No Connection Between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Only if you're ignorant of the facts!

[Black Mage]

Cuz these these guys are a real threat. :sad3:

 

[smo1704]

I do realise what I wrote seems rather... slanted. I was too lazy to change it in the time since. Rest assured though, that my intent was that I shall be much happier when nukes are done away with from our planet, nay our solar system.

As for the likelyhood of the United States using nukes over other nations such as North Korea, I would say that the United States is much more likely to use them. There was even some talk of the U.S. using tactical nuklear strikes in this latest round in the Gulf. Remember, it's U.S. 2, rest of the World 0. I wouldn't consider that a good score either.

I think you need to put nuclear weaponry into perspective. In terms of casualties from a single bombing Hiroshima comes in second to the firebombing of Dresden, and Nagasaki comes in fourth after the firebombing of Hamburg. Also an invasion of Japan would have been near genocide, as the civilians were so thoroughly brainwashed that they thought that the Allies would commit horrible war crimes (mass rape comes to mind, but I can't remember what other BS they believed) and thus it would be better to die than surrender. Nuclear weaponry also isn't very practical for "modern warfare". Nukes just cause too much collateral damage and leave the area radioactive for centuries (even the "nuclear bunker busters" don't completely elimintate fallout). Their primary advantage is their power to weight ratio, (which is of great importance when choosing a warhead for a missile) but when you have fleets of airplanes to drop bombs for you, weight becomes less important. They make an excellent deterrent, but they're very clumsy weapons, and there are many more promising weapons technologies (Besides, if you really need widespread destruction you can always use a massive thermobaric weapon; they can be almost as destructive as nukes and without the radiation). For a "rouge nation" nukes are a more attractive option, as it provides the threat that even if they are defeated (via conventional forces), they can cause a lot of damage in their death throes.

There are also a few peaceful uses for nuclear bombs:
Asteroid Shield - Place a battery of nuclear missiles aboard a satellite and use them to redirect asteroids out of collision courses (if you don't equip the nuclear missiles with heat shielding, they can't be used against ground targets).
Propulsion System - Basically drop nukes behind your spaceship, detonate them, and use the material they vaporize off your blast shield as a propellant. In theory it would have been one of the best propulsion systems possible given our current technology.

In the end, nukes are simply sources of power. They are not inherently good or evil, just limited (high output one time use). I also think it would be a supremely ironic end if we were to destroy all nuclear weapons to make the world a safer place only to find ourselves staring down an asteroid.

 

[Black Mage]

In terms of casualties from a single bombing Hiroshima comes in second to the firebombing of Dresden, and Nagasaki comes in fourth after the firebombing of Hamburg.

I'm curious as to where those figures come from. Numbers for those bombings of course vary widly, but a quick look shows some perhaps reasonable figures for Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki which would indicate lower numbers than some, including myself, might expect.

You do make good points for the use of nuclear devices, which with about all you present, I agree with. Nuclear weapons are just unnecessary though. Their use in conventional warfare may be impractical, but I would not rule out the possiblity of their use by any nation for that reason alone. They are excellent weapons with which to exact revenge, which apparently is one possible explanation given by Truman for dropping the bombs in the first place.

 

[GoingNova]

an invasion of Japan would have been near genocide, as the civilians were so thoroughly brainwashed that they thought that the Allies would commit horrible war crimes (mass rape comes to mind, but I can't remember what other BS they believed) and thus it would be better to die than surrender.

Smo, I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised to hear you say this.

If ever there was a justified use of nuclear weapons, in my opinion, it was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[GoingNova]

Cuz these these guys are a real threat. :sad3:

I am sure many people would not have thought Mohammad Sadiq Khan was a threat either. Sorry, there is no little "This is an Innocent Guy" stamp on the back of people's necks, and to deem people to be not a threat requires investigation.

After all, of Mohammad Sadiq Khan it was thought: "To pupils at the primary school where he worked, he was a much-loved mentor. To his family, he was a devoted husband and father."

Then he blew himself up on a train, with indifference to man, woman, or child.

 

[smo1704]

Their use in conventional warfare may be impractical, but I would not rule out the possiblity of their use by any nation for that reason alone. They are excellent weapons with which to exact revenge, which apparently is one possible explanation given by Truman for dropping the bombs in the first place.

That's what I was getting at. I find it more probable that a nuclear weapon would be used by a "rouge nation" with an absolute leader who decided that if he was going down, he would take as many people with him as possible. The U.S. has conventional weapons (thermobaric bombs) almost as powerful, less expensive, and less messy (radioactive fallout) than nukes, so there is the option of inflicting similar damage even without nukes (even IF you were out for vengeance). And such weapons don't carry the same stigma as nuclear weapons, so the use of such weaponry would not be quite as detrimental to U.S. foreign relations.

True, casualty figures are hard to get right. I used Wikipedia for casualty figures on Dresden and Hamburg and I got a casualty toll of 70,000 for the firebombing of Dresden, and a casualty toll of 50,000 for Hamburg (going back now, it seems the Dresden article is subject to dispute). While looking through Wikipedia's articles for other firebombings I also found an article for the firebombing of Tokyo that gave a casualty toll of 100,000 which would put it well above both nuclear strikes (66,000 Hiroshima, 40,000 Nagasaki), but I can't tell if they are referring to one particularly devastating strike (which is what it sounds like), or the combined casualties of all the firebombings of Tokyo.

 

[Guest]

The Japanese committed great crimes against the United States and other countries. They bombed Perl Harbor and treated prisoners terribly. The people didn't stop them either; they probably supported their actions. So they deserved it. Not to mention that if we invaded Japan the casualties would of been like 1 million of ours dead.

 

[Black Mage]

The Japanese committed great crimes against the United States and other countries. They bombed Perl Harbor and treated prisoners terribly. The people didn't stop them either; they probably supported their actions. So they deserved it. Not to mention that if we invaded Japan the casualties would of been like 1 million of ours dead.

The Japanese were not the only ones to commit War Crimes, everyone did. The internment and seizure of property of persons of Japansese descent living in North America stands out. I certainly don't recall the mass internment of persons of Italian or German descent. The attack on Pearl Harbour being such a big crime is rather debatable. It appears that efforts were made to declare war before the attack occred, and there were a few warning signs that were ignored (much like 9/11). Not to mention that it was also a military target. Even if the last two points I made are irrelevant, I cannot believe that any civilian would deserve such treatment. This also means that the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg would also be viewed another horrible atrocity committed by the Allies. Saying that civilians deserved to be nuked is callous to say the least. It's also easy to say to looking back 60+ years and a few thousand Km away.

Anyway, this has gotten rather off the course. I certainly don't believe that the very fragile and tenuous link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is enough to justify, even in part, the invasion. The facts presented for the connection are simply mired in too much debate.

 

[smo1704]

The Japanese were not the only ones to commit War Crimes, everyone did. The internment and seizure of property of persons of Japansese descent living in North America stands out. I certainly don't recall the mass internment of persons of Italian or German descent. The attack on Pearl Harbour being such a big crime is rather debatable. It appears that efforts were made to declare war before the attack occred, and there were a few warning signs that were ignored (much like 9/11). Not to mention that it was also a military target. Even if the last two points I made are irrelevant, I cannot believe that any civilian would deserve such treatment. This also means that the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg would also be viewed another horrible atrocity committed by the Allies. Saying that civilians deserved to be nuked is callous to say the least. It's also easy to say to looking back 60+ years and a few thousand Km away.

Anyway, this has gotten rather off the course. I certainly don't believe that the very fragile and tenuous link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is enough to justify, even in part, the invasion. The facts presented are simply mired in too much debate.

I agree with you in that the link between Iraq and Al-Queda is weak at best, especially in contrast with Iraq's neighbors. However I disagree on one point regarding Pear Harbor. The Japanese made no attempt to declare war, they were hoping for a surprise attack that would cripple U.S. military power in the Pacific.
"The Japanese records admitted into evidence during a Congressional hearing show that the Japanese had not even written a declaration of war until after they heard of the successful attack on Pearl Harbor. The two-line declaration of war was finally delivered to Ambassador Grew about ten hours after the attack was over. He was allowed to transmit it to the United States where it was received late Monday afternoon." - Wikipedia
The U.S. attempted peace negotiations with them, but they intercepted coded orders instructing the Japanese envoys to reject all peace proposals. Thus the U.S. did not know what the Japanese were planning, only that their intentions were not peaceful.

 

[Black Mage]

he Japanese made no attempt to declare war, they were hoping for a surprise attack that would cripple U.S. military power in the Pacific.
"The Japanese records admitted into evidence during a Congressional hearing show that the Japanese had not even written a declaration of war until after they heard of the successful attack on Pearl Harbor. The two-line declaration of war was finally delivered to Ambassador Grew about ten hours after the attack was over. He was allowed to transmit it to the United States where it was received late Monday afternoon."

I honestly don't know whether to be sure or not the Japanese did or did not decide to delcare war, there appear to be many conflicting accounts. I haven't had the luxury of the information you present, so it does change my perception. Is your source on that aslo wikipedia? In any event, the Japanese weren't signitories of the Geneva Convention at the time. I can't say whether by choice or not.

 

[smo1704]

O.K. replies on multiple posts:

My initial source wasn't Wikipedia, but that quote came from Wikipedia. Generally I use Wikipedia for verification of things I learned elsewhere, as in this particular case. For instance in the previous death toll debate I had learned elsewhere (public school world history classes to be exact) that there were WWII firebombings with death tolls approaching and exceeding those of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nakasaki, so I used Wikipedia to get exact figures (unfortunately they didn't turn out to be quite exact enough).

As for the previous mini-debate as to whether or not Japanese civilians deserved destruction: If you wanted to stop the flow of war materials to the soldiers you had to target their manufacturing, however the manufacturing centers were located within cities. Targeting and guidance technologies of the time were too primitive to allow the precision destruction of military assets, so the only way to ensure that the factories were destroyed was to raze the city, or at least the city's industrial center. In addition, these war materials were built by the country's civilians, so even though they were not soldiers, they were still part of the "war machine" of the country and thus a viable target.

Smo, I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised to hear you say this.

If ever there was a justified use of nuclear weapons, in my opinion, it was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I am not opposed to war as a principle; there are times when it is necessary (though I doubt that the current war in Iraq is one of those times).

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost." - William Lloyd Garrison

I view it as the tool of last resort; to be used only once all attempts at peaceful negotiation have been exhausted, and even then I think one should not start a war, only finish one if someone else starts one. Pacifism would certainly be nice, but it simply isn't practical. It only takes one power-hungry **** to start a war. Until you can completely eliminate the "will to power" (among other traits) from humanity you will always have wars; the best you can do is make them as infrequent and limited as possible.

 

[SISTER_KATE]

I have alot of reading to do to catch up on this post. Interesting debate gentlemen!

 

[Moderate One]

How true Sister Kate. Didn't keep up with this thread and now have hours to read to catch up.

 

[Guest]

The Japanese were not the only ones to commit War Crimes, everyone did. The internment and seizure of property of persons of Japansese descent living in North America stands out. I certainly don't recall the mass internment of persons of Italian or German descent. The attack on Pearl Harbour being such a big crime is rather debatable. It appears that efforts were made to declare war before the attack occred, and there were a few warning signs that were ignored (much like 9/11). Not to mention that it was also a military target. Even if the last two points I made are irrelevant, I cannot believe that any civilian would deserve such treatment. This also means that the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg would also be viewed another horrible atrocity committed by the Allies. Saying that civilians deserved to be nuked is callous to say the least. It's also easy to say to looking back 60+ years and a few thousand Km away.

Anyway, this has gotten rather off the course. I certainly don't believe that the very fragile and tenuous link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is enough to justify, even in part, the invasion. The facts presented for the connection are simply mired in too much debate.

Yes it did get off subject. But don't compare the terrorist to the Japanese. The reason is that terrorist really don't have a traditional armed forced. They are just fanatical cowards that do small scaled attacks compared to a full scale invasion. Also you got to remember the Japanese didn't declare war so they deserved what they got in the end. Was the internment of Japanese wrong? Yes I think so. But is the death march the Japanese did to the American's soldiers and other Allied soldiers wrong and worse? Yes I think so too. I never said we were perfect and you can look through all my post to prove it. But we aren't as bad as many other countries painted us (now and then). Then you also got to compare the war crimes that the Allies (United States, Britain, France, Australia, and Russia) did compared to the Axis (Germans aka Nazi's, Italian's and Japanese). Which side committed more and how much more horrendous were they? Plus if I was one of those soldiers on the beaches of Normandy and I saw those German's killing my brother's in arms when I got to those bunkers I wouldn't give them any mercy at all. Simply put what we did to them doesn't compare what they did to us and what they did to others. So they had it coming and deserved the suffering that came from it.

 

[GoingNova]

Also, it is very important to remember the history leading up to the way. In 1991, the United States, along with a large coalition, went to war with Iraq to force Saddam from Kuwait. We won the war, and Saddam Hussein was defeated. The UN Security Council Resolution 687 declared that Iraq accept unconditionally, the demolition of its weapons of mass destruction. This was to be overseen by UNSCOM, a team of international weapons experts. Iraq accepted the resolution, but according to UNSCOM, Saddam prevented the inspectors from visiting what was called "presidential sites", and even seized their documents. Saddam gets away with this.

Then, in 1998, Saddam decided to stop cooperating with UNSCOM altogether until the Security Council lifted the oil embargo against it. That led to the exit of inspectors from Iraq. Again, the UN does nothing.

November 2002, three entire years without ANY inspections, the UN, under pressure from the United States, passes UN Resolution 1441 and sends them back in. What was the point? Three years have elapsed. Why bother?

Saddam broke the conditions of Resolution 687. President Bush had all the legal and moral authorization he needed to attack Iraq because Saddam was not in compliance with the Gulf War's terms of surrender, therefore making the them null and void, due to breach of contract. When that happens, you revert back to the state prior to this contract, which was war. If I go to a judge to get a warrant for an arrest, and lie to the judge, then the warrant the judge issues me becomes null and void, and the arrest is overturned.

That, and that reason alone, was enough to invade Iraq. Combined with the fact that Saddam has used WMDs against his own people(the Kurds). He's used them against his neighbors (in the war of Iran vs Iraq). He's demonstrated an intention to take the territory of his neighbors (when he seized Kuwait in 1991). All of these things lead to a rational belief that he had WMDs.

Where are the WMDs now? Well, look at the facts:

* Saddam prevented the inspectors from visiting what he called presidential sites (what do you think was in those sites?)
* So first you have inspectors being told where they may and may not inspect and then Saddam EXPELS THE INSPECTORS ALTOGETHER in 1998

Is it or is it not reasonable to deduce he had the WMDs in the Presidential Sites? Then he expels all inspections in 1998. So, from 1998 until we invaded in March 2003, you don't think he had time to hide or transport them any weapons he may have had? They are generally believed to have been moved into either Iran or Syria. Can that this be proven? Not at this time, but do you think it is so unreasonable? Do you think we should have waited until some terrorist used a chemical weapon in the NYC Subway before we act?

Personally, I agree 100% with Charles Duelfer, who did not rule out that the Saddam might have had WMD and believes he may have smuggled them to Syria just before the 2003 war.

The al Qaeda link was not the sole reason, it was but one of a litany of reasons, that, when combined, provided more than ample justification. Personally, I believe that just what is in the above quote (which, I used rather than retyping it) provides validation for the war in Iraq.

 

[Black Mage]

am not opposed to war as a principle; there are times when it is necessary (though I doubt that the current war in Iraq is one of those times).

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost." - William Lloyd Garrison

I view it as the tool of last resort; to be used only once all attempts at peaceful negotiation have been exhausted, and even then I think one should not start a war, only finish one if someone else starts one. Pacifism would certainly be nice, but it simply isn't practical. It only takes one power-hungry **** to start a war. Until you can completely eliminate the "will to power" (among other traits) from humanity you will always have wars; the best you can do is make them as infrequent and limited as possible.

This view perhaps describes best my own as well. We as humans have not yet reached that point of perfect peace, so maintaining standing armies is still neccessary. Using those armies must be the last resort. I do not see that Bush exhausted his diplomatic options prior to invading Iraq.

The al Qaeda link was not the sole reason, it was but one of a litany of reasons, that, when combined, provided more than ample justification. Personally, I believe that just what is in the above quote (which, I used rather than retyping it) provides validation for the war in Iraq.

I merely said that the dubious link to Al-Qaeda did not deserve to be part of that "litany." If that one reason is no longer part of the whole, then the whole structure may become weaker, thus the argument for invasion becomes that much weaker, perhaps even to the point of invalidation. Certainly if we start chipping away at the other reasons, we may discover more facts one way or the other.

But don't compare the terrorist to the Japanese. The reason is that terrorist really don't have a traditional armed forced. They are just fanatical cowards that do small scaled attacks compared to a full scale invasion.

I did not compare the Japanese to the terrorists, I merely noted a similarity in historical events. And I dunno about you, but I think it takes some balls to hijack a plane and fly into a building, suicidal or not. Hmm, modern day Kamikaze? Which raises an interesting point. Why do it? Is it the ultimate F&*k You to whichever creator you believe in? Or is it something that we in our society don't quite understand? The people who do these acts come from societies hundreds if not thousands of years old. In relation our society is what, 200, 250 years old at best? The Japanese largely have let go of some aspects of the Bushido way of life, but no all. They have somewhat successfully merged western society with their old ways. Middle Eastern societies remain largely at conflict with the West, and to go through it all would be a long essay paper amongst the two or three I have yet to finish for school. Point is, treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Oh, Chris, next time you mention Allied war crimes, might wanna leave the Russians out. The Gulags were nearly as bad if not worse that concentration camps. It brings up the average quite a bit considering Stalin has the all time death rate, not Hitler.

 

[Guest]

Well if I had the compare the Allies I had to compare them all. Plus you got to remember allot of Russia's crimes were also commited before and after the war. Also what does age of a society have to do with the subject at hand?

 

[Black Mage]

Well if I had the compare the Allies I had to compare them all. Plus you got to remember allot of Russia's crimes were also commited before and after the war. Also what does age of a society have to do with the subject at hand?

Hmm, I suppose it doesn't have much to do with this thread, but it's already so off topic with so many threads of debate, and new ones breaking loose all the time.

 

[Guest]

If you look at most threads you will see the same pattern.

 

[SISTER_KATE]

Poor Black Mage! Can't get a decent debate going in any thread! Got to give you credit though you ARE trying! LMAO Just don't give up. Think of it like going to a fight and a hockey game broke out!