narrow self-interest.

Originally posted by Azrael You cannot say how the war would have turned out without the bombs. infact nobody - not even the inventors had an idea of the impact that a nuclear bomb has. Hiroshima and Nagasaki where EXPERIMENTS. The US was lucky to find a big ammount of uranium on a german U-Boat and so they said "lets try it" - very cool - and now you say "we only dropped 2" as if that wasnt enough.

In fact there was testing done in the Nevada desert before the "Fat Man" bomb was assembled. Before Hiroshima, damage and casualty projections were sufficiently frightening that it was only given the go-ahead because the projections of casualties for island-by-island conventional warfare, culminating in a full-scale invasion of Japan, were even more frightening. The US cabinet, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were all looking for some less drastic means of ending the war. Options like bombing a small, uninhabited, island were regretfully put aside because of the realization that the Japanese population was in such a fanatical mental state that nothing short of the vaporization of at least two major population centres would be sufficient to get the Japanese to admit defeat. I have had some long and detailed discussions with veterans from both sides of the war in the Pacific, and one of the things they all agree on is that, without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, the war would have lasted a lot longer, and resulted in a lot more deaths.

... And what's this "we" bullsh!t??? I am not an American.

[Edited by Lordathestrings on 02-07-2003 at 04:46 AM]