mmmm...wrong again there genius...Us pulling out was a POLITICAL decision designed to save face....getting them to the bargaining table to agree to a cease-fire(yeah right), was a MILITARY decision...and as far as wether I would think it would be any different in Iraq...somehow I don't remeber many Japanese acting too ballsy and still f-ing around with us after we incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki....oh, and saying because I think America should always use every weapon at our disposal to end every conflict as quickly as possible with the fewest American casualities means that I agreed with the extermination of the Jews by Nazis or that I am a fag because I feel this way is just another sign that you are dumber than dirt and have no intelligent or well thought out argument in return and therefore have to resort to name calling....just like most 3 year olds who dont have any clue as to how the real world works....Why dont you go back to school and get a degree in history or even better...join a division of the military and then come back and talk to me...

Dumbass. Are you actually comparing the situation in 1945 in Japan to the current situation in Iraq? They are completely different, and by making such a comparison you are showing true ignorance of a magnitude that cannot be put into words.

Again, you are completely fucking insane.

I ask again: , seriously.

Well, if we are speaking about the "real world", then we don't just go around dropping nukes on everybody! Saying let's just nuke them all is what is the uneducated thing to say. That is what little kids say that don't understand the seriousness of using nuclear weapons against human beings that we are trying to help is. I don't have a history degree, but I am in the Navy. The thing is guys, that everyone thinks that they have the answer...but there isn't any correct answer. Everyone is all over Bush's case, but what would you do in that situation? As the most powerful nation in the world, we can't just sit around while people are slaughtered and murdered because of their religon.

I'm sure you would like me to but I would hate to stop proving you wrong...Yes...I am comparing 1945 japan to the current situation...you have the same type of suicidal fanaticism practiced in the two seperate countries, albeit for two different reasons...The ONLY way to put down resistance is with force...you cant give candy to these people and expect them to suddenly love you....the hammer has to be put down and put down hard...violence is the only thing pygmies like these understand...to quote one of my favorite people "They've had some 3000 years to come up with a stable democracy on their own...what makes you think they are suddenly gonna start now?"...oh, and again...you could not refute anything that I said...all you can do is say that I am insane and stupid and tell me to be quiet...much as Eisenhower did to McCarthur, the politicals did to the military during vietnam and how the left wing loonies say we should have been "nicer" to the Japanese and not nuked them...instead we should have invaded Japan on the ground and lost another million men....Oh, and heres the real test for you...given its 1943 all over again...if developed first...would you have not used a nuke against Germany?? Yeah, I thought so....

Not to change the subject completely, but, dude...your wife is hot. Seriously.

Sorry...just had to lighten the discussion a little bit.

The fact remains...we were in a situation we couldn't win at that point. We would have pulled out anyway.

Quote:

somehow I don't remeber many Japanese acting too ballsy and still f-ing around with us after we incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

Where the hell were they going to hide, the Sea of Japan?

Quote:

just like most 3 year olds who dont have any clue as to how the real world works....Why dont you go back to school and get a degree in history or even better...join a division of the military and then come back and talk to me...

This coming from a 19 year old. You don't know what the fuck your are talking about when it comes to war, obviously.

violence is the only thing pygmies like these understand

You are a racist piece of shit.

Yes...I am comparing 1945 japan to the current situation

Based on what? We are no longer at war with Iraq, in 1945 we were still at war with Japan. In Iraq a minority of the population is rebelling against us, in Japan the entire country was against us. The potential loss of American (and Japanese) loss of life was huge (as in millions), the same potential simply doesn't exist in Iraq. There is NO reason to nuke Iraq! Do you still think only a minority of the citizens of Iraq would still be fighting us if we murdered a million innocents?

you could not refute anything that I said...all you can do is say that I am insane and stupid and tell me to be quiet

You are insane and stupid and I do wish you would be quiet. I just refuted what you said (see above).

Are you honestly incapable of distinguishing 1945 and the current situation? Think for a minute about what you are suggesting - genocide. And no I do not claim that dropping the bombs on Japan was genocide - the situations were different.

You need a dose of education and touch of common sense.

Thanks!! she does appreciate the compliment...

19 years old?? where'd ya get that from??? I may not be old but I'm not that young anymore...as far as us not being able to win the Vietnam war...that is one of the dumbest statements you've said yet...There was no DESIRE to win the war on the American politicians side, ie: cant fight in Laos, cant fight in Cambodia, can't bomb the capital, cant bomb civilians, etc., etc., etc., the RULES the politicians put in place PREVENTED the US from winning the Vietnam war...it had NOTHING to do with wether we were capable of winning the war...I dont understand your second comment about the Japanese hiding in the Sea of Japan but whatever....and as far as not knowing what I am talking about...I dont see much for your credentials at this point either so I dont believe there is any more weight to the things you say than my statements...

Spalind, I have two questions for you...

1)Do you own any firearms?

2)Will you ever be in the Richmond area?

That's all for now, thank you very much and have a blessed day.

#1--Racist POS??? How am I racist?? I am simply stating a FACT that the Iraqis are inferior in a # of ways in comparison to the US at this point...it has nothing to do with race...though it doesnt suprise me that you drop the race card at the very moment your arguments are put to the test--typical of left wing psuedo-intellectuals...

#2--I dont see how dropping a nuke on Baghdad is genocide...it simply is the simplest way to end a complex problem--note that I say we SHOULD have dropped a nuke on Baghdad...not that it is something we would be advised to do now that we have moved in and started some forward progress there...and I am capable of distinguishing between 1945 and now...in fact you and I seem to agree on the fact that nukes do have their place in warfare...you seem to agree that they were used correctly in 1945, you just argue that they do not have a roll in Iraq...Therefore we are just debating semantics...To me I would rather sacrifice an infinite # of the enemy be they civilian/military targets or some combination thereof rather than see a single American soldier/civilian die...You on the other hand think that some ratio of Iraqi vs. American dead is more appropriate....So tell me...what is the ratio that you find acceptable?? 100 Iraqi's to 1 American dead?? 50 to 1??? 20 to 1?? what is it??

For those of you who haven't seen the Vid yet, I found an ACTIVE link

http://home.comcast.net/~jmcno/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg

Nope, no firearms...no reason for one at the moment...dont live in a high crime area, and I dont hunt...though I do believe in a citizens right to possess firearms without infringement from the government on this right...
Oh, should be passing through Richmond in about 2 1/2 months...like the end of March on my way to the Florida Keys....I actually like Richmond...nice area, nice people too, southern people are very friendly...

Wait, maybe Spalind is right...

We could go ahead and drop some nukes on Iraq.

Of course, that also means that...

Israel can drop them on Syria.
Russia can drop them on Chechnya.
China can drop them on Taiwan.
Pakistan can drop them on India.
India can drop them on Pakistan.

Spalind, I suggest you read up on the Geneva Convention. While I understand the argument that some make that we need to sink to the level of our enemy, that would mean no bitching from us if our troops who are POWs are treated like shit.

Better yet...go look for another hurricane...preferably by going out onto the ocean and meeting it head on.

I never said I was an expert on the nuances of war...but it's obvious you don't have a clue.

(oh...and my mistake...I added wrong on your birthdate in your profile)

I think that 19 year olds know not to drop nukes, that’s more of a 14 year olds point of view....

i would understand if you said that out of frustration and desire for the war to be over, but the fact that you legitimately want to do that is crazy/insane/stupid, what kind of person wants to kill innocent people?

the Geneva convention has NOTHING to do with how you conduct a war...only with how you treat prisoners and unarmed /surrendering/defenseless combatents...it says nothig about the use of weapons against legitimate targets...otherwise we couldnt have firebombed Japan---which by the way killed more innocents than the two Nukes combined, nor could we have bombed the hell out of Berlin...Now who should be reading up on the Geneva convention?? Eh...don't bother...kind of a useless piece of shit anyway...the only ones who pay attention to it are the good guys...bad guys dont really care if its against the Geneva convention to hack your arm off or not...

oh--Isreal can drop them on Syria??--Damn that'd be a shame...
Russia can drop them on Chechnya??--again..what a pity...
China on Taiwan?? OK here you have a point...that would be bad...however they never will as the economic impact on china would be too bad...
Pakistan on India and vice versa?? hmm...the region is overpopulated anyway...could probly use a "downsizing" or severe natural disaster anyway seeing as their efforts at birth control have failed miserably...

You really bring up zero valid points as to why it wouldnt be more beneficial to the US to have gotten this war over swiftly and severly and therefore I have to assume that your ability to properly analyze a conflict is on par with your skills at rudimentary mathematics...

Again....not 19 years old...but more to your point...I have NEVER said and NEVER would say that I thought we would be better off killing civilians...check the record...NEVER said it...you people just get your egos in the way and start inferring meaning into other peoples arguments...you all would make very poor lawyers....If there was a way to end the war swiftly and so severly that there was no attacks on our troups afterwards I felt that that is what we should have done...and the most straightforward way to do that I felt--and feel, is a nuclear warhead detonated in downtown Baghdad....now if you have legitimate ways to #1--decapitate the rulers of Iraq, #2--eliminate all military threats, #3--scare the shit out of the Iraqis so bad that they are on their hands and knees begging our mercy, in some other way without causing civilian casualties then I am all for it...I just dont see any other way to accomplish #1, 2, and 3 without American casualties...do you?? or all of you not willing to make to tough decisions required in the real world??

wow

Sorry to disappoint you, but yes, it does.

Here's a good place for you to start:
Guide to the Geneva Conventions
(It links to the actual text.)

Article 3 states civilians (people not taking part) are NOT to be subject to violence (a nuclear weapon would certainly fall under violence).

And later, Article 53. In the case of Iraq, it is NOT "absolutely necessary by military operations."

Or how about Article 57? "In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects." Sure sounds like it refers to how a war is conducted, doesn't it?

AND, violating Article 57 is considered a GRAVE BREACH (article 85). That means...WAR CRIME.

First off, of COURSE it would be more beneficial to get it over quickly. However, nuclear weapons are NOT the way to go. Only a complete idiot would drop them.

Using them would be a knee-jerk reaction of someone who hasn't taken the time to analyze anything at all.

You have yet to give any valid arguments as to why they would be justified in this situation. (Well, other than trying to compare this to Japan, which is a joke, really.)

You said we would be better off dropping a nuke on Baghdad.
Baghdad contains many civilians.
Nuking Baghdad would kill millions of innocent civilians and you think this would we'd be better off this way.

And don't you think that nuking innocents would anger alot more people to the point of becomming terrorists? Plus mass murder on that scale would be a bigger war crime than anything Saddam is being tried for.

Your comments are as bad as NYMadman when it comes to murder in the Middle East. But even he doesn't defend mass murder as vehemently you do.


-Dustin

Or more to the point and maybe easy enough for him to understand.

We nuke them and someone will sure as hell nuke us.

Staying away from this topic, but for this:

Can any of you tell the difference between a friendly civillian and one planning guerilla warfare?

I think not, if they get in the way, they get taken out. If they are somewhere they shouldn't be, they get taken out.

Grow up children, we can't fight a war according to the liberal sissy left and their politically correct ideals.

It is absolutely true that in any war, there will be civilian casualties, either by accident or on purpose depending on the intent.

Spalind, there is one major difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Japan.

One is a war of liberation, the other was a war of self defense.

Dropping nukes on Japan was a nessesary step in ending that war quickly. The military was in the process of staging a coup in Japan. Millions were ready and willing to die to protect the main Island. It saved millions of American AND japanese lives in the long run.

We are trying to liberate the Iraqi people, dropping a nuke on downtown Bagdad would send the wrong message I believe. :rolleyes: "Hey Iraqi people, we came in because your leader was a threat and used WMD's against his own people. So here is a nuke in your capital to show you how much better we are than Saddam was!"

There were more people murdered in Philadelphia last year than there were soldiers killed in Iraq. So the nuke idea would be a bit overkill.

Thats not to say that I still think we need to bring the hammer more often and with greater force than our troops have been allowed to bring lately. The rules of engagement need to be changed. The terrorists know our rules, they count on it. So they lob mortars from civilian areas because they know we cant retaliate. (What horrible, stupid people we are that we follow our own rules!) Many times it seems like we are the only country that follows them.

The rules need to be relaxed. Business needs to get done.

I do agree with one thing you said, no amount of enemy lives, civilian or soldier, is worth the death of one American soldier.

But nukes? Comon....

couldnt have said it any better myself....